Ethical Implications of Continuing Oral Immunotherapy After the Development of Eosinophilic Esophagitis

Abstract

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic allergic inflammatory disease requiring maintenance therapy. Traditionally, EoE has been a contraindication to oral immunotherapy (OIT) and a rationale for discontinuing treatment because OIT may induce EoE. Most, but not all patients with OIT-induced EoE experience symptom resolution and histologic remission after discontinuing OIT. Recent studies report OIT continuation even after EoE onset, despite the previously accepted standard of care. This creates clinical as well as ethical challenges for allergists treating these patients. Considering the published literature on EoE and OIT and the primary medical ethics principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, autonomy, and justice, we discuss the ethical implications of pursuing desensitization despite the potential complications associated with EoE. When ethical principles are in opposition, shared decision-making should be employed to determine whether OIT should be continued after an EoE diagnosis. This article highlights the ethical dilemmas allergists face when determining whether patients with a diagnosis of EoE should continue OIT.