Desai, Nirav K.

INTRODUCTION: It is becoming clear that eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) activity cannot be measured by eosinophils alone, and that a more complete assessment is needed. The EoE Histology Scoring System (EoE HSS) measures the severity (grade) and extent (stage) of 8 histopathologic features in EoE: eosinophilic inflammation (EI); basal zone hyperplasia (BZH); eosinophilic abscess (EA); eosinophilic surface layering (SL); dilated intercellular spaces (DIS); surface epithelial alteration (SEA); dyskeratotic epithelial cells (DEC); and lamina propria fibrosis (LPF). We aimed to assess EoE histology at baseline using the EoE HSS, and to compare correlations between this and endoscopic and symptom outcomes. METHODS: This study analyzed baseline data from a 12-week, phase 2, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of budesonide oral suspension in patients with EoE (MPI 101-06; NCT01642212). Patients were eligible for inclusion if they were aged 11–40 years and had EoE with dysphagia. Esophageal biopsies from patients were examined, and mean EoE HSS total score ratios and mean individual feature scores were calculated at baseline for all patients (irrespective of treatment allocation). A correlation analysis was then performed to compare these scores with Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) scores and those from the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) system at baseline. RESULTS: In total, 87 patients were included for analysis. At baseline, mean (standard deviation) EoE HSS grade and stage total score ratios for all patients were 0.5 (0.2) and 0.4 (0.1), respectively. For individual EoE HSS features, a summary of mean grade and stage scores at baseline is shown in Table 1; the most severe features for grade and stage were EI, BZH, DIS and LPF. At baseline, mean EoE HSS grade and stage total score ratios did not correlate with mean DSQ score, but did correlate significantly with mean EREFS score (grade: R = 0.3166; P = 0.0028; stage: R = 0.3344; P = 0.0015; Table 2). Similarly, mean scores for individual EoE HSS features did not correlate with mean DSQ score at baseline, but did correlate with mean EREFS score for 4 and 3 of the 8 features for grade and stage scores, respectively (Table 2). CONCLUSION: The most severe EoE HSS features at baseline for grade and stage were EI, BZH, DIS and LPF. At baseline, there were significant correlations between the EoE HSS and endoscopic severity, but not dysphagia. This suggests that the EoE HSS could become an essential and independent tool to measure EoE activity.

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 1). 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. CONCLUSION: 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.