• Annals of medicine · Dec 2025

    Meta Analysis

    Biologics for eosinophilic oesophagitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

    • Beibei Zeng, Doudou Jia, Shengen Li, Xuna Liu, Boxu Zhu, Yanqi Zhang, Yan Zhuang, and Fei Dai.
    • Department of Gastroenterology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China.
    • Ann. Med. 2025 Dec 1; 57 (1): 24451922445192.

    ObjectiveAdvancing the understanding of the pathophysiology of eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) and other eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) has spurred research into targeted biological therapies, while the conclusive therapeutic efficacy of biologics remains uncertain. In this review, we conducted a meta-analysis of all RCTS of biologics in the treatment of EoE to evaluate their efficacy and safety and discussed their treatment of non-EoE EGIDs.MethodsWe searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases. Double-blind randomized controlled trials comparing biologics with placebo in patients with EoE and non-EoE EGIDs were collected and further screened for inclusion and exclusion. The caliber of the included literature was evaluated using the Cochrane risk assessment tool findings. Data extraction and meta-analysis were conducted using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17.0. Clinical response and histological remission were the major endpoints.ResultsOur search retrieved 3,237 articles. There were seven trials in total, comprising 792 people with EoE. Key outcomes of this meta-analysis include the following: Anti-IL-5 biologics exhibited statistically significant benefits in histological remission (RR 2.03 [CI 1.45-2.85]; p < 0.0001) compared to the placebo, but there was no significant difference in symptom relief (RR 1.06 [CI 0.88 to 1.28]; p = 0.53); anti-IL-4/13 biologics had significant effects on histologic improvement (RR 10.48 [CI 5.54-19.82]; p < 0.00001) and symptom related score reduction (RR 1.44 [CI 1.08-1.93]; p = 0.01), with a better outcome for endoscopic remission than with placebo (SMD-1.06 [CI-1.26-0.86], p < 0.00001); no statistically significant differences in adverse effects were observed between the intervention and control groups.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the biologics currently being investigated are considered safe and effective treatments for EoE, while their efficiency varies. However, the discussion of biologics in non-pharyngitis EGID is hampered by a lack of research, necessitating more research in high-quality trials.

      Pubmed     Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…