ArticlePediatric research2025
A nationwide experience of biological treatments in children with eosinophilic esophagitis.
Article in Pediatric research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo biological treatment has been approved for pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in France. For patients refractory to conventional treatments, although compassionate use of monoclonal antibodies has developed, experience remains limited.
methodsWe conducted a national multicenter study across French pediatric tertiary care centers where children (younger than 18 years) who presented with EoE were treated with biological therapies between January 2015 and December 2023. The main objective was to characterize this patient population, and the indications for prescribing biologics. The secondary goals were to assess these patients' clinical, endoscopic, and histologic finding, as well as patient tolerance, and to compare our cohort at baseline with pediatric patients from two European registers of EoE treated with conventional therapies.
resultsThirty-six patients were prescribed 37 biologics (omalizumab, n = 1; mepolizumab, n = 6; dupilumab, n = 30). At diagnosis, the mean patient age was 7.4 (±4.4) years, and most patients had at least one atopic comorbidity (91.7%, n = 33). Failure of first-line treatments was the main reason for starting biological therapy (75.7%, n = 28), prescribed as compassionate use (54.1%, n = 20). Dupilumab showed significant clinical (48%, p < 0.01) and histological (82.6%, p < 0.01) improvement. Compared with children treated with conventional therapies, patients in our cohort at baseline presented significantly more asthma, food allergies, and atopic dermatitis, as well as more fibrostenotic phenotype and digestive symptoms. No severe side effect was reported within a 6-12-month follow-up.
conclusionDupilumab is the most frequently prescribed, and appears to be the most effective biotherapy, regarding clinical and histologic remission. All biologics were well-tolerated. IMPACT: Pending marketing authorization, biological therapies for pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis are mainly prescribed after failure of first-line treatments and on a compassionate basis in France. Dupilumab is the biotherapy most frequently used, is associated with clinical and histological efficacy and is well-tolerated. Children and adolescents requiring biologics appear to be younger and more severe at diagnosis than naive pediatric patients in Europeans registries.
Identifiers
40483369What 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.