Emerging Management Concepts for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Children

Ralf G Heine; Mark Nethercote; Jeremy Rosenbaum; Katrina J Allen

Disclosures

J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2011;26(7):1106-1113. 

In This Article

Treatment

The treatment of EoE pursues several goals: control of symptoms, correction of complications and prevention of long-term sequelae. A significant proportion of patients with low-grade esophageal eosinophilia (< 15 eosinophils/HPF) will improve with proton pump inhibitor (PPI) treatment alone, and it is unclear whether these patients truly suffer from EoE. Consensus guidelines therefore recommend a trial of a PPI for at least 2 months, followed by re-biopsy, in order to assess the effect of acid suppression.[1]

The two main pillars in the treatment of EoE are food allergen elimination (by elemental or specific food elimination diets), or corticosteroids (in the form of topical fluticasone[18,56–59] or budesonide[60–63]). Systemic corticosteroids (prednisolone) are effective but rarely used due to systemic steroid toxicity, particularly in children.[64] In addition to medical treatment, endoscopic food disimpaction[65] and dilatation of strictures[48] is sometimes required. The management of esophageal strictures in EoE is complex and associated with a high risk of esophageal perforation.[66,67]

Dietary Management

The initial discovery of EoE as a separate clinical entity was based on the observation that refractory esophagitis (resistant to proton pump inhibitor treatment and/or fundoplication) in 10 children responded to treatment with an amino acid-based formula (AAF).[68] Markowitz et al.[69] reported a series of 51 children and adolescents with EoE. After treatment with an AAF for 4 weeks, 49/51 (96%) patients responded with a significant decrease in mucosal eosinophils (mean decrease from 33.7/HPF to 2.1/HPF). Symptoms resolved within 7–10 days, and histological remission was demonstrated at 4–5 weeks. This study confirmed that elemental diets were highly effective in treating EoE in children. However, elemental diets are often not tolerated due to their poor palatability or need for nasogastric tubes. In severe cases of EoE in young children, a trial of an elemental diet may be useful to demonstrate diet responsiveness. The diet is then gradually expanded and disease activity monitored with repeat gastroscopy and biopsies after dietary challenges.

In older children, targeted elimination diets are often attempted. Some of these patients have known IgE-mediated food allergies. Spergel et al.[16] reported resolution of EoE in 75% of patients after removing foods that were positive on SPT or APT. As SPT is often not available, the concept of empirical elimination diets has been trialed. Kagalwalla et al.[54] compared a six-food elimination diet (i.e. avoidance of cow's milk, soy, egg, wheat, seafood and nuts) with an elemental diet. In that study, remission (defined as ≤ 10 eosinophils/HPF) was achieved more commonly on the elemental diet (88%), compared to the six-food elimination group (74%). However, the six-food elimination diet may offer more practical treatment modality with a reasonable efficacy in about three quarters of pediatric EoE patients.

There is evolving evidence that meats and grains also play a role in the etiology of EoE.[70] As a result, some centers (including our own) have modified the profile of empirical elimination diets with avoidance of some grains (wheat, rye, corn) and meats (chicken, beef). As broad-based elimination diets can be dangerously restrictive, particularly if implemented for prolonged periods, these diets should be carefully monitored for their nutritional adequacy by an allergy-trained dietician. Consideration should also be given to not restricting fish or nuts as these provide alternative sources of dietary protein and are considered to have a lower risk in triggering EoE.[71] The diet outlined above essentially aligns with a "vegan" diet, a concept that most patients and parents can relate to. Although these diets have not been shown to be as effective as elemental diets in terms of mucosal remission, dietary adherence is likely to be improved in the long-term due to better palatability.

Corticosteroids and Other Immune-modulating Agents

While EoE responds well to systemic corticosteroids,[64] their use is now mainly limited to short courses of prednisolone after severe food impaction. In a comparative trial, prednisolone was superior to topical steroids in suppressing eosinophilic inflammation in the esophagus.[58] Several clinical trials have assessed the clinical efficacy of topical fluticasone[18,56–59] or budesonide.[60–63] However, there appear to be significant differences in the response to topical steroids in EoE. While generally effective in treating EoE, topical steroids are limited by a high relapse rate after discontinuation of treatment,[34] as well as a blunted response in patients with associated atopic disorders or food allergy.[18,59] Konikoff et al.[18] found that fluticasone (440 mcg twice daily) was effective in only 50% of pediatric patients with EoE, and non-response was more common in patients with underlying atopic disorders or food allergy. Aceves et al.[60] first described the use of viscous budesonide (1 mg daily mixed with sucralose, dextrose, and maltodextrin; Splenda, McNeil Nutritionals, LLC, Ft. Washington, PA, USA) as an alternative to fluticasone. A recent placebo-controlled, randomized trial in children showed that after 3 months of treatment with oral viscous budesonide, 68% of patients had < 6 eosinophils/HPF on repeat biopsy.[62] A recent randomized controlled trial has also confirmed that aerosolized budesonide is effective in adolescents and adults with EoE.[63]

Several other medications have been used in the treatment of EoE. Montelukast, a leukotriene inhibitor used in asthma prevention, has been studied in an uncontrolled adult trial but its use was limited because of side effects.[72] Mepolizumab, a humanized monoclonal antibody against IL-5, has been shown to effectively reduce esophageal eosinophil counts, but its effect on symptoms was disappointing.[73,74] Therefore, given its cost and limited clinical efficacy, the role of this medication requires further evaluation.

Comments

3090D553-9492-4563-8681-AD288FA52ACE
Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.

processing....