MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6910793286 · doi:10.48620/76962

Pharmacologic Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Efficacious, Likely Efficacious, and Failed Drugs.

2024· article· en· W6910793286 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Access CRIS of the University of Bern · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEosinophilic Esophagitis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEosinophilic esophagitisBudesonideFluticasoneDiseaseClinical trialAsthmaRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, food allergen-mediated, esophageal disease that will lead, if left untreated, to esophageal remodeling. As such, the vast majority of EoE patients need treatment. Treatment strategies include drugs, food elimination diets, and esophageal dilation. This review focuses on pharmacologic options for treatment of EoE. Summary Orodispersible budesonide tablets (Jorveza®) have been approved by regulatory authorities for EoE treatment of adults in Europe, Canada, and Australia, but not in the USA. Jorveza®, as compared to placebo, is effective in inducing and maintaining histologic and clinical remission over time. An orodispersible budesonide suspension (BOS, Eohilia®) was recently approved in the USA as induction treatment (12 weeks) in adolescents of at least 11 years and adults with active EoE. Before the approval of Jorveza® and Eohilia®, several investigator-initiated randomized controlled clinical studies evaluated esophagus-targeted formulations of either budesonide or fluticasone to treat pediatric and adult EoE patients. These drugs were generally efficacious in inducing and maintaining histological and clinical remission. Proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs) are used off-label for EoE treatment of pediatric and adult EoE patients given that they are able to induce histologic and clinical remission. However, when compared to the moderate certainty of evidence with regard to the failure to achieve histologic remission with swallowed topical corticosteroids, the certainty of evidence for PPIs is very low with very inconsistent results in absolute terms. Dupilumab (Dupixent®), a monoclonal antibody targeted against IL-4 and IL-13, was approved by regulatory authorities in the USA, Europe, Canada, but not yet Australia. In Europe, including Switzerland, Dupixent® is approved to treat EoE patients of at least 12 years of age with at least 40 kg body weight if they are either unresponsive or intolerant to or not candidates for conventional EoE therapies. Due to lack of efficacy or unfavorable safety profile, the following drugs are not recommended for EoE treatment: systemic steroids, sodium cromoglycate, montelukast, azathioprine, TNF-antagonists (e.g., infliximab), vedolizumab (mAb against α4β7), benralizumab (mAb against IL-5 receptor), mepolizumab (mAb against IL-5), reslizumab (mAb against IL-5), omalizumab (mAb against IgE), and lirentelimab (mAb against Siglec-8). Key Messages Long-term effectiveness and safety data on different drugs are currently sparse. Concerted efforts of different stakeholders will be necessary to continue the endeavor of providing our patients with much-needed therapies.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.304 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen Access CRIS of the University of BernSame topicEosinophilic EsophagitisFrench-language works237,207