Objective Crohn’s disease (CD) pathogenesis associated with dysbiosis and presence of pathobionts in the lumen, intracellular compartments and epithelial biofilms. Azithromycin is active in all three compartments. Our goal was to evaluate if azithromycin-based therapy can improve response and induce remission compared with metronidazole alone in paediatric CD. Design This blinded randomised controlled trial allocated children 5–18 years with 1012.5 or remission using intention to treat analysis. Results 73 patients (mean age 13.8±3.1 years) were enrolled, 35 to group 1 and 38 to group 2. Response and remission rates at week 8 were identical 23/35 (66%) in group 1 and 17/38 (45%) and 15/38 (39%) in group 2 (P=0.07 and P=0.025, respectively). The needed to treat for remission was 3.7. Faecal calprotectin declined significantly in group 1 (P=0.003) but not in group 2 (p=0.33), and was lower at week 8 (P=0.052). Additional therapy was required in 6/35(17%) from group 1 versus 16/38(42%) in group 2 (P=0.027) by week 8. Among 12 failures in group 2, open-label azithromycin led to remission in 10/12 (83%). Conclusions The combination of azithromycin and metronidazole failed to improve response but was superior for induction of remission and reduction in calprotectin. Trial registration number NCT01596894.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune/antigen mediated inflammatory disease of the esophagus. It comprises a separate entity of increasing incidence and prevalence in children and adults. The disease is characterized by histological evidence of dense esophageal tissue eosinophilia in the presence of a variety of upper GI symptoms including vomiting, dysphagia, food impaction and odynophagia. Cornerstone of treatment is dietary intervention and/or the off-label use of swallowed topical corticosteroids. New drug therapies are under investigation. In this review we focus on the diagnostic approach and the currently available treatment strategies. Keywords: Eosinophilic esophagitis, oral viscous budesonide, fluticasone propionate, oral steroids, amino acid-based formula, empiric elimination diet, targeted elimination diet Key points: 1. A trial with antisecretory medication is necessary to exclude GERD and PPI-responsive esophageal eosinophilia and to fulfil the diagnostic criteria of EoE. 2. Elimination diet and/or off-label use of topical corticosteroids are effective measures for treating EoE. 3. Elimination diet is the first line treatment in atopic children. 4. Systemic corticosteroids are reserved for patients with severe disease requiring immediate relief, or when other treatments have failed. 5. Cromolyn sodium (sodium cromoglycate) and leukotriene receptor antagonists, are not currently recommended for treating EoE, due to lack of solid evidence of benefit. 6. Immunosuppressive drugs and biologics have shown some value but effect has been limited and therefore not yet recommended as standard therapy.

Background and Aims: Thromboprophylaxis use in paediatric inflammatory bowel disease [IBD] is inconsistent. Current guidelines only support treating children with acute severe colitis with risk factors. We convened an international RAND panel to explore thromboprophylaxis in paediatric IBD inpatients in the context of new evidence. Methods: We convened a geographically diverse 14-person panel of paediatric gastroenterologists alongside supporting experts. An online survey was sent before an online meeting. Panellists were asked to rate the appropriateness of thromboprophylaxis in hospitalised paediatric IBD patients via 27 scenarios of varying ages, gender, and phenotype, with and without thrombotic risk factors. Anonymised results were presented at the meeting. A second modified survey was distributed to all panellists present at the meeting. Results from the second survey constitute the RAND panel results. The validated RAND disagreement index defined disagreement when ≥ 1. Results: The combined outcome of thromboprophylaxis being considered appropriate until discharge and inappropriate to withhold was seen in 20 of 27 scenarios, including: all patients with new-onset acute severe colitis; all flares of known ulcerative colitis, irrespective of risk factors except in pre-pubescent patients with limited disease and no risk factors; and all Crohn’s patients with risk factors. Disagreement was seen in five scenarios regarding Crohn’s without risk factors, where outcomes were already uncertain. Conclusions: RAND panels are an established method to assess expert opinion in areas of limited evidence. This work therefore constitutes neither a guideline nor a consensus; however, the findings suggest a need to re-evaluate the role of thromboprophylaxis in future guidelines.

Background: Over the last decades, the use of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopic procedures has been increased in children worldwide, allowing the early diagnosis and therapeutic intervention in multiple GI diseases. Aims and Methods: In order to evaluate the appropriateness and the diagnostic yield of initial GI endoscopic techniques in children in a Portuguese tertiary hospital, we performed a retrospective cohort study during a 12-month period. Results:A total of 308 procedures were performed in 276 patients; the median age was 11 years and 50.4% were males. Esophago-gastro-duodenoscopy (EGD) corresponded to 81.8% of the procedures and ileo-colonoscopy (IC) to the remaining; 11.6% of the patients underwent both EGD and IC. Overall, 51.3% of the exams showed abnormal macroscopic findings, and 69.6% showed histopathological signs of disease, with IC showing significantly more positive results than EGD (p < 0.05). Considering the different indications independently, abnormal serology for celiac disease, suspected ingestion of foreign bodies, suspected inflammatory bowel disease, and food impaction were frequent in our population; and in the majority of the cases, the suspected diagnosis was confirmed: celiac disease, ingestion of foreign bodies, inflammatory bowel disease, and eosinophilic esophagitis, respectively. On the other hand, despite the high frequency of epigastric pain in this population, only nearly one-third of the patients showed abnormal histological findings. The final diagnosis was established in 63% of the patients, and 39.1% initiated the new treatment. Discussion:Our results emphasize the importance of endoscopic procedures, especially IC, in the diagnosis of GI diseases in pediatric patients, as well as the careful choice of the endoscopic techniques in those with less specific symptoms, as chronic abdominal pain. In this particular situation, given the proportion of cases that may be due to functional disease, good characterization of the clinical context is needed, and endoscopy should be reserved for a second-line approach. Conclusion: It is important to monitor and examine the endoscopic techniques as an index of quality criteria for clinical practice.