At the AGA postgraduate course in May, we highlighted recent noteworthy randomized controlled trials (RCT) using eosinophil-targeting biologic therapy, esophageal-optimized corticosteroid preparations, and dietary elimination in EoE.
Dupilumab, a monoclonal antibody that blocks interleukin-4 and IL-13 signaling, was tested in a phase 3 trial for adults and adolescents with EoE.1 In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, the efficacy of subcutaneous dupilumab 300 mg weekly or every other week was compared against placebo. Stringent histologic remission (≤ 6 eosinophils/high power field) occurred in approximately 60% who received dupilumab (either dose) versus 5% in placebo. However, significant symptom improvement was seen only with 300 g weekly dupilumab.
On the topical corticosteroid front, the results of two RCTs using fluticasone orally disintegrating tablet (APT-1011) and budesonide oral suspension (BOS) were published. In the APT-1011 phase 2b trial, patients were randomized to receive 1.5 mg or 3 mg daily or b.i.d. versus placebo for 12 weeks.2 High histologic response rates and improvement in dysphagia frequency were seen with all ≥ 3-mg daily-dose APT-1011, compared with placebo. However, adverse events (that is, candidiasis) were highest among those on 3 mg b.i.d. Thus, 3 mg daily APT-1011 was thought to offer the most favorable risk-benefit profile. In the BOS phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 2:1 to received BOS 2 mg b.i.d. or placebo for 12 weeks.3 BOS was superior to placebo in histologic, symptomatic, and endoscopic outcomes.
Diet remains the only therapy targeting the cause of EoE and offers a potential drug-free remission. In the randomized, open label trial of 1- versus 6-food elimination diet, adult patients were allocated 1:1 to 1FED (animal milk) or 6FED (animal milk, wheat, egg, soy, fish/shellfish, and peanuts/tree nuts) for 6 weeks.4 No significant difference in partial or stringent remission was found between the two groups. Step-up therapy resulted in an additional 43% histologic response in those who underwent 6FED after failing 1FED and 82% histologic response in those who received swallowed fluticasone 880 mcg b.i.d after failing 6FED. Hence, eliminating animal milk alone in a step-up treatment approach is reasonable.
We have witnessed major progress to expand EoE treatment options in the last year. Long-term efficacy and side-effect data, as well as studies comparing between therapies are needed to improve shared decision-making and strategies to implement tailored care in EoE.
Dr. Chen is with the division of gastroenterology and hepatology, department of internal medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. She disclosed consultancy work with Phathom Pharmaceuticals.
Summary content
7 Key Takeaways
-
1
Developed a paper-based colorimetric sensor array for chemical threat detection.
-
2
Can detect 12 chemical agents, including industrial toxins.
-
3
Production cost is under 20 cents per chip.
-
4
Utilizes dye-loaded silica particles on self-adhesive paper.
-
5
Provides rapid, simultaneous identification through image analysis.
-
6
Inspired by the mammalian olfactory system for pattern recognition.
-
7
Future developments include a machine learning-enabled reader device.
The guidelines emphasize four-hour gastric emptying studies over two-hour testing. How do you see this affecting diagnostic workflows in practice?
Dr. Staller: Moving to a four-hour solid-meal scintigraphy will actually simplify decision-making. The two-hour reads miss a meaningful proportion of delayed emptying; standardizing on four hours reduces false negatives and the “maybe gastroparesis” purgatory that leads to repeat testing. Practically, it means closer coordination with nuclear medicine (longer slots, consistent standardized meal), updating order sets to default to a four-hour protocol, and educating front-line teams so patients arrive appropriately prepped. The payoff is fewer equivocal studies and more confident treatment plans.
Metoclopramide and erythromycin are the only agents conditionally recommended for initial therapy. How does this align with what is being currently prescribed?
Dr. Staller: This largely mirrors real-world practice. Metoclopramide remains the only FDA-approved prokinetic for gastroparesis, and short “pulsed” erythromycin courses are familiar to many of us—recognizing tachyphylaxis limits durability. Our recommendation is “conditional” because the underlying evidence is modest and patient responses are heterogeneous, but it formalizes what many clinicians already do: start with metoclopramide (lowest effective dose, limited duration, counsel on neurologic adverse effects) and reserve erythromycin for targeted use (exacerbations, bridging).
Several agents, including domperidone and prucalopride, received recommendations against first-line use. How will that influence discussions with patients who ask about these therapies?
Dr. Staller: Two points I share with patients: evidence and access/safety. For domperidone, the data quality is mixed, and US access is through an FDA IND mechanism; you’re committing patients to EKG monitoring and a non-trivial administrative lift. For prucalopride, the gastroparesis-specific evidence isn’t strong enough yet to justify first-line use. So, our stance is not “never,” it’s just “not first.” If someone fails or cannot tolerate initial therapy, we can revisit these options through shared decision-making, setting expectations about benefit, monitoring, and off-label use. The guideline language helps clinicians have a transparent, evidence-based conversation at the first visit.
The guidelines suggest reserving procedures like G-POEM and gastric electrical stimulation for refractory cases. In your practice, how do you decide when a patient is “refractory” to medical therapy?
Dr. Staller: I define “refractory” with three anchors.
1. Adequate trials of foundational care: dietary optimization and glycemic control; an antiemetic; and at least one prokinetic at appropriate dose/duration (with intolerance documented if stopped early).
2. Persistent, function-limiting symptoms: ongoing nausea/vomiting, weight loss, dehydration, ER visits/hospitalizations, or malnutrition despite the above—ideally tracked with a validated instrument (e.g., GCSI) plus nutritional metrics.
3. Objective correlation: delayed emptying on a standardized 4-hour solid-meal study that aligns with the clinical picture (and medications that slow emptying addressed).
At that point, referral to a center with procedural expertise for G-POEM or consideration of gastric electrical stimulation becomes appropriate, with multidisciplinary evaluation (GI, nutrition, psychology, and, when needed, surgery).
What role do you see dietary modification and glycemic control playing alongside pharmacologic therapy in light of these recommendations?
Dr. Staller: They’re the bedrock. A small-particle, lower-fat, calorie-dense diet—often leaning on nutrient-rich liquids—can meaningfully reduce symptom burden. Partnering with dietitians early pays dividends. For diabetes, tighter glycemic control can improve gastric emptying and symptoms; I explicitly review medications that can slow emptying (e.g., opioids; consider timing/necessity of GLP-1 receptor agonists) and encourage continuous glucose monitor-informed adjustments. Pharmacotherapy sits on top of those pillars; without them, medications will likely underperform.
The guideline notes “considerable unmet need” in gastroparesis treatment. Where do you think future therapies or research are most urgently needed?
Dr. Staller: I see three major areas.
1. Truly durable prokinetics: agents that improve emptying and symptoms over months, with better safety than legacy options (e.g., next-gen motilin/ghrelin agonists, better-studied 5-HT4 strategies).
2. Endotyping and biomarkers: we need to stop treating all gastroparesis as one disease. Clinical, physiologic, and microbiome/omic signatures that predict who benefits from which therapy (drug vs G-POEM vs GES) would transform care.
3. Patient-centered trials: larger, longer RCTs that prioritize validated symptom and quality-of-life outcomes, include nutritional endpoints, and reflect real-world medication confounders.
Our guideline intentionally highlights these gaps to hopefully catalyze better trials and smarter referral pathways.
Dr. Staller is with the Division of Gastroenterology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.