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。

IF 11.6 1区 医学 Q1 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology Pub Date : 2024-11-15 DOI:10.1016/j.cgh.2024.10.016
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:很少有数据对局部皮质类固醇(tCS)给药方案和疗效进行比较。我们旨在比较嗜酸性粒细胞性食管炎(EoE)患者每天一次或两次给药方案的治疗效果:我们利用联合国大学嗜酸性粒细胞食管炎临床病理数据库,对接受过 tCS 治疗并进行过内镜活检随访的新诊断嗜酸性粒细胞食管炎患者进行了一项回顾性队列研究。研究人员提取了基线数据和结果。双变量和多变量分析比较了患者的基线数据和首次使用 tCS 后的数据,tCS 剂量为每天一次或两次:522名患者符合纳入标准,其中122名患者每天服药一次(72%为男性;91%为白人),400名患者每天服药两次(66%为男性;89%为白人)。每日服药两次的患者年龄较大(28.8 ± 18.2 对 24.3 ± 18.0;P = 0.01),报告的胃灼热症状较多(40% 对 25%;P = 0.004)。在双变量分析中,总体症状反应(78% vs. 76%;p = 0.82)、治疗后嗜酸性粒细胞计数(20.8 ± 27.2 vs. 25.6 ± 39.4;p = 0.21)、治疗后EREFS(2.2 ± 1.8 vs. 2.2 ± 2.0;p = 0.92)和组织学反应(结论:治疗后嗜酸性粒细胞计数和组织学反应没有差异:每日或每日两次给药方案对EoE结果没有影响。这些结果为 tCS 给药方案提供了依据,并再次证明这两种方案都是有效的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
4.80%
发文量
903
审稿时长
22 days
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.
期刊最新文献
Older age but not comorbidity is associated with worse survival in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. Prognostic Communication, Symptom Burden, Psychological Distress, and Quality of Life Among Patients with Decompensated Cirrhosis. A predictive model based on quantitative fecal immunochemical test can stratify the risk of CRC in an organized screening program. Daily or twice daily treatment with topical steroids results in similar responses in eosinophilic esophagitis. Identification of Candidates for MASLD Treatment with Indeterminate Vibration-Controlled Transient Elastography.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1