Strategies for Medical Management of Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis

• Published in: Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition Vol. 63; no. 6; pp. e152 - e157
• Main Authors: Chawla, Neha, Deshmukh, Mangesh, Sharma, Ajay, Patole, Sanjay
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States by European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology 01.12.2016
• Subjects: Anti-Inflammatory Agents - administration & dosage; Anti-Inflammatory Agents - adverse effects; Child; children; eosinophilic esophagitis; Eosinophilic Esophagitis - diet therapy; Eosinophilic Esophagitis - drug therapy; Humans; intervention; Observational Studies as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; review; systematic
• ISSN: 0277-2116; 1536-4801
• DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001298

ABSTRACT Objective: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is associated with significant morbidity in children. Strategies for optimizing its outcomes are hence essential. We aimed to review the strategies for medical management of EoE in children. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of medical interventions in children with EoE, using the Cochrane methodology. Databases including PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Library, and Google scholar were searched up to March 2016. Primary outcomes included histological (peak eosinophil count) and symptomatic remission. Secondary outcomes were improvement in endoscopic and other histological parameters and adverse effects. Results: A total of 5 RCTs (N = 448) with low to unclear risk of bias were included. The interventions included topical oral steroids, swallowed enteral steroids and anti‐ interleukin (IL)5 agent. Pooling of data from all trials was not possible owing to significant heterogeneity in interventions. Meta‐analysis of data (N = 141) from 3 RCTs (oral viscous budesonide: 2, fluticasone: 1) showed significant histological remission in the intervention versus control group participants (risk difference: 10.32 [95% confidence interval: 3.04, 35.03]; P = 0.0002), level of evidence—low. Compared with anti‐IL5 agent, the trials assessing steroids reported high rates of clinical remission. Clinical remission did not correlate with histological improvement in any trial. Except for systemic corticosteroids, there were no significant adverse effects related to other interventions. Conclusions: Limited low‐quality evidence exists on the effects of various interventions in children with EoE. The beneficial effects of swallowed steroid need to be confirmed in large well‐designed RCTs.