SynthesisClinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association2026
Efficacy of Biological and Steroid Therapies in Adolescent and Adult Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis With Meta-Regression.
Synthesis in Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dietary Approaches in Eosinophilic Esophagitis.Nutrients · 2026Review
- The Relationship Between Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Laryngeal Manifestations: Pathophysiology, Clinical Overlap, and Diagnostic Challenges.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsThe therapeutic hierarchy of current pharmacologic options for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has not been established. We performed a network meta-analysis to evaluate the comparative efficacy of pharmacological therapies for EoE.
methodsPubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to May 25, 2025, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) ≥12 weeks in duration comparing corticosteroids, biologics, or proton pump inhibitors with placebo or active comparators in participants aged ≥12 years. Key outcomes included changes in dysphagia from baseline and histologic remission (≤6 eosinophils/high-power field) at 12, 24, and 48 weeks. Treatments were ranked using the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA). Certainty of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework.
resultsThirteen RCTs were included. For dysphagia improvement compared with placebo and active comparators, dupilumab 300 mg and cendakimab 360 mg demonstrated moderate-to-high-certainty benefit at 12 and 24 weeks, whereas budesonide oral suspension (BOS) 2 mg demonstrated moderate-to-high-certainty benefit at 12 weeks; no 24-week data were available for BOS. At 48 weeks, budesonide orodispersible tablets (BOT) 0.5 and 1 mg demonstrated high certainty benefits for dysphagia improvement compared with placebo and active comparators. SUCRA ranked dupilumab highest for dysphagia improvement at 12 and 24 weeks (92% and 97%), and BOT 1 mg highest at 48 weeks (96%). For histologic remission, all agents except etrasimod showed moderate certainty benefits vs placebo across time points. SUCRA ranked BOS 2 mg highest at 12 weeks (78%), benralizumab 30 mg at 24 weeks (80%), and BOT 1 mg at 48 weeks (79%).
conclusionsAll evaluated therapies except etrasimod achieved histologic remission, whereas only dupilumab, cendakimab, BOS, and BOT were associated with symptomatic improvement in EoE, highlighting dissociations between histologic and symptomatic responses. Most corticosteroid trials were short-term and lacked direct comparisons with biologics. Robust head-to-head trials are needed to define optimal treatment strategies, assess long-term outcomes, and clarify the role of symptom, endoscopic, and histologic endpoints in therapeutic decision-making.
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.