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.

In a prospective study, we validated the TTG-IgA procedure and the TTG-DGL procedure in identification of pediatric patients with or without celiac disease, without biopsy. German Clinical Trials Registry no.: DRKS00003854.

The European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) Polyposis Working Group developed recommendations to assist clinicians and health care providers with appropriate management of patients with juvenile polyposis. This is the first juvenile polyposis Position Paper published by ESPGHAN with invited experts. Many of the published studies were descriptive and/or retrospective in nature, consequently after incorporating a modified version of the GRADE system many of the recommendations are based on expert opinion. This ESPGHAN Position Paper provides a guide for diagnosis, assessment, and management of juvenile polyposis syndrome in children and adolescents, and will be helpful in the appropriate management and timing of procedures in children and adolescents. The formation of international collaboration and consortia is proposed to monitor patients prospectively to advance our understanding of juvenile polyposis conditions.

Familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) is a well-described inherited syndrome, characterized by the development of hundreds to thousands of adenomas in the colorectum, with implications in children and adolescents. Almost all adult patients will develop colorectal cancer if they are not identified and treated early enough. Identifying and screening for FAP commences in adolescence. The syndrome is inherited as an autosomal dominant trait and caused by mutations in the adenomatous polyposis (APC) gene. This European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) position paper provides a guide for diagnosis, assessment, and management of FAP in children and adolescents. This is the first position paper regarding FAP published by ESPGHAN. Literature from PubMed, Medline, and Embase was reviewed and in the absence of evidence, recommendations reflect the opinion of paediatric and adult experts involved in the care of polyposis syndromes. Because many of the studies that form the basis for the recommendations were descriptive and/or retrospective in nature, these of the recommendations are supported on expert opinion. This position paper will instruct on the appropriate management and timing of procedures in children and adolescents with FAP.

Objectives: 1. Investigate whether clustered cardiometabolic risk score, cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF), sedentary time (ST) and body mass index Z-scores (BMI Z-scores), differed between participants that met and did not achieve ≥60mins of daily moderate to vigorous intensity physical activity (MPVA). 2. Compare clustered cardiometabolic risk score, BMI Zscore, ST and MVPA by CRF status.Methods: 101 (n = 45 boys) 10-12year old participants took part in this cross-sectional study, conducted in Liverpool (Summer 2010) and Ulster (Spring 2011) UK. Assessments of: blood markers, stature, sitting stature, body mass, waist circumference, flow mediated dilation, and resting blood pressure were completed. CRF (VO2peak) was estimated using an individually calibrated treadmill protocol. Habitual MPVA and ST were assessed using an individually calibrated accelerometer protocol. Clustered cardiometabolic risk scores were calculated using blood markers and anthropometric measures. Participants were classified as active (≥60mins MVPA) or inactive and as fit or unfit. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to investigate differences in cardiometabolic risk, BMI Z-score, CRF and ST by activity status. MANCOVA was also completed to assess differences in cardiometabolic risk, MVPA, ST, and BMI Z-score by fitness status.Results: Inactive children exhibited significantly higher clustered cardiometabolic risk scores and ST, and lower CRF than active children. Unfit participants exhibited significantly higher clustered cardiometabolic risk scores, BMI Z-scores and ST and lower MVPA in comparison to fit participants. Conclusions:This study highlights the importance of children achieving 60mins MVPA daily and provides further evidence surrounding the importance of CRF for health.

MII-pH is increasingly used by paediatricians as the diagnostic tool for assessing gastro-oesophageal reflux disease and symptom association. There is wide variation in paediatric practice and a need for standardised practice.

No abstract

Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess differences in the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) by European pediatric (PG) and adult gastroenterologists (AG), and their self-reported adherence to guidelines. Methods: A multiple-choice questionnaire gauged the diagnostic and management strategies of gastroenterologists treating children or adults in 14 European countries and the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Results: Questionnaires were completed by 465 PG and 743 AG. PG were significantly more likely to take biopsies in patients with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction (86.2% PG vs 75.4% AG, P < 0.001) and to perform endoscopic follow-up (86.3% PG vs 80.6% AG, P < 0.001). After failure of proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs), topical steroids were the preferred second-line therapy; however, PG opted more frequently for elimination diets (47.5% PG vs 13.7% AG, P < 0.001). More PG than AG indicated having read recent guidelines (89.4% PG vs 58.2% AG, P < 0.001). Geographic differences in practice were reported, with respondents from the United Kingdom, Portugal, and Spain more often adhering to recommended biopsy protocols. Physicians in the UAE, France, Lithuania, and Poland tended to opt for steroid therapy or elimination diets as first-line therapy, in contrast to most other countries. Conclusions: Significant differences in general practice between PG and AG were demonstrated with notable divergence from consensus guidelines. International practice variations are also apparent. Among other strategies, educational activities to highlight current recommendations may help harmonize and optimize clinical practice.