Craig C Reed, Sean S LaFata, Timothy S Gee, Hannah L Thel, Brenderia A Cameron, Angela Z Xue, Akshatha Kiran, Adolfo A Ocampo, Justin McCallen, Christopher J Lee, Stephanie A Borinsky, Walker D Redd, Trevor Barlowe, Rayan N Kaakati, Cary C Cotton, Swathi Eluri, Evan S Dellon
{"title":"嗜酸性粒细胞食管炎患者每天或每天两次使用局部类固醇治疗的效果相似。","authors":"Craig C Reed, Sean S LaFata, Timothy S Gee, Hannah L Thel, Brenderia A Cameron, Angela Z Xue, Akshatha Kiran, Adolfo A Ocampo, Justin McCallen, Christopher J Lee, Stephanie A Borinsky, Walker D Redd, Trevor Barlowe, Rayan N Kaakati, Cary C Cotton, Swathi Eluri, Evan S Dellon","doi":"10.1016/j.cgh.2024.10.016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Few data compare topical corticosteroid (tCS) dosing regimens and outcomes. We aimed to compare treatment outcomes in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients by once or twice daily dosing regimens.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing the UNC EoE Clinicopathologic Database of newly diagnosed EoE patients treated with a tCS who had a follow-up endoscopy with biopsy. Baseline data and outcomes were extracted. Bivariate and multivariate analyses compared patients at baseline and following initial tCS given as a once or twice daily dose.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>522 patients met inclusion criteria, 122 patients on once daily dosing (72% male; 91% white) and 400 patients on twice daily dosing (66% male; 89% white). Patients on twice daily dosing were older (28.8 ± 18.2 vs. 24.3 ± 18.0; p = 0.01) and reported more heartburn (40% vs. 25%; p = 0.004). On bivariate analysis, global symptomatic response (78% vs. 76%; p = 0.82), post-treatment eosinophil count (20.8 ± 27.2 vs. 25.6 ± 39.4; p = 0.21), post-treatment EREFS (2.2 ± 1.8 vs. 2.2 ± 2.0; p = 0.92), and histologic response (<15 eos/hpf; 56% vs 58%; p = 0.66) did not differ. Candida was less frequent with daily dosing (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.04). In multivariate analysis, the odds of histologic response did not differ by dose groups (aOR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.67 - 1.60).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EoE outcomes did not differ by daily or twice daily dosing regimens. These results inform tCS dosing regimens and reassure that both are effective.</p>","PeriodicalId":10347,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":11.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Daily or twice daily treatment with topical steroids results in similar responses in eosinophilic esophagitis.\",\"authors\":\"Craig C Reed, Sean S LaFata, Timothy S Gee, Hannah L Thel, Brenderia A Cameron, Angela Z Xue, Akshatha Kiran, Adolfo A Ocampo, Justin McCallen, Christopher J Lee, Stephanie A Borinsky, Walker D Redd, Trevor Barlowe, Rayan N Kaakati, Cary C Cotton, Swathi Eluri, Evan S Dellon\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cgh.2024.10.016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>Few data compare topical corticosteroid (tCS) dosing regimens and outcomes. We aimed to compare treatment outcomes in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients by once or twice daily dosing regimens.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing the UNC EoE Clinicopathologic Database of newly diagnosed EoE patients treated with a tCS who had a follow-up endoscopy with biopsy. Baseline data and outcomes were extracted. Bivariate and multivariate analyses compared patients at baseline and following initial tCS given as a once or twice daily dose.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>522 patients met inclusion criteria, 122 patients on once daily dosing (72% male; 91% white) and 400 patients on twice daily dosing (66% male; 89% white). Patients on twice daily dosing were older (28.8 ± 18.2 vs. 24.3 ± 18.0; p = 0.01) and reported more heartburn (40% vs. 25%; p = 0.004). On bivariate analysis, global symptomatic response (78% vs. 76%; p = 0.82), post-treatment eosinophil count (20.8 ± 27.2 vs. 25.6 ± 39.4; p = 0.21), post-treatment EREFS (2.2 ± 1.8 vs. 2.2 ± 2.0; p = 0.92), and histologic response (<15 eos/hpf; 56% vs 58%; p = 0.66) did not differ. Candida was less frequent with daily dosing (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.04). In multivariate analysis, the odds of histologic response did not differ by dose groups (aOR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.67 - 1.60).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>EoE outcomes did not differ by daily or twice daily dosing regimens. These results inform tCS dosing regimens and reassure that both are effective.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10347,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":11.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2024.10.016\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2024.10.016","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Daily or twice daily treatment with topical steroids results in similar responses in eosinophilic esophagitis.
Background and aims: Few data compare topical corticosteroid (tCS) dosing regimens and outcomes. We aimed to compare treatment outcomes in eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) patients by once or twice daily dosing regimens.
Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study utilizing the UNC EoE Clinicopathologic Database of newly diagnosed EoE patients treated with a tCS who had a follow-up endoscopy with biopsy. Baseline data and outcomes were extracted. Bivariate and multivariate analyses compared patients at baseline and following initial tCS given as a once or twice daily dose.
Results: 522 patients met inclusion criteria, 122 patients on once daily dosing (72% male; 91% white) and 400 patients on twice daily dosing (66% male; 89% white). Patients on twice daily dosing were older (28.8 ± 18.2 vs. 24.3 ± 18.0; p = 0.01) and reported more heartburn (40% vs. 25%; p = 0.004). On bivariate analysis, global symptomatic response (78% vs. 76%; p = 0.82), post-treatment eosinophil count (20.8 ± 27.2 vs. 25.6 ± 39.4; p = 0.21), post-treatment EREFS (2.2 ± 1.8 vs. 2.2 ± 2.0; p = 0.92), and histologic response (<15 eos/hpf; 56% vs 58%; p = 0.66) did not differ. Candida was less frequent with daily dosing (2% vs. 8%; p = 0.04). In multivariate analysis, the odds of histologic response did not differ by dose groups (aOR: 1.03; 95% CI: 0.67 - 1.60).
Conclusions: EoE outcomes did not differ by daily or twice daily dosing regimens. These results inform tCS dosing regimens and reassure that both are effective.
期刊介绍:
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology (CGH) is dedicated to offering readers a comprehensive exploration of themes in clinical gastroenterology and hepatology. Encompassing diagnostic, endoscopic, interventional, and therapeutic advances, the journal covers areas such as cancer, inflammatory diseases, functional gastrointestinal disorders, nutrition, absorption, and secretion.
As a peer-reviewed publication, CGH features original articles and scholarly reviews, ensuring immediate relevance to the practice of gastroenterology and hepatology. Beyond peer-reviewed content, the journal includes invited key reviews and articles on endoscopy/practice-based technology, health-care policy, and practice management. Multimedia elements, including images, video abstracts, and podcasts, enhance the reader's experience. CGH remains actively engaged with its audience through updates and commentary shared via platforms such as Facebook and Twitter.