Tag Archives: budesonide

What To Do For Pediatric Patients with Non-Responsive Celiac Disease

Posted on by

AA Ibrahim et al. JPGN 2022; 75: 616-622. Budesonide and the Gluten Containing Elimination Diet as Treatments for Non-responsive Celiac Disease in Children

Background: Non-responsive celiac disease (NRCD) may affect up to 15% of children with CD. A Gluten Containing Elimination Diet (GCED) is a more stringent diet consisting of fresh, whole, and unprocessed naturally gluten-free foods (MM Leonard et al. Nutrients 2017; 9: 1129. Open Access! Indications and Use of the Gluten Contamination Elimination Diet for Patients with Non-Responsive Celiac Disease).

Methods: In this 5-year retrospective study, the authors identified 22 patients with NRCD; they were following a gluten-free diet for at least 12 months but had persistent symptoms and enteropathy (Marsh 3). Treatments for NRCD were either a GCED (n=13), budesonide (n=9) or both (n=4). Four patients were lost to follow-up and did not receive either treatment.

Key findings:

  • Thirteen were treated with the GCED for 3 months with 46% achieving both histological and symptomatic resolution
  • Nine patients were treated with budesonide (6–9 mg daily), with 89% achieving both symptomatic and histologic resolution after a median 3-month treatment course
  • 67% of patients who responded to the GCED and 100% of patients who responded to budesonide remained in remission for at least 6 months following treatment transition back to exclusive GFD

My take: This important article shows that many patients thought to be receiving a GFD can respond to a more stringent approach. In addition, it offers an alternative strategy with budesonide which had a high response rate.

Related article: PHR Green et al. Gastroenterol 2022; 163: 1461-1469. Open Access! AGA Clinical Practice Update on Management of Refractory Celiac Disease: Expert Review These recommendations are for adults with refractory celiac disease.

Best Practice Advice 1

In patients believed to have celiac disease who have persistent or recurrent symptoms or signs, the initial diagnosis of celiac disease should be confirmed by review of prior diagnostic testing, including serologies, endoscopies, and histologic findings.

Best Practice Advice 2

In patients with confirmed celiac disease with persistent or recurrent symptoms or signs (nonresponsive celiac disease), ongoing gluten ingestion should be excluded as a cause of these symptoms with serologic testing, dietitian review, and detection of immunogenic peptides in stool or urine. Esophagogastroduodenoscopy with small bowel biopsies should be performed to look for villous atrophy. If villous atrophy persists or the initial diagnosis of celiac disease was not confirmed, consider other causes of villous atrophy, including common variable immunodeficiency, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue, and medication-induced enteropathy.

Best Practice Advice 3

For patients with nonresponsive celiac disease, after exclusion of gluten ingestion, perform a systematic evaluation for other potential causes of symptoms, including functional bowel disorders, microscopic colitis, pancreatic insufficiency, inflammatory bowel disease, lactose or fructose intolerance, and small intestinal bacterial overgrowth.

Best Practice Advice 4

Use flow cytometry, immunohistochemistry, and T-cell receptor rearrangement studies to distinguish between subtypes of refractory celiac disease and to exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma. Type 1 refractory celiac disease is characterized by a normal intraepithelial lymphocyte population and type 2 is defined by the presence of an aberrant, clonal intraepithelial lymphocyte population. Consultation with an expert hematopathologist is necessary to interpret these studies.

Best Practice Advice 5

Perform small bowel imaging with capsule endoscopy and computed tomography or magnetic resonance enterography to exclude enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma and ulcerative jejunoileitis at initial diagnosis of type 2 refractory celiac disease.

Best Practice Advice 6

Complete a detailed nutritional assessment with investigation of micronutrient and macronutrient deficiencies in patients diagnosed with refractory celiac disease. Check albumin as an independent prognostic factor.

Best Practice Advice 7

Correct deficiencies in macro- and micronutrients using oral supplements and/or enteral support. Consider parenteral nutrition for patients with severe malnutrition due to malabsorption.

Best Practice Advice 8

Corticosteroids, most commonly open-capsule budesonide or, if unavailable, prednisone, are the medication of choice and should be used as first-line therapy in either type 1 or type 2 refractory celiac disease.

Best Practice Advice 9

Patients with refractory celiac disease require regular follow-up by a multidisciplinary team, including gastroenterologists and dietitians, to assess clinical and histologic response to therapy. Identify local experts with expertise in celiac disease to assist with management.

Best Practice Advice 10

Patients with refractory celiac disease without response to steroids may benefit from referral to a center with expertise for management or evaluation for inclusion in clinical trials.

Related blog posts:

Unrelated article: NPR (12/11/22) Authorities are urging indoor masking in major cities as the ‘tripledemic’ rages

Link: CDC Covid Weekly Tracker -lots of interesting data and information

Canyon Road Artwork in Santa Fe

Disclaimer: This blog, gutsandgrowth, assumes no responsibility for any use or operation of any method, product, instruction, concept or idea contained in the material herein or for any injury or damage to persons or property (whether products liability, negligence or otherwise) resulting from such use or operation. These blog posts are for educational purposes only. Specific dosing of medications (along with potential adverse effects) should be confirmed by prescribing physician.  Because of rapid advances in the medical sciences, the gutsandgrowth blog cautions that independent verification should be made of diagnosis and drug dosages. The reader is solely responsible for the conduct of any suggested test or procedure.  This content is not a substitute for medical advice, diagnosis or treatment provided by a qualified healthcare provider. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a condition.

Does Budesonide Work for Collagenous Gastritis?

Posted on by

Congratulations to NASPGHAN Elected Leaders and especially to Vicky Ng (who I met while completing my fellowship in Cincinnati).

Briefly noted:

RS Choung et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20(9):1977-1985. Collagenous Gastritis: Characteristics and Response to Topical Budesonide

This was an open-label, retrospective study with 64 patients with collagenous gastritis (CG) (50 adults, 14 children). Budesonide was administered in 2 formulations: open-capsule budesonide or compounded immediate-release budesonide capsule.  Key finding: Of the patients treated with topically targeted budesonide (TTB), 89% had a clinical response (42% complete, 46% partial), and 88% had a histologic response (53% complete, 33% partial).

Related blog posts:

At the top of Crow’s Pass Trail, Girdwood AK

Long-Term Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis with Budesonide

Posted on by

ES Dellon et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 1488-1498. Open access: Long-Term Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis With Budesonide Oral Suspension

Methods: 48 patients who had fully responded to a 12-week induction course of budesonide 2 mg BID oral suspension were randomized to continuation of therapy or to placebo, for 36 weeks.

Key findings:

  • Patients randomized to placebo experienced relapse at a numerically higher rate than those who continued budesonide (43.5% vs 24.0%; p=.13). This reached statistical significance in a per-protocol analysis
  • In a separate arm, 13% of the 106 patients with previous partial or no response did subsequently fully respond to budesonide
  • Budesonide therapy was well-tolerated; candidiasis-related events occurred in 17 patients overall and were mild to moderate, and abnormal adrenocorticotropic hormone stimulation tests were reported in 5%

My take: Most patients who respond to induction with budesonide will continue to respond to ongoing treatment. A high rate of relapse is seen in those randomized to placebo.

Related blog posts:

Two Studies for Eosinophiles

Posted on by

ES Dellon et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 535-545. Open Access: Determination of Biopsy Yield That Optimally Detects Eosinophilic Gastritis and/or Duodenitis in a Randomized Trial of Lirentelimab

Key findings:

  • GI eosinophilia was patchy and that examination of multiple biopsies was required for diagnosis—an average of only 2.6 per 8 gastric biopsies and 2.2 per 4 duodenal biopsies per subject met thresholds for EG/EoD.
  • Evaluation of multiple nonoverlapping hpfs in each of 8 gastric and 4 duodenal biopsies was required to capture 100% of EG/EoD cases.

The 2nd article’s abstract was posted on this blog in July 2020 (Phase 3 Trial of Budesonide for Eosinophilic Esophagitis). Here is the published citation and graphical abstract:

I Hirano et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2022; 20: 525-534. Open Access: Budesonide Oral Suspension Improves Outcomes in Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Results from a Phase 3 Trial

Maintenance Topical Steroid Dosing for Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Posted on by

T Greuter et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2021; 19: 2514-2523. Open Access: Effectiveness and Safety of High- vs Low-Dose Swallowed Topical Steroids for Maintenance Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Multicenter Observational Study

In this multicenter, retrospective study with 82 participants (mean age 37 years), the authors examined swallowed topical corticosteroids (STC) for maintenance of histologic remission (<15 eos/hpf). Low dose STC (22 budesonide, 60 fluticasone) was considered 0.5 mg/day or less. Key findings:

  • Histological relapse occurred in 67% of patients. This rate was comparable in patients treated with low-dose (72%) and high-dose (54%) STCs.
  • Histological relapse occurred significantly earlier with low dose STC (1.0 vs 1.8 years, P = .030)
  • Esophageal candidiasis was identified in 6% of subjects

The authors conclude that most of the histological relapse that occurred was due to true steroid failure since “low adherence and treatment cessation during follow-up were exclusion criteria.” Also, they note that “the recently finished but not yet fully published Maintenance of Remission With Budesonide Orodispersible Tablets vs Placebo in Eosinophilic Eosphagitis (EOS2 trial) (NCT02493335) comparing budesonide maintenance doses of 2 mg/d vs 1 mg/d suggest that there is no additional benefit of daily doses higher than 1 mg (1-year remission rates of 75.0% and 73.5%, respectively).

My take: Low dose STCs do not appear to be as effective in maintaining histologic remission; however, there is a high rate of relapse even in those with higher doses.

Related blog posts:

Kaplan Meier curve for time to histological relapse in patients with deep
histological remission at baseline stratified by steroid dose groups

Most Popular 2020 Posts

Posted on by

I want to thank all of you who take an interest in my blog, particularly those who give suggestions, references, and encouragement. The following posts were the most popular from the past year.

Related post: Favorite Posts of 2020

Sandy Springs at Sunrise

Budesonide for Maintaining EoE Remission

Posted on by

A Straumann et al. Gastroenterology 2020; Free Full Text Link: Budesonide Orodispersible Tablets Maintain Remission in a Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial of Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Methods: Two hundred and four adults with EoE in clinical and histologic remission, from 29 European study sites, were randomly assigned to groups given budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT) 0.5 mg twice daily (n = 68), BOT 1.0 mg twice daily (n = 68), or placebo twice daily (n = 68) for up to 48 weeks

Key Findings:

  • At end of treatment, 73.5% of patients receiving BOT 0.5 mg twice daily and 75% receiving BOT 1.0 mg twice daily were in persistent remission compared with 4.4% of patients in the placebo group (P < .001 for both comparisons of BOT with placebo)
  • Four patients receiving BOT developed asymptomatic, low serum levels of cortisol. Clinically manifested candidiasis was suspected in 16.2% of patients in the BOT 0.5 mg group and in 11.8% of patients in the BOT 1.0 mg group; all infections resolved with treatment

In the discussion, the authors state that “we recommend monitoring symptoms and signs of adrenal insufficiency when administrating topical-acting corticosteroids over prolonged time periods, in particular in children and when using higher dosages.”

My take (from discussion): “EoE requires a proper long-term anti-inflammatory therapy because, without active treatment, the vast majority of patients experience a relapse within the first 100 days after cessation of the medication.”

Related blog posts:

Phase 3 Trial of Budesonide for Eosinophilic Esophagitis & COVID-19 Deaths in U.S.

Posted on by

NY Times article:  U.S. Coronavirus Cases Are Rising Sharply, but Deaths Are Still Down

This article explains why deaths from COVID-19 have not increased despite increasing number of infections.  Three main reasons: increased testing -detects many with less severe symptoms, younger population are being infected, and new treatment approaches may be helping.  However, “the dip in coronavirus mortality will not necessarily last. As more people socialize, those with milder infections might end up ferrying the pathogen to vulnerable individuals…Recent upswings in coronavirus case numbers leave experts apprehensive of what’s to come. Death, when it occurs, tends to trail infection by about two to four weeks.”

The Budesonide Oral Suspension (BOS) resulted in 62% of BOS patients meeting the threshold of < 15 eos/hpf compared to 1% of placebo patients. From lead author, Ikuo Hirano: “the results of the BOS trial showed that BOS successfully treated both the symptoms and signs of EoE. The positive results will hopefully lead to an approved, safe and effective therapy for EoE.”

Abstract from ACG Meeting October 2019:

Abstract: Efficacy of Budesonide Oral Suspension for Eosinophilic Esophagitis in Adolescents and Adults: Results From a Phase 3, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Trial

Introduction: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease for which there is an unmet clinical need for new therapies. The safety and efficacy of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) for the treatment of EoE has been demonstrated in a previous phase 2 study. The current phase 3 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of BOS in a large cohort of patients with EoE. 

Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (SHP621-301; NCT02605837) investigated the safety and efficacy of BOS in patients (11–55 years) with EoE and dysphagia. Patients were randomized 2:1 to 2.0 mg BOS or placebo twice daily (b.i.d.) for 12 weeks (Figure 1). Co-primary endpoints were histologic (peak eosinophil count ≤6 eosinophils/high-powered field [eos/hpf]) and dysphagia symptom (≥30% decrease in symptoms as measured by the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ]) responses after 12 weeks of therapy. Secondary endpoints included change in DSQ score and change in EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) from baseline to final treatment period. Safety was also assessed.

Results: A total of 322 patients were randomized (BOS, n=215; placebo, n=107), of whom 318 patients received at least one dose of double-blind therapy (BOS, n=213; placebo, n=105) (Table). The primary outcomes were achieved, with significantly more histologic and symptom responders in the BOS-treated than the placebo-treated group (53.1% vs 1.0%, p< 0.001; 52.6% vs 39.1%, p=0.024, respectively; Figure 2). Improvements in mean DSQ score from baseline to week 12 were significantly greater in the BOS group (n=197) than the placebo group (n=89) (−13.0 vs −9.1; p=0.015). Similarly, improvements in mean EREFS scores were significantly greater with BOS (n=202) than placebo (n=93) (−4.0 vs −2.2; p< 0.001). In total, 61.0% of patients reported a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE) (BOS, 61.0%; placebo, 61.0%). Only 2.5% of patients experienced a TEAE leading to dose discontinuation (BOS, 1.4%; placebo, 4.8%). Few patients had severe or serious TEAEs on BOS or placebo.  No life-threatening TEAEs were reported.

Discussion: This phase 3 trial demonstrated the efficacy of BOS as induction therapy for EoE. BOS resulted in significant improvements in histologic, symptomatic and endoscopic endpoints compared with placebo. The majority of TEAEs were mild to moderate and comparable between placebo and BOS. A double-blind, placebo-controlled maintenance study (SHP621-302) is ongoing.

Related blog posts:

Island Ford, Sandy Springs

 

 

 

New 2020 Eosinophilic Esophagitis Guidelines

Posted on by

Full text (I Hirano et al. Gastroenterol 2020; 158: 1776-86): AGA Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Full text: PDF

This guideline was developed through a collaboration between AGA and the Joint Task Force for Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters, which comprises the American Academy of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology and the American College of Allergy, Asthma & Immunology. This guideline is jointly published in Gastroenterology and Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology.

Technical review article (MA Rank et al. Gastroenterol 2020; 158: 1789-1810): Technical Review on the Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Report From the AGA Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice Parameters

 

Link: Clinical Decision Support Tool

Link: Treatment of EoE Spotlight Poster

Related blog posts:

Using Less Steroids for Autoimmune Hepatitis

Posted on by

A recent retrospective study (S Pape et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2019; 17: 2068-75) with 451 adults (1978-2017) examined outcomes among patients based on steroid dosing.

A high-dose group (n=281) with initial prednisone/prednisolone dose of ≥0.5 mg/kg/day was compared with a low dose group (n=170) <0.5 mg/kg/day.  The low dose group had higher rates of cirrhosis (25.9% vs. 15.3%) but lower median ALT values (7.1 ULN vs. 13.4 ULN) and lower median bilirubin values (48 vs 29 micromol/L).

Key findings:

  • There was no difference in rates of transaminase normalization at 1 year: 76.2% vs 77.6%
  • Transaminase normalization was lower in patients with cirrhosis 58.1% compared to 70.7% with cirrhosis
  • Most patients were receiving low-dose steroids at 6 months, 87.4% in high-dose group compared to 83.5% in low-dose group
  • Cumulative steroid dose was lower in low-dose group, with median of 2573 mg over 6 months compared to 3780 mg

Though, not studied in this report, AASLD has recommended use of immunoglobulin levels may help with immunosuppression titration. The editorial (pg 1948-49) notes that budesonide is another alternative for AIH without cirrhosis, though “long-term outcomes including histologic remission and appropriate tapering strategy for budesonide are currently lacking.”

My take: Particularly in patients without severe inflammation, lower steroid doses can be considered for autoimmune hepatitis.

Related blog posts:

Atlanta Botanical Garden