Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Dupilumab and cendakimab show moderate-to-high certainty benefit for dysphagia in eosinophilic esophagitisNew data shows different treatments for eosinophilic esophagitis symptoms

AI-generated summary of the cited source, checked by automated accuracy review. How we work

Key Takeaway
Note that dupilumab and cendakimab show moderate-to-high certainty for dysphagia improvement in eosinophilic esophagitis.

This network meta-analysis evaluates the efficacy of corticosteroids, biologics, and proton pump inhibitors for treating eosinophilic esophagitis in patients aged 12 years and older. The study assesses changes in dysphagia at 12, 24, and 48 weeks, alongside histologic remission as a secondary outcome.

For dysphagia improvement, dupilumab 300 mg and cendakimab 360 mg demonstrated moderate-to-high certainty benefit at 12 and 24 weeks. Budesonide oral suspension (BOS) 2 mg showed moderate-to-high certainty benefit at 12 weeks, while budesonide orodispersible tablets (BOT) 0.5 and 1 mg showed high certainty benefits at 48 weeks. Regarding histologic remission, all agents except etrasimod showed moderate certainty benefits compared to placebo across various time points.

Several limitations are noted, including the short-term nature of most corticosteroid trials and a lack of direct comparisons between corticosteroids and biologics. The authors also note a dissociation between histologic and symptomatic responses. These findings suggest a need for head-to-head trials to determine optimal treatment strategies for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis.

How this fits prior evidence

This finding extends the clinical utility of dupilumab in eosinophilic conditions. While prior evidence confirms that dupilumab and mepolizumab reduce COPD exacerbations in patients with eosinophilic or type 2 COPD, this study specifically addresses the management of eosinophilic esophagitis. It highlights a dissociation between histologic and symptomatic responses in this specific condition, which may differ from the outcomes seen in other type 2 inflammatory diseases.

Living with eosinophilic esophagitis can make swallowing difficult and uncomfortable. This condition causes inflammation in the esophagus, often leading to symptoms like dysphagia, which is the medical term for difficulty swallowing. New research looked at several treatments to see which ones actually helped patients feel better.

Researchers found that certain medications, including dupilumab and cendakimab, showed high levels of certainty in improving swallowing issues at 12 and 24 weeks. Additionally, budesonide in different forms showed clear benefits for patients. While many treatments helped the physical tissue of the esophagus, the study noted a gap between how the tissue healed and how the patients actually felt.

It is important to note that while these results are promising, many of the steroid trials were short-term. There were also no direct head-to-head comparisons between steroids and newer biologic drugs. Because of these gaps, patients should talk to their doctors to decide which treatment plan fits their specific needs.

What this means for you:
Specific medications like dupilumab and budesonide show high certainty in improving swallowing for patients.

Common questions

Which medications helped with swallowing issues?

The study found that dupilumab (300 mg) and cendakimab (360 mg) showed moderate-to-high certainty in improving dysphagia at 12 and 24 weeks. Budesonide also showed clear benefits for patients. These results help identify which drugs are most likely to improve symptoms for adolescents and adults.

What is histologic remission?

Histologic remission means the tissue of the esophagus shows very little inflammation. The study found that all tested agents except etrasimod showed moderate certainty benefits for histologic remission compared to a placebo over various time points.

Are there any limitations to these findings?

The study noted that most corticosteroid trials were short-term and there were no direct head-to-head comparisons between corticosteroids and biologics. Additionally, there was a noted difference between how well the tissue healed and how much the symptoms improved.

Study Details

Study typeSystematic review
EvidenceLevel 1
Follow-up2.8 mo
PublishedSep 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
BACKGROUND & AIMS: The 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. METHODS: PubMed, 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. RESULTS: Thirteen 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%). CONCLUSIONS: All 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.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.