ReviewAllergy and asthma proceedings2017
Medical therapy versus dietary avoidance in eosinophilic esophagitis: Which approach is better?
Review in Allergy and asthma proceedings, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pharmacotherapies for the Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: State of the Art Review.Drugs · 2019Review
- Treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in the pediatric patient: an evidence-based approach.European journal of pediatrics · 2018Review
- Atopy, asthma, and the elderly: A paradigm for personalized therapy.Allergy and asthma proceedings · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated esophageal disease characterized by esophageal symptoms and esophageal eosinophilia. It is induced by food triggers and by environmental allergens in some patients. No U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved therapies exist for patients with EoE. Common therapies include topical corticosteroids (TCS) and dietary restriction.
methodsThis article reviewed the pros and cons of a medical versus dietary approach in treating EoE in children and adults. Available data on short- and long-term efficacy, ease of implementation, cost, adverse effects, and quality of life (QoL) were summarized.
resultsAlthough no comparative studies of TCS versus dietary restrictions exist, they seemed to be equivalent from an efficacy standpoint. However, each therapy offers different advantages and disadvantages. TCS allow ingestion of multiple food triggers and improve QoL of patients with EoE. However, TCS have the potential for topical and/or systemic adverse effects and can be costly in the long run. Dietary restriction therapies allow identification of food triggers and are less costly in the long run. However, they are more challenging to implement because they require a team approach with a dietitian and an allergist. In addition, they decrease the QoL of some children with EoE, often require extensive allergy testing and multiple endoscopies, and are not effective when environmental allergens trigger EoE. Therefore, the choice of medical versus dietary therapy needs to be individualized based on a thorough medical evaluation and discussion with patients with EoE and their families.
conclusionResearch is needed to establish the lowest most effective and safe dose of TCS and the extent of adherence needed when eliminating foods for EoE, and to find less-invasive ways to monitor histologic disease activity. Potential results from this research may allow more tailored therapies or specific combination therapies that would take advantage of each treatment modality to maximize benefits to the patient while maintaining disease remission.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.