The revised BSPGHAN guidelines for the diagnosis and management of coeliac disease represent an important shift in diagnostic strategy, aimed at simplifying and shortening the diagnostic process in selected cases. Guidance is given concerning the indications for testing for coeliac disease, which is still significantly underdiagnosed in the UK. While screening data suggest a likely incidence of 1 in 100 persons, only 10%-20% of this figure is currently being diagnosed.The BSPGHAN guidelines follow the new ESPGHAN guidelines in overall diagnostic strategy, while providing more didactic stratagems, which should be of assistance for paediatricians in specialties other than gastroenterology. BSPGHAN GUIDELINEThis guideline extends the earlier BSPGHAN guideline (based on NASPGHAN Coeliac Guideline of 2005 1 and the original guideline from the Welsh Paediatric Gastroenterology MCN 2 ) to incorporate the changed ESPGHAN 2012 diagnostic guideline.3 An outline of these guidelines (figures 1 and 2) are also available to download from the BSPGHAN and Coeliac UK websites. The British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) Coeliac Guideline for Adult Coeliac Disease, which differs in respect of biopsy stratagem, is available on the BSG website http://www.bsg.org.uk.Coeliac disease (CD) is not simply a gastrointestinal condition but an immune-mediated systemic disorder, strongly dependent on the human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DQ2 and DQ8 haplotypes. It is elicited by gluten and related prolamines in genetically susceptible individuals and characterised by a variable combination of gluten-dependent clinical manifestations, CD-specific antibodies and enteropathy. [3][4][5][6][7] Screening studies have shown prevalence much higher than previously recognised, and there is evidence of an increased incidence of both classic and non-classic presentations in UK children.

IBD in children with disease onset before the age of 2 years is frequently unclassifiable into Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, particularly treatment resistant, and can be indistinguishable from monogenic diseases with IBD-like phenotype.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is predominantly a respiratory disease. However, its significant impact on the gastrointestinal (GI) system is now well-known. SARS-CoV-2 enters cells via the angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE-2) receptor, which is abundantly expressed on lung cells, but also on enterocytes. Several etiopathogenetic mechanisms have been postulated to explain the GI involvement in COVID-19, including loss in intestinal absorption, microscopic mucosal inflammation and impaired ACE-2 function, which plays a significant role in maintaining gut homeostasis. In children the GI manifestations include anorexia, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and abdominal pain, which may represent the earliest presenting symptoms of the disease. However, although rare, a significant GI mucosal inflammation, such as terminal ileitis mimicking an atypical appendicitis, and other GI manifestations have been reported. COVID-19 pandemic has posed a significant challenge in healthcare provision in term of ability in providing safe diagnostic procedures, face-to-face consultations, and offering comprehensive care. For instance, changes in health services have raised the risk of empirical or sub-optimal management of chronic GI disorders such as inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) due to delayed endoscopic and clinical assessment. This review will discuss the acute GI involvement in COVID-19 in children and reflect on challenges and major changes observed in clinical practice during COVID-19 pandemic by sharing both the published literature and personal experience. We also suggest potential strategies for providing optimal gastroenterology care during this unprecedented era.

SUMMARY BackgroundAdalimumab is efficacious therapy for adults with Crohn's disease (CD).

Our data provide evidence that sirolimus seems to be effective as rescue therapy in a subgroup of children with severe IBD refractory to conventional therapies by inducing both clinical remission and mucosal healing.

Summary Background Aprepitant (Emend, Merck Sharp & Dohme Ltd, Haarlem, the Netherlands), a neurokinin‐1 receptor antagonist, prevents vomiting in a range of conditions. No data are available on its use in children with cyclical vomiting syndrome (CVS). Aim We investigated the efficacy of aprepitant as prophylactic treatment or acute intervention in CVS children refractory to conventional therapies. Methods Forty‐one children (median age: 8 years) fulfilling NASPGHAN criteria treated acutely (RegA) or prophylactically (RegP) with aprepitant were retrospectively reviewed. Primary outcome was the clinical response (decrease in frequency and intensity of CVS episodes). Secondary outcomes were: number of CVS episodes/year, number of hospital admissions/year, CVS episode duration, number of vomits/h, symptom‐free interval length (days), and school attendance percentage. The follow‐up period was 18–60 months. Results Sixteen children received RegP and 25 RegA. One child on RegP stopped treatment due to severe migraine. At 12‐months on intention‐to‐treat analysis, 13 children on RegP (81%) achieved either complete (3/16, 19%) or partial (10/16, 62%) clinical response. On RegA, 19 children (76%) had either complete (3/25, 12%) or partial (16/25, 64%) response (P = 0.8 vs. RegP). In both RegP and RegA, there was a significant decrease in CVS episodes/year, hospital admission number/year, CVS episode length, number of vomits/h, as well as an increase in symptom‐free interval duration and school attendance percentage. Side effects were reported only in RegP (5/16, 31%) including hiccough (3/16, 19%), asthenia/fatigue (2/16, 12.5%), increased appetite (2/16, 12.5%), mild headache (1/16, 6%) and severe migraine (1/16, 6%). Conclusion Aprepitant appears effective for both acute and prophylactic management of paediatric cyclical vomiting syndrome refractory to conventional therapies.

BackgroundCOVID-19 has impacted on healthcare provision. Anecdotally, investigations for children with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) have been restricted, resulting in diagnosis with no histological confirmation and potential secondary morbidity. In this study, we detail practice across the UK to assess impact on services and document the impact of the pandemic.MethodsFor the month of April 2020, 20 tertiary paediatric IBD centres were invited to contribute data detailing: (1) diagnosis/management of suspected new patients with IBD; (2) facilities available; (3) ongoing management of IBD; and (4) direct impact of COVID-19 on patients with IBD.ResultsAll centres contributed. Two centres retained routine endoscopy, with three unable to perform even urgent IBD endoscopy. 122 patients were diagnosed with IBD, and 53.3% (n=65) were presumed diagnoses and had not undergone endoscopy with histological confirmation. The most common induction was exclusive enteral nutrition (44.6%). No patients with a presumed rather than confirmed diagnosis were started on anti-tumour necrosis factor (TNF) therapy.Most IBD follow-up appointments were able to occur using phone/webcam or face to face. No biologics/immunomodulators were stopped. All centres were able to continue IBD surgery if required, with 14 procedures occurring across seven centres.ConclusionsDiagnostic IBD practice has been hugely impacted by COVID-19, with >50% of new diagnoses not having endoscopy. To date, therapy and review of known paediatric patients with IBD has continued. Planning and resourcing for recovery is crucial to minimise continued secondary morbidity.

MR-derived scores had comparable accuracy to those derived during visualization at colonoscopy for detecting biopsy-proven inflammation in our patient group. MR enterography might prove useful in guiding biopsy or monitoring treatment response. Collapse of a colonic segment did not impair assessment of inflammation.