CHICAGO – Esophageal dilation combined with standard medical management of eosinophilic esophagitis doesn’t provide added benefit over medication alone in terms of dysphagia relief, according to a randomized, blinded clinical trial.
"In our group of patients with moderate endoscopic findings and without severe stricturing disease, esophageal dilation does not appear to be a necessary additional treatment strategy," Dr. Robert T. Kavitt stated at the annual Digestive Disease Week.
The study involved 31 patients newly diagnosed with eosinophilic esophagitis and baseline moderate to severe difficulty in swallowing. They were randomized to dilation or no dilation at initial endoscopy. Then all patients received standard medical management with 440 mcg of swallowed fluticasone b.i.d. and dexlansoprazole at 60 mg/day for 2 months. Patients were blinded as to their dilation status, as were the physicians who rated their change in dysphagia scores during follow-up.
Dr. Ikuo Hirano
Both groups experienced robust albeit equal reductions in overall dysphagia scores upon assessment at 30 and 60 days after endoscopy. At baseline, dysphagia scores averaged 6-6.5 on a 0-9 scale, indicative of moderate to severe dysphagia. At follow-up, scores in both groups had dropped to an average of 3 or less, reported Dr. Kavitt of the University of Chicago.
Complete resolution of dysphagia, defined as a dysphagia score of 0, occurred in only 23% of the dilation group and 57% of the no-dilation controls, which was not a statistically significant difference. The looser standard of "significant improvement" – meaning a dysphagia score of 3 or less – was met by 92% of the dilation group and 86% of controls.
Two patients in the dilation group and one control reported odynophagia.
Patients in the dilation group were dilated to the endpoint of mucosal tear. Three-quarters of the patients were dilated to a maximum size of 50 French or larger.
Baseline endoscopic scores assessing strictures, fissures, rings, and other abnormalities were in the moderate range on a 0-13 severity scale, so the study finding of a lack of benefit for dilation as part of an initial treatment strategy in eosinophilic esophagitis may not extend to the minority of patients having truly severe stricturing disease, according to Dr. Kavitt.
He noted that, before this study, the role of dilation in the treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis was a matter of divergent expert opinion unsupported by randomized trial evidence. The 2013 American College of Gastroenterology guidelines state that "the role of dilation as a primary monotherapy of eosinophilic esophagitis is still controversial and should be individualized."
Later during the meeting, in his state-of-the-art lecture on changing therapeutic concepts in eosinophilic esophagitis, Dr. Ikuo Hirano cited Dr. Kavitt’s randomized trial in support of his argument against dilation as primary therapy.
"Dilation does nothing to address the underlying inflammatory response that’s causing strictures to form," noted Dr. Hirano, professor of medicine at Northwestern University, Chicago. "I believe that dilation is inappropriate therapy for children and adults with a predominantly inflammatory phenotype of disease."
Medication and diet therapies not only relieve the symptoms of eosinophilic esophagitis, he continued, they also improve the histopathology.
Dilation entails considerable pain as well as a risk of perforation. Recent reassuring safety data regarding dilation for eosinophilic esophagitis come from specialized esophageal centers with an unusual amount of experience with the procedure, the gastroenterologist said.
Dr. Kavitt reported having no financial conflicts of interest with regard to the randomized trial, which was supported by institutional funds. Dr. Hirano serves as a consultant to Meritage Pharma, Receptos, and Aptalis.