Dove Press is a member of the Open Access Initiative, specializing in peer reviewed Medical Journals. View articlesor submit your research for publishing

The Milk Allergy in Primary (MAP) Care guideline was first published in 2013 in this journal. MAP aimed to provide simple and accessible algorithms for UK clinicians in primary care, detailing all the steps between initial presentation, through diagnosis, management and tolerance development. Despite its UK focus, it soon became clear that MAP was being accessed internationally and thus an updated International Milk Allergy in Primary Care (iMAP) guideline was published in 2017. Both guidelines used existing international consensus guidelines to develop accessible algorithms accompanied by patient information leaflets. In 2018, the guidelines were criticised for 3 distinct reasons: promoting the overdiagnosis of cow’s milk allergy (CMA), negatively impacting breastfeeding and the possibility of industry influence on the guidelines. The authors address these criticisms using available evidence and, in the context of this and in consultation with patient groups, members of the General Practice Infant Feeding Network and other infant feeding healthcare leads, have collaboratively produced updated algorithms and an information leaflet to support breastfeeding. We believe iMAP is now closer to its original aim of facilitating early and accurate diagnosis of CMA, whilst minimising, as far as possible, any concerns around overdiagnosis or a risk to breastfeeding rates. We continue to welcome open and constructive engagement about how best to achieve these aims to provide evidence-based, practical guidelines for the primary care practitioner.

Guidelines and recommendations for the diagnosis and management of cow’s milk allergy (CMA) in childhood are based on scientific review of the available evidence. While this approach is the most rigorous, guidelines may not fully address all scenarios encountered by clinicians. Many symptoms of CMA overlap with other common childhood illnesses and are subjectively reported by the caregivers of the infant, as is the interpretation of the dietary interventions. Additionally, many healthcare professionals and caregivers do not follow the recommendations to perform an oral food challenge or reintroduction of cow’s milk after a diagnostic elimination diet because (1) the infant is doing well and (2) the carer’s fear of symptoms relapsing with this procedure. As a result, CMA in infants may be either under-diagnosed leading to reduced quality of life for families or over-diagnosed, resulting in unnecessary long-term elimination diets and increasing the risk for nutritional deficiencies. This paper discusses some of these controversial topics, focusing on misdiagnosis and mismanagement in clinical practice. The lack of objective diagnostic criteria can hamper the diagnosis and management of CMA in daily practice.

The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the practical diagnostic and therapeutic approaches to eosinophilic esophagitis and to increase the visibility of the disease among pediatricians. A search of the MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL databases and recent consensus statements and guidelines were performed. The definition of eosinophilic esophagitis is based on symptoms and histology. It is important to rule out other diseases associated with esophageal eosinophil-predominant inflammation. It is not yet clear whether the increased prevalence is due to a real increase in incidence or a result of increased awareness of the disease. Various options for management have been used in pediatric patients, including proton pump inhibitors, dietary restriction therapies, swallowed topical steroids, and endoscopic dilations. More recently, proton pump inhibitor-responsive esophageal eosinophilia and eosinophilic esophagitis have been contemplated on the same spectrum, and proton pump inhibitors should be considered the initial step in the treatment of these patients. Eosinophilic esophagitis is a relatively new disease with a remarkable progression of its incidence and prevalence in the past two to three decades, and diagnostic criteria that are constantly evolving. It is important to better understand the pathogenesis of the disease, the predisposing factors, the natural history, and the categorization of varying phenotypes to develop diagnostic and therapeutic strategies that meet the clinical needs of patients.

To assess intra- and interobserver agreement among non-expert pathologists in identifying features of the eosinophilic esophagitis histologic scoring system (EoEHSS) in pediatric patients. The authors used 50 slides from patients (aged 1-15 years; 72% male) with EoE. EoEHSS evaluates eosinophilic inflammation and other features including epithelial basal zone hyperplasia, eosinophilic abscesses, eosinophil surface layering, dilated intercellular spaces, surface epithelial alteration, dyskeratotic epithelial cells, and lamina propria fibrosis. Grade and stage of abnormalities are scored using a 4-point scale (0 normal; 3 maximum change). Four pathologists determined EoEHSS findings on two occasions. Intra- and interobserver agreement was assessed using Kappa (κ) statistics and intra-class correlation coefficients. Intra- and interobserver agreement for the identification of eosinophil counts ≥ 15/high power field (HPF) was excellent, however varied when assessing additional features of the EoEHSS. For the more experienced pathologist, agreement for most EoEHSS items and the composite scores was substantial to excellent. For the less experienced pathologists, intraobserver agreement ranged from absent to substantial for individual features and ranged from moderate to substantial for the composite scores. Most items of the EoEHSS had substantial to excellent reliability when assessed by a pathologist experienced in the diagnosis of EoE but presented lower repeatability among less experienced pathologists. These findings suggest that specific training of pathologists is required for the identification of EoEHSS characteristics beyond eosinophil count, as these features are considered useful in the evaluation of response to treatment and correlation with clinical manifestations and endoscopic findings.

To compare endoscopic and histologic features of pediatric patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) responding to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) to those not responding to PPI. Endoscopic reports and photographs of patients with symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and ≥15 eosinophils per high-powered field (eos/hpf) in esophageal biopsies prior to PPI trial were reviewed. Patients were classified as responsive to PPI (PPIREoE) or non-responsive to PPI (PPINREoE) according to response totreatment (<15 eos/hpf) at second endoscopy after 8 weeks. Of the 231 patients (72.3% male), 64 (27.7%) were responsive to the proton pump inhibitors. Edema (77.3% vs. 62.5%, p=0.031) and vertical lines (69.5% vs. 51.6%, p=0.014) were more frequent in PPINREoE patients. An eosinophil count in the mid-esophagus ≥ 35 eos/HPF (25.1% vs. 12.5%) was more frequent in these patients (p=0.001). Those with eosinophil count < 15 eos/HPF in the mid-esophagus at the first endoscopy were more likely to respond to treatment with proton pump inhibitors compared to patients with 15-34 eos/HPF (p=0.004, OR: 3.26, 95% CI: 1.46-7.24) and to patients with ≥ 35 eos/HPF (p=0.006, OR: 3.20, 95% CI: 1.39-7.41). Edema and vertical lines at the endoscopy and a higher eosinophil count in the mid-esophagus were more frequent in patients who were non-responsive to proton pump inhibitors. As there were no significant differences in the other findings between the groups, it cannot be affirmed that these characteristics are sufficient to differentiate between PPINREoE and PPIREoE patients.