Longitudinal Growth Outcomes Following First-line Treatment for Pediatric Patients With Eosinophilic Esophagitis.

OBJECTIVES: No formal comparative effectiveness studies have been conducted to evaluate the effect of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) treatment choice on long-term growth in pediatric patients. Long-term studies of inhaled corticoid steroids in asthma, however, suggest possible effects on linear growth. The aim of this study was to compare longitudinal, anthropometric growth in children with EoE according to treatment approach. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, multicenter cohort study of anthropometric growth (height and body mass index [BMI] z scores) in pediatric (<18 years of age) patients newly diagnosed with EoE across 5 clinical sites between 2005 and 2014. We compared differences in growth according to treatment approach over a 12-month period. Modification by sex and age was examined and sensitivity analyses were conducted to assess robustness of results given study assumptions. RESULTS: In the 409 patients identified, the mean age and proportion male differed by treatment (P =  < 0.01 and P = 0.04, respectively). Baseline growth measures were associated with slight impairment of height at diagnosis (median baseline height z score of -0.1 [interquartile range -0.9, 0.8]). In general, treatment approach was not associated with any significant increase or decrease in expected growth over a 12-month period. Subtle decrease in linear growth was observed with treatment using a combined elemental and topical steroid (Δ height z score [adjusted]: -0.04; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.08, -0.01). Differences in linear growth differed by sex (P for interaction <0.01). For elemental formula in combination with topical steroids, only girls exhibited a significant decline in linear growth (Δ height z score [adjusted]: -0.24; 95% CI: -0.32, -0.17). A slight reduction in BMI was observed for patients treated with a combination of elemental diet and dietary elimination (Δ BMI z score [adjusted]: -0.07; 95% CI: -0.13, -0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of EoE, in general, is not associated with major anthropometric growth changes in most pediatric patients. Slight linear growth impairment was observed for topical steroid treatment, and sex differences in growth by treatment approach were observed. Future prospective studies should evaluate the effect of treatment on optimal growth and development and over a longer period of follow-up.

Practice Pattern Variation in Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis in the Carolinas EoE Collaborative: A Research Model in Community and Academic Practices.

OBJECTIVES: Differences in the initial management of pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) by practice setting have not been well characterized. We aimed to characterize these differences for sites in the Carolinas EoE Collaborative (CEoEC), a multicenter network of academic and community practices. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of pediatric EoE patients at five CEoEC sites: University of North Carolina (UNC) Hospital, Charlotte Asthma and Allergy Specialists, Greenville Health Systems, Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, and the Medical University of South Carolina Hospital. Cases of EoE were defined by consensus guidelines. Data were extracted from electronic medical records. We tested for differences among sites and used a multinomial model (polytomous regression) to assess associations between treatment and site, adjusting on patient factors. RESULTS: We identified 464 children with EoE across the CEoEC sites. The median age was highest at Wake Forest (11.4 years), the median eosinophil count was highest at UNC (69 eos/hpf), and UNC had the most male patients (82%). UNC used topical steroids for initial treatment in 86% of cases, compared with <1% in Greenville (P < 0.01). Greenville used dietary elimination more frequently than UNC (81% vs 2%, P < 0.01). Differences in treatment approach held after adjusting for potential baseline confounders. There was no significant association between patient factors and initial treatment approach. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences in EoE patient factors and treatment approaches were identified across CEoEC sites and were not explained by patient or practice factors. This suggests that institutional or provider preferences drive initial treatment approaches, and that more data are needed to drive best practice decisions.