Introduction: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is one of the most prevalent esophageal diseases and the leading cause of dysphagia and food impaction in children and young adults. This underlines the importance of optimizing diagnosys and treatment of the condition, especially after the increasing amount of knowledge on EoE recently published. Therefore, the UEG, EAACI ESPGHAN, and EUREOS deemed it necessary to update the current guidelines regarding conceptual and epidemiological aspects, diagnosis, and treatment of EoE. Methods: General methodology according to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system was used in order to comply with current standards of evidence assessment in formulation of recommendations. An extensive literature search was conducted up to August 2015 and periodically updated. The working group consisted of gastroenterologists, allergists, pediatricians, otolaryngologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists. Systematic evidence-based reviews were performed based upon relevant clinical questions with respect to patient-important outcomes. Results: The guidelines include updated concept of EoE, evaluated information on disease epidemiology, risk factors, associated conditions, and natural history of EoE in children and adults. Diagnostic conditions and criteria, the yield of diagnostic and disease monitoring procedures, and evidence-based statements and recommendation on the utility of the several treatment options for patients EoE are provided. Recommendations on how to choose and implement treatment and long-term management are provided based on expert opinion and best clinical practice. Conclusion: Evidence-based recommendations for EoE diagnosis, treatment modalities, and patients' follow up are proposed in the guideline.

EoE should be diagnosed when there are symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and at least 15 eosinophils per high-power field (or approximately 60 eosinophils per mm) on esophageal biopsy and after a comprehensive assessment of non-EoE disorders that could cause or potentially contribute to esophageal eosinophilia. The evidence suggests that PPIs are better classified as a treatment for esophageal eosinophilia that may be due to EoE than as a diagnostic criterion, and we have developed updated consensus criteria for EoE that reflect this change.

No abstract

Consensus diagnostic recommendations to distinguish gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) from eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) by response to a trial of proton pump inhibitors (PPI) unexpectedly uncovered an entity called “PPI-responsive oesophageal eosinophilia” (PPI-REE). PPI-REE refers to patients with clinical and histologic features of EoE that remit with PPI treatment. Recent and evolving evidence, mostly from adults, shows that PPI-REE and EoE patients at baseline are clinically, endoscopically and histologically indistinguishable, and have significant overlap in terms of features of Th2 immune-mediated inflammation and gene expression. Furthermore, PPI therapy restores oesophageal mucosal integrity, reduces Th2 inflammation and reverses the abnormal gene expression signature in PPI-REE patients, similar to the effects of topical steroids in EoE patients. Additionally, recent series have reported that EoE patients responsive to diet/topical steroids may also achieve remission on PPI therapy. This mounting evidence supports the concept that PPI-REE represents a continuum of the same immunologic mechanisms that underlie EoE. Accordingly, it seems counterintuitive to differentiate PPI-REE from EoE based on a differential response to PPI therapy when their phenotypic, molecular, mechanistic, and therapeutic features cannot be reliably distinguished. For patients with symptoms and histologic features of EoE, it is reasonable to consider PPI therapy not as a diagnostic test, but as a therapeutic agent. Due to its safety profile, ease of administration and high response rates (up to 50%), PPI can be considered a first-line treatment, before diet and topical steroids. The reasons why some EoE patients respond to PPI, while others do not, remain to be elucidated.

ObjectiveThe best approach for Helicobacter pylori management remains unclear. An audit process is essential to ensure clinical practice is aligned with best standards of care.DesignInternational multicentre prospective non-interventional registry starting in 2013 aimed to evaluate the decisions and outcomes in H. pylori management by European gastroenterologists. Patients were registered in an e-CRF by AEG-REDCap. Variables included demographics, previous eradication attempts, prescribed treatment, adverse events and outcomes. Data monitoring was performed to ensure data quality. Time-trend and geographical analyses were performed.Results30 394 patients from 27 European countries were evaluated and 21 533 (78%) first-line empirical H. pylori treatments were included for analysis. Pretreatment resistance rates were 23% to clarithromycin, 32% to metronidazole and 13% to both. Triple therapy with amoxicillin and clarithromycin was most commonly prescribed (39%), achieving 81.5% modified intention-to-treat eradication rate. Over 90% eradication was obtained only with 10-day bismuth quadruple or 14-day concomitant treatments. Longer treatment duration, higher acid inhibition and compliance were associated with higher eradication rates. Time-trend analysis showed a region-dependent shift in prescriptions including abandoning triple therapies, using higher acid-inhibition and longer treatments, which was associated with an overall effectiveness increase (84%–90%).ConclusionManagement of H. pylori infection by European gastroenterologists is heterogeneous, suboptimal and discrepant with current recommendations. Only quadruple therapies lasting at least 10 days are able to achieve over 90% eradication rates. European recommendations are being slowly and heterogeneously incorporated into routine clinical practice, which was associated with a corresponding increase in effectiveness.

PPI therapy induces clinicohistologic remission in half of patients with symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia. This finding should be interpreted with caution because of poor-quality evidence, heterogeneity, and publication bias.

No abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Swallowed topical-acting corticosteroids are recommended as first-line therapy for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Asthma medications not optimized for esophageal delivery are sometimes effective, although given offlabel. We performed a randomized, placebo-controlled trial to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of a budesonide orodispersible tablet (BOT), which allows the drug to be delivered to the esophagus in adults with active EoE. METHODS: We performed a double-blind, parallel study of 88 adults with active EoE in Europe. Patients were randomly assigned to groups that received BOT (1 mg twice daily; n ¼ 59) or placebo (n ¼ 29) for 6 weeks. The primary end point was complete remission, based on clinical and histologic factors, including dysphagia and odynophagia severity 2 on a scale of 0-10 on each of the 7 days before the end of the double-blind phase and a peak eosinophil count <5 eosinophils/high power field. Patients who did not achieve complete remission at the end of the 6-week double-blind phase were offered 6 weeks of open-label Gastroenterology 2019;157:74-86 CLINICAL AT treatment with BOT (1 mg twice daily). RESULTS: At 6 weeks, 58% of patients given BOT were in complete remission compared with no patients given placebo (P < .0001). The secondary end point of histologic remission was achieved by 93% of patients given BOT vs no patients given placebo (P < .0001). After 12 weeks, 85% of patients had achieved remission. Six-week and 12-week BOT administration were safe and well tolerated; 5% of patients who received BOT developed symptomatic, mild candida, which was easily treated with an oral antifungal agent. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of adults with active EoE, we found that budesonide oral tablets were significantly more effective than placebo in inducing clinical and histologic remission. Eudra-CT number 2014-001485-99; ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT02434029.