Pooled Phase 2 and 3 Efficacy and Safety Data on Budesonide Oral Suspension in Adolescents with Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Résumé fourni par la source

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of budesonide oral suspension (BOS) in adolescents with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). METHODS: This post hoc analysis pooled data from two 12-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of BOS 2.0 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (phase 2, NCT01642212; phase 3, NCT02605837) in patients aged 11-17 years with EoE and dysphagia. Efficacy endpoints included histologic (≤6, ≤1, and <15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]), dysphagia symptom (≥30% reduction in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ] scores from baseline), and clinicopathologic (≤6 eos/hpf and ≥30% reduction in DSQ scores from baseline) responses at week 12. Change from baseline to week 12 in peak eosinophil counts, DSQ scores, EoE Histology Scoring System (EoEHSS) grade (severity) and stage (extent) total score ratios (TSRs), and total EoE Endoscopic Reference Scores (EREFS) were assessed. Safety outcomes were also examined. RESULTS: Overall, 76 adolescents were included (BOS, n = 45; placebo, n = 31). Significantly more patients who received BOS than placebo achieved histologic responses (≤6 eos/hpf: 46.7% vs 6.5%; ≤1 eos/hpf: 42.2% vs 0.0%; <15 eos/hpf: 53.3% vs 9.7%; P < 0.001) and a clinicopathologic response (31.1% vs 3.2%; P = 0.003) at week 12. More BOS-treated than placebo-treated patients achieved a dysphagia symptom response at week 12 (68.9% vs 58.1%; not statistically significant P = 0.314). BOS-treated patients had significantly greater reductions in EoEHSS grade and stage TSRs ( P < 0.001) and total EREFS ( P = 0.021) from baseline to week 12 than placebo-treated patients. BOS was well tolerated, with no clinically meaningful differences in adverse events versus placebo. CONCLUSIONS: BOS 2.0 mg b.i.d. significantly improved most efficacy outcomes in adolescents with EoE versus placebo.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.