Cochrane · systematic review · CD004065
Medical treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis
Franciosi, JP, Gordon, M, Sinopoulou, V, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2023 · Cochrane Library
GutAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
133
current version
GRADE rated
75
No studies
58
Included studies
NR
No studies 58 · 43.6%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 48 · 36.1%Low 22 · 16.5%Moderate 4 · 3%High 1 · 0.8%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Corticosteroids compared to placebo for induction of remission
Population: active EoE patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | RR 1.74 [1.08, 2.8] | 6 studies · 583 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Clinical improvement (continuous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 475 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Histological improvement (dichotomous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | RR 11.94 [6.56, 21.75] | 12 studies · 978 participants | High |
Histological improvement (continuous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 449 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | RR 2.6 [0.82, 8.19] | 3 studies · 102 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 5 studies · 596 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Withdrawals due to adverse events (2 to 12 weeks) Corticosteroids vs placebo | RR 0.64 [0.43, 0.96] | 14 studies · 1032 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Corticosteroids compared to placebo for maintenance of remission
Population: inactive EoE patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | RR 2.17 [0.75, 6.27] | 2 studies · 252 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Clinical improvement (continuous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 269 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Histological improvement (dichotomous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | RR 4.58 [1.66, 12.62] | 3 studies · 280 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Histological improvement (continuous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 269 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Endoscopic improvement at study endpoint (dichotomous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Corticosteroids vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 240 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Withdrawals due to adverse events 12 to 50 weeks Corticosteroids vs placebo | RR 0.37 [0.16, 0.87] | 3 studies · 280 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Biologics compared to placebo for induction of remission
Population: active EoE patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Biologics vs placebo | RR 1.14 [0.85, 1.52] | 5 studies · 410 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Clinical improvement (continuous) Biologics vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 7 studies · 387 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Histological improvement (dichotomous) Biologics vs placebo | RR 6.73 [2.58, 17.52] | 8 studies · 925 participants | Moderate Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Histological improvement (continuous) Biologics vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 370 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Biologics vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 11 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Biologics vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 197 participants | Very low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Withdrawals due to adverse events 12 to 44 weeks Biologics vs placebo | RR 1.55 [0.88, 2.74] | 8 studies · 792 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency |
Cromolyn sodium compared to placebo
Population: active EoE pediatric patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Cromolyn sodium vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement (continuous) Cromolyn sodium vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 14 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Histological improvement (dichotomous) Cromolyn sodium vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement (continuous) Cromolyn sodium vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 15 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Cromolyn sodium vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Cromolyn sodium vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 8 weeks Cromolyn sodium vs placebo | RR 0.27 [0.01, 5.7] | 1 study · 16 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
PGD2R antagonist OC000459 compared to placebo
Population: active EoE patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) PGD2R antagonist OC000459 vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement (continuous) PGD2R antagonist OC000459 vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement (dichotomous) PGD2R antagonist OC000459 vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement (continuous) PGD2R antagonist OC000459 vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) PGD2R antagonist OC000459 vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) PGD2R antagonist OC000459 vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Withdrawals due to adverse events PGD2R antagonist OC000459 vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 26 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Swallowed fluticasone compared to oral prednisone
Population: active EoE pediatric patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement at 4 weeks (dichotomous) Swallowed fluticasone vs oral prednisone | RR 1.09 [0.9, 1.33] | 1 study · 80 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical improvement at 4 weeks (continuous) Swallowed fluticasone vs oral prednisone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement at 4 weeks (dichotomous) Swallowed fluticasone vs oral prednisone | RR 1.1 [0.87, 1.38] | 1 study · 80 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement at 4 weeks (continuous) Swallowed fluticasone vs oral prednisone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 68 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement at 4 weeks (dichotomous) Swallowed fluticasone vs oral prednisone | RR 1.13 [0.91, 1.41] | 1 study · 80 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Swallowed fluticasone vs oral prednisone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 4 weeks Swallowed fluticasone vs oral prednisone | RR 0.5 [0.16, 1.53] | 1 study · 80 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Oral viscous budesonide compared to swallowed fluticasone
Population: active EoE patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement at study endpoint (dichotomous) Oral viscous budesonide vs swallowed fluticasone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement at 8 weeks (continuous) Oral viscous budesonide vs swallowed fluticasone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 84 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Histological improvement at study endpoint (dichotomous) Oral viscous budesonide vs swallowed fluticasone | RR 1.13 [0.84, 1.51] | 1 study · 129 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Histological improvement at 8 weeks (continuous) Oral viscous budesonide vs swallowed fluticasone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 111 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement at study endpoint (dichotomous) Oral viscous budesonide vs swallowed fluticasone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement at 8 weeks (continuous) Oral viscous budesonide vs swallowed fluticasone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 111 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 8 weeks Oral viscous budesonide vs swallowed fluticasone | RR 0.98 [0.42, 2.32] | 1 study · 129 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Esomeprazole compared to fluticasone
Population: active EoE patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Esomeprazole vs fluticasone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement at 8 weeks (continuous) Esomeprazole vs fluticasone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 67 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Histological improvement at 8 weeks (dichotomous) Esomeprazole vs fluticasone | RR 1.62 [0.77, 3.41] | 2 studies · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Histological improvement at 8 weeks (continuous) Esomeprazole vs fluticasone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 70 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Esomeprazole vs fluticasone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Esomeprazole vs fluticasone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 8 weeks Esomeprazole vs fluticasone | RR 0.95 [0.07, 13.38] | 2 studies · 72 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
One‐food elimination diet compared to four‐food elimination diet
Population: active EoE pediatric patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) One‐food elimination diet vs four‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement at 12 weeks (continuous) One‐food elimination diet vs four‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 50 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement at 12 weeks (dichotomous) One‐food elimination diet vs four‐food elimination diet | RR 2.26 [1.15, 4.43] | 1 study · 63 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement at study endpoint (continuous) One‐food elimination diet vs four‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement at study endpoint (dichotomous) One‐food elimination diet vs four‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement at 12 weeks (continuous) One‐food elimination diet vs four‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 34 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 12 weeks One‐food elimination diet vs four‐food elimination diet | RR 0.33 [0.11, 0.98] | 1 study · 63 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
One‐food elimination diet compared to six‐food elimination diet
Population: active EoE pediatric patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) One‐food elimination diet vs six‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement at 6 weeks (continuous) One‐food elimination diet vs six‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 129 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement at 6 weeks (dichotomous) One‐food elimination diet vs six‐food elimination diet | RR 0.85 [0.54, 1.33] | 1 study · 129 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement at 6 weeks (continuous) One‐food elimination diet vs six‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 129 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement at study endpoint (dichotomous) One‐food elimination diet vs six‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement at 6 weeks (continuous) One‐food elimination diet vs six‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 129 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Withdrawals due to adverse events One‐food elimination diet vs six‐food elimination diet | RR 0.62 [0.11, 3.57] | 1 study · 129 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Four‐food elimination diet with omeprazole compared to omeprazole
Population: active EoE patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Four‐food elimination diet with omeprazole vs omeprazole | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement (continuous) Four‐food elimination diet with omeprazole vs omeprazole | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement at 8 to 12 weeks (dichotomous) Four‐food elimination diet with omeprazole vs omeprazole | RR 1.57 [0.99, 2.48] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement at 8 to 12 weeks (continuous) Four‐food elimination diet with omeprazole vs omeprazole | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 58 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement at study endpoint (dichotomous) Four‐food elimination diet with omeprazole vs omeprazole | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement at study endpoint (continuous) Four‐food elimination diet with omeprazole vs omeprazole | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 8 to 12 weeks Four‐food elimination diet with omeprazole vs omeprazole | RR 5 [0.62, 40.44] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Four‐food elimination and amino acid formula compared to four‐food elimination diet
Population: active EoE patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Four‐food elimination and amino acid formula vs four‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement (continuous) Four‐food elimination and amino acid formula vs four‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement at 6 weeks (dichotomous) Four‐food elimination and amino acid formula vs four‐food elimination diet | RR 1.9 [0.79, 4.6] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement at 6 weeks (continuous) Four‐food elimination and amino acid formula vs four‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Four‐food elimination and amino acid formula vs four‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement at study endpoint (continuous) Four‐food elimination and amino acid formula vs four‐food elimination diet | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 6 weeks Four‐food elimination and amino acid formula vs four‐food elimination diet | RR 0.95 [0.06, 14.22] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Nebulized budesonide compared to viscous budesonide
Population: active EoE patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Nebulized budesonide vs viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement at 8 weeks (continuous) Nebulized budesonide vs viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement at 8 weeks (dichotomous) Nebulized budesonide vs viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement at 8 weeks (continuous) Nebulized budesonide vs viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Nebulized budesonide vs viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Nebulized budesonide vs viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 8 weeks Nebulized budesonide vs viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 25 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Viaskin milk patch compared to placebo
Population: active EoE pediatric patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Viaskin milk patch vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement at 44 weeks (continuous) Viaskin milk patch vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 9 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Histological improvement (dichotomous) Viaskin milk patch vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement at 44 weeks (continuous) Viaskin milk patch vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 9 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Viaskin milk patch vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement at 44 weeks (continuous) Viaskin milk patch vs placebo | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 20 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 44 weeks Viaskin milk patch vs placebo | RR 1.12 [0.05, 23.99] | 1 study · 20 participants | Low Downgraded: imprecision |
Leukotriene receptor antagonist compared to placebo for maintenance of remission
Population: inactive EoE patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement at 26 weeks (dichotomous) Leukotriene receptor antagonist vs placebo | RR 1.68 [0.66, 4.28] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Clinical improvement (continuous) Leukotriene receptor antagonist vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement (dichotomous) Leukotriene receptor antagonist vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement (continuous) Leukotriene receptor antagonist vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Leukotriene receptor antagonist vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Leukotriene receptor antagonist vs placebo | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 26 weeks Leukotriene receptor antagonist vs placebo | RR 2.1 [0.21, 21.39] | 1 study · 41 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg compared to mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg
Population: active EoE pediatric patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement at (continuous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement at 12 weeks (dichotomous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | RR 1.19 [0.37, 3.77] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement (continuous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 8 weeks Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | RR 0.63 [0.12, 3.38] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg compared to mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg
Population: active EoE pediatric patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement at (continuous) Mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement at 12 weeks (dichotomous) Mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | RR 2.14 [0.79, 5.79] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement (continuous) Mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 8 weeks Mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 0.55 mg/kg | RR 0.32 [0.04, 2.79] | 1 study · 39 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg compared to mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg
Population: active EoE pediatric patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement at (continuous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement at 12 weeks (dichotomous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg | RR 0.56 [0.23, 1.37] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement (continuous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 8 weeks Mepolizumab 10 mg/kg vs mepolizumab 2.5 mg/kg | RR 2 [0.2, 20.33] | 1 study · 40 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Six‐food elimination diet compared to swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide
Population: active EoE pediatric patients
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Clinical improvement (dichotomous) Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Clinical improvement (continuous) Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Histological improvement at 8 weeks (dichotomous) Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Histological improvement (continuous) Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (dichotomous) Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Endoscopic improvement (continuous) Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Withdrawals due to adverse events at 26 weeks Six‐food elimination diet vs swallowed fluticasone compared to swallowed budesonide compared to oral viscous budesonide | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |