Biologics for Eosinophilic Oesophagitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Introduction
Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, immune-mediated disease characterized by oesophageal dysfunction and mucosal eosinophilia. Conventional therapies, including dietary elimination, proton pump inhibitors, and topical corticosteroids, are often insufficient or associated with relapse, highlighting the need for targeted treatments. Biologic agents modulating type 2 inflammation have emerged as promising options. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of biologics in EoE.
Methods
Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus) and trial registries were searched from inception to [insert date]. Eligible studies were double-blind RCTs comparing biologics with placebo in EoE. Data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment (RoB 2.0) were performed independently by two reviewers. Pooled analyses were conducted using random-effects models, reporting log odds ratios (OR) or risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Certainty of evidence was rated with GRADE.
Results
A total of 1,706 patients (1,046 males and 696 females; mean age 56.1 ± 15 years; mean follow-up 9.2 months) from 14 randomized controlled trials were included, with 982 patients receiving biologics and 723 assigned to placebo. Biologics significantly increased histological remission compared with placebo (log OR 1.57, 95% CI 0.55–2.60; I² = 89.6%), with benralizumab and lirentelimab demonstrating the strongest effects, while dupilumab showed variable histological outcomes but consistent symptomatic benefits in pivotal trials. Symptomatic response did not improve significantly overall (log OR 0.18, 95% CI −0.73–1.09), although benralizumab showed benefit and lirentelimab trended negatively. Endoscopic remission was not significantly different between biologics and placebo (log OR −0.38, 95% CI −1.56–0.79). Safety analyses revealed no overall increase in adverse events (log RR −0.10, 95% CI −0.40–0.19), with etarsimod and reslizumab associated with fewer events, while lirentelimab suggested a possible increase in cardiological adverse events. Neurological adverse events were infrequent and comparable to placebo.
Conclusion
Biologic therapies are effective in achieving histological remission in EoE, with benralizumab, lirentelimab, and dupilumab showing the greatest promise. Symptomatic and endoscopic benefits are less consistent, underscoring the need for standardized outcome measures. Biologics were generally safe, with no overall increase in adverse events. These findings support the expanding role of biologics in EoE management while highlighting the importance of long-term and head-to-head trials to optimize therapeutic strategies.
