How Does Prior Topical Steroids Affect Response to Dupilumab for Eosinophilic Esophagitis

M Chehade et al. Am J Gastroenterol 2026; 121: 649-660. Open Access! Dupilumab Efficacy in Children With Eosinophilic Esophagitis With Prior Swallowed Topical Corticosteroid Use: A Subgroup Analysis Thanks to Ben Gold for this reference.

Background: “The aim of this exploratory, post hoc subgroup analysis of EoE KIDS was to assess dupilumab efficacy and safety in patients aged 1–11 years with EoE previously treated with STCs” [swallowed topical corticosteroids]. This study further examined th EoE KIDS cohort (Chehade M, Dellon ES, Spergel JM, et al. Dupilumab for eosinophilic esophagitis in patients 1 to 11 years of age. N Engl J Med 2024;390(24):2239–51.)

Methods: The trial consisted of the following: part A, a 16-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled treatment period; part B, a 36-week, extended active treatment period in which patients knew that they received active treatment but did not know their regimen; and part C, a 108-week, open-label extension period in which all patients received higher-exposure dupilumab. Eligible patients were aged 1–11 years with a confirmed diagnosis of active EoE who were unresponsive to ≥8 weeks of PPIs.

Of 102 patients, 82 (80%) received prior STCs and 59 (58%) had prior inadequate response, intolerance, and/or contraindication (IRIC) to STCs.

Key findings:

  • At W16, higher-exposure dupilumab improved rates of histologic remission vs placebo in patients with prior STC use (60.7% vs 0.0%) and prior IRIC to STCs (60.9% vs 0.0%).
  • Responses were maintained at W52 with higher-exposure dupilumab, with improvements observed in patients who switched from placebo to higher-exposure dupilumab.
  • “Findings seemed comparable in those without prior STC use or prior IRIC, although patient numbers were small.” Only 9 patients in the treatment cohort did not haver prior STC use.

My take: It appears that dupilumab works well in those with and without prior swallowed topical corticosteroids (STCs). Though the numbers are small, the response appears more robust in those without prior STCs; perhaps, those with prior STC failure had more refractory EoE.

Some good brief YouTube EoE educational videos for families from GIKids.org (with pharmaceutical funding), links:

Related blog posts:

Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Once vs Twice Daily Steroid Treatment

CC Reed et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2025; 23: 946-953. Open Access! Daily or Twice Daily Treatment With Topical Steroids Results in Similar Responses in Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study using the UNC EoE Clinicopathologic Database of newly diagnosed patients with EoE treated with a tCS who had a follow-up endoscopy with biopsy. In total, there were 522 patients, including 195 pediatric patients (<18 yr). 122 patients received once daily dosing and 400 patients received twice daily dosing.

At our center, patients are typically treated on a clinical basis with either oral viscous budesonide or fluticasone from a multidose inhaler, with daily doses ranging from 1–2 mg for budesonide and 440–1760 μg for fluticasone based on patient size and at the discretion of the provider.

Key findings:

  • Global symptomatic response (78% vs 76%; P = .82), posttreatment eosinophil count (20.8 vs 25.6; P = .21), posttreatment EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (2.2 vs 2.2; P = .92), and histologic response (<15 eos/hpf; 56% vs 58%; P = .66) did not differ by dosing frequency
  • Candida was less frequent with daily dosing (2% vs 8%; P = .04)

My take: This study suggests that once daily dosing can be as effective as twice daily dosing. It may be that the total dose administered may be more important than the frequency. More studies are needed to confirm these results.

Related blog posts:

But How Well Does It Work in Theory and Eosinophilic Esophagitis Treatments

C Mayerhofer et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2023; 21: 2197-2210. Open Access! Efficacy of Elimination Diets in Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

“That’s all well and good in practice… but how does it work in theory?” I saw this quote many years ago when I was visiting the University of Chicago.

This quote came to mind as I was reading this article which showed relatively little change in the efficacy between more and less stringent elimination diets for eosinophilic esophagitis. This meta-analysis included 915 children and 847 adults and assessed the efficacy rates of 4 major dietary treatment regimens in eosinophilic esophagitis: 6-food (SFED), 4-food (FFED), 1-food (OFED), and a targeted elimination diet (TED).

Key findings:

  • The overall rate of histologic remission was 53.8% and in the individual dietary groups was 61.3% for SFED, 49.4% for FFED, 51.4% for OFED, and 45.7% for TED.
  • The overall rate of clinical response was 80.8%, with response rates of 92.8% for SFED, 74.1% for FFED, 87.1% for OFED, and 69.0% for TED.
Percentage of food antigen triggers identified via endoscopic
and clinical evaluation after food re-introduction.

My take: It is clear to me that more restrictive diets can yield better response rates; however, in clinical practice they are difficult to maintain and this study shows that the improvement with more food restrictions may be quite limited.

Another reference on eosinophilic esophagitis: CJ Ketchem et al. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Aug;21(9):2252-2259. Open Access! Higher Body Mass Index Is Associated With Decreased Treatment Response to Topical Steroids in Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Key finding: Histologic response (n=296) to topic steroids was higher for those who were nonobese compared with obese at fewer than 15 eosinophils per high-power field (61% vs 47%; P = .049); in addition, nonobese patients had significantly greater endoscopic and symptomatic responses.

Related blog posts: