Methods: This was a retrospective cohort study of EoE patients at a large tertiary care health system. Demographics, clinical characteristics, and endoscopic findings were extracted from medical records, and patients who had a feeding tube were identified. Patients with and without a feeding tube were compared. Details about the tube, complications, and treatment were extracted. Growth, global symptomatic, endoscopic, and histopathologic (<15 eos/hpf) responses were compared before and after the initiation of feeding tube therapy. Results: We identified 39 of 1216 EoE patients who had a feeding tube (3%). Feeding tube patients were younger (mean age 6.3 years), reported more vomiting, and had a lower total endoscopic reference score than non-feeding tube patients (P < 0.01 for all). Tubes were used for therapy for an average of 6.8 years, with most patients (95%) receiving both pharmacologic and formula treatment for EoE. An emergency department visit for a tube complication was requir

2.0 mg twice daily (b.i.d.) (phase 2, NCT01642212; phase 3, NCT02605837) in patients aged 11–17 years with EoE and dysphagia. Efficacy endpoints included histologic (≤6, ≤1, and <15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]), dysphagia symptom (≥30% reduction in Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire [DSQ] scores from baseline), and clinicopathologic (≤6 eos/hpf and ≥30% reduction in DSQ scores from baseline) responses at week 12. Change from baseline to week 12 in peak eosinophil counts, DSQ scores, EoE Histology Scoring System (EoEHSS) grade (severity) and stage (extent) total score ratios (TSRs), and total EoE Endoscopic Reference Scores (EREFS) were assessed. Safety outcomes were also examined. Results: Overall, 76 adolescents were included (BOS, n = 45; placebo, n = 31). Significantly more patients who received BOS than placebo achieved histologic responses (≤6 eos/hpf: 46.7% vs 6.5%; ≤1 eos/hpf: 42.2% vs 0.0%; <15 eos/hpf: 53.3% vs 9.7%; P < 0.001) and a clinicopathologic response (31.