Montelukast Was Inefficient in Maintaining Steroid-Induced Remission in Adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis
Background and Aims
Leukotriene D4 is produced by and functions as a chemotactic factor for eosinophils. Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is characterized by esophageal eosinophilic infiltration, determining structural changes and dismotility symptoms. Montelukast, a selective leukotriene D4 receptor antagonist, has gained increasing consideration as a therapeutic agent for EoE. However, limited available information has shown that montelukast is not effective in reducing eosinophilic infiltration. Our paper aims at evaluating whether montelukast could be consider as a steroid-sparing therapy by assessing its efficacy in maintaining both clinical and histopathological remission achieved after topical corticosteroids in adult EoE patients.
Eleven consecutively diagnosed adult EoE patients were prospectively studied. Esophageal biopsies were obtained before and after a 6-month treatment with fluticasone propionate 400 μg/twice a day. Immediately after that, montelukast 10 mg/day was instituted. A new endoscopy was foreseen after a new 3-month period, or as soon as the patients presented esophageal symptoms. Symptoms were assessed by using a questionnaire before and after fluticasone propionate treatment and after montelukast therapy.
Eosinophils density into the esophageal epithelium and lamina propria was significantly reduced after a 6-month treatment with topical steroids (P = 0.003) and increased to levels similar to baseline level into the first 3 months after treatment with montelukast. Baseline symptom scores significantly decreased after treatment with topical steroids (P = 0.003) and increased again after montelukast therapy, but baseline levels improved.
Montelukast was not efficient in maintaining the histopathological or clinical response achieved by topical steroids in adult EoE patients.
KeywordsEosinophilic esophagitis Allergic esophagitis Montelukast Anti-leukotriene Leukotriene D4 Dysphagia
We would like to thank Dr Jose María Tenias Burillo for providing us with his methodological support. This study was funded in part by the Castilla-La Mancha Health Research Foundation (Fundación para la Investigación Sanitaria de Castilla-La Mancha or FISCAM), grant number AN-2008/21.
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any conflict of interest or affiliation with any of the institutions, organizations or companies mentioned in this manuscript.
- 1.Liacouras CA, Furuta GT, Hirano I, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis: updated consensus recommendations for children and adults. Eosinophilic esophagitis in children and adults: a systematic review and consensus recommendations for diagnosis and treatment. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2011. (Epub ahead of print). doi: 10.1016/j.jaci.2011.02.040
- 9.Borda F, Jiménez FJ, Martínez Peñuela JM, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis: an underdiagnosed entity? Rev Esp Enf Dig. 1996;88:701–704.Google Scholar
- 20.Stumphy J, Al-Zubeidi D, Guerin L, et al. Observations on use of montelukast in pediatric eosinophilic esophagitis: insights for the future. Dis Esophagus 2011;24:229–341.Google Scholar
- 23.Arora AS, Yamazaki K. Eosinophilic esophagitis: asthma of the esophagus? Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2004;2:523–530.Google Scholar