Budesonide

Relapse (Yes/No) was defined as meeting both the eosinophil histology relapse criterion and the dysphagia symptom relapse criterion. Eosinophil histology relapse was defined as an eosinophil count of greater than or equal to(\> or =) 15 per high-power field (eos/hpf) from at least 2 of 3 levels of the esophagus. Dysphagia symptom relapse was defined as having at least 4 days of dysphagia (with answer 'Yes' for question 2 in DSQ \[Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire\]) in the 2-week period prior to the scheduled visit, as determined by the DSQ.

Histologic response was defined as a peak eosinophil count of less than or equal to (\<=) 6/ high-powered field (HPF) across all available esophageal levels at final treatment period evaluation (Week 16). Histologic response after 12 weeks of double blind treatment at Week 16 was reported.

Dysphagia symptom response was defined as greater than or equal to (\>=) 30 percent (%) reduction in the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ) combined score (questions 2+3). DSQ contained 4 questions, all participants used a diary, and responded to Questions 1 (did you eat solid food) and 2 (did food pass slowly or get stuck). If the participant's answer to Question 2 was 'No', the diary ended for that day. If a participant answered 'Yes', he/she advanced to Questions 3 (did you have to do anything to make the food go down or get relief) and 4 (extent to which the participant experienced pain while swallowing). DSQ score= (\[sum of points from questions 2+3 in the daily DSQ\]×14)/ Number of diaries reported with non-missing data. Dysphagia symptom response after 12 weeks of double blind treatment at Week 16 was reported.

Histologic response was defined as a peak eosinophil count \</= 6/high power field (light microscopy) (HPF) across all esophageal levels at the final treatment evaluation (Week 16). An independent, central pathologist determined the peak eosinophil count from the proximal, mid-, and distal levels and selected the maximum peak value. Histopathology data were collected in a blinded fashion.

Participants' dysphagia symptoms were evaluated using the 4-item DSQ. The questionnaire was developed by the Sponsor, as an ePRO measure, according to the principles of the Final Guidance for Industry for Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PRO Guidance December 2009). All participants used a diary, and responded to Questions 1 (did you eat solid food) and 2 (did food pass slowly or get stuck). If the participant's answer to Question 2 was 'No', the diary ended for that day. If a participant answered 'Yes', he/she advanced to Questions 3 (did you have to do anything to make the food go down or get relief) and 4 (extent to which the participant experienced pain while swallowing).The DSQ score was calculated based on responses to Questions 2 and 3 \[14 x (sum of points from Questions 2 and 3 in the daily DSQ)/number of diaries with non-missing data\]. Baseline was the DSQ score of the 14-day period before randomization. A negative change from baseline indicates that symptoms decreased.

Response was defined as a ≥50% reduction from baseline in the eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) clinical symptom score (CSS) and a reduction in peak eosinophil count to ≤6/high power field (light microscopy) from esophageal biopsies collected at the final evaluation. The EoE CSS, scored from 0 to 18 by a doctor, assessed 6 categories: 1) heartburn, 2) abdominal pain, 3) nocturnal awakening with symptoms, 4) nausea, regurgitation, or vomiting, 5) anorexia or early satiety, and 6) dysphagia, odynophagia, or food impaction (a severe symptom). Each domain was scored as follows, based on symptoms in the 2 weeks prior to the assessment: 0 = No symptoms and no coping behaviors required; 1 = Mild: Symptoms limited to 1-3 days or no symptoms because coping behaviors were required to avoid symptoms; 2 = Moderate: Symptoms on \>3 days, with or without minor coping behaviors; 3 = Severe: Symptoms interfered with activities of daily living or symptoms persisted and required major coping behaviors.