Background: Poor adherence to clinical practice guidelines for eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) has been described and the diagnostic delay of the disease continues to be unacceptable in many settings.Objective: To analyze the impact of improved knowledge provided by the successive international clinical practice guidelines on reducing diagnostic delay and improving the diagnostic process for European patients with EoE.Methods: Cross‐sectional analysis of the EoE CONNECT registry based on clinical practice. Time periods defined by the publication dates of four major sets of guidelines over 10 years were considered. Patients were grouped per time period according to date of symptom onset.Results: Data from 1,132 patients was analyzed and median (IQR) diagnostic delay in the whole series was 2.1 (0.7‐6.2) years. This gradually decreased over time with subsequent release of new guidelines (p < 0.001), from 12.7 years up to 2007 to 0.7 years after 2017. The proportion of patients with stricturing of mixed phenotypes at the point of EoE diagnosis also decreased over time (41.3% vs. 16%; p < 0.001), as did EREFS scores. The fibrotic sub‐score decreased from a median (IQR) of 2 (1‐2) to 0 (0‐1) when patients whose symptoms started up to 2007 and after 2017 were compared (p < 0.001). In parallel, symptoms measured with the Dysphagia Symptoms Score reduced significantly when patients with symptoms starting before 2007 and after 2012 were compared. A reduction in the number of endoscopies patients underwent before the one that achieved an EoE diagnosis, and the use of allergy testing as part of the diagnostic workout of EoE, also reduced significantly over time (p = 0.010 and p < 0.001, respectively).Conclusion: The diagnostic work‐up of EoE patients improved substantially over time at the European sites contributing to EoE CONNECT, with a dramatic reduction in diagnostic delay.

Celiac disease (CD) is a genetically conditioned autoimmune process that appears in susceptible people. It can affect people of any age, and slightly predominates in females. It has a fairly homogenous global distribution, with an average prevalence of 1–2%, the frequency having increased in recent decades. The only effective treatment is a strict and permanent gluten-free diet (GFD), although the level of compliance is poor, at about 50% of cases. To monitor the effectiveness of the GFD, several procedures involving various approaches are employed: (a) Periodic visits by expert Nutritionists; (b) Clinical follow-up; (c) Serological time controls of specific antibodies; (d) Serial endoscopies with collection of duodenal biopsies; (e) Use of structured questionnaires; and (f) Determination of gluten peptides derived from gluten in faeces and/or urine. All of these procedures are useful when applied, alone or in combination, depending on the cases. Some patients will only need to consult to their doctors, while others will require a multidisciplinary approach to assess their compliance with the GFD. In children, normalization of duodenal mucosa was achieved in 95% of cases within two years, while it is more delayed in adults, whose mucosa take longer time (3–5 years) to heal completely.

Background: Swallowed topical corticosteroids (tC) are common therapy for patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). Widely heterogeneous results have occurred due to their active ingredients, formulations and doses.Objective: To assess the effectiveness of topical corticosteroid therapy for EoE in real‐world practice.Methods: Cross‐sectional study analysis of the multicentre EoE CONNECT registry. Clinical remission was defined as a decrease of ≥50% in dysphagia symptom scores; histological remission was defined as a peak eosinophil count below 15 per high‐power field. The effectiveness in achieving clinico‐histological remission (CHR) was compared for the main tC formulations.Results: Overall, data on 1456 prescriptions of tC in monotherapy used in 866 individual patients were assessed. Of those, 904 prescriptions with data on formulation were employed for the induction of remission; 234 reduced a previously effective dose for maintenance. Fluticasone propionate formulations dominated the first‐line treatment, while budesonide was more common in later therapies. A swallowed nasal drop suspension was the most common formulation of fluticasone propionate. Doses ≥0.8 mg/day provided a 65% CHR rate and were superior to lower doses. Oral viscous solution prepared by a pharmacist was the most common prescription of budesonide; 4 mg/day provided no benefit over 2 mg/day (CHR rated being 72% and 80%, respectively). A multivariate analysis revealed budesonide orodispersible tablets as the most effective therapy (OR 18.9, p < 0.001); use of higher doses (OR 4.3, p = 0.03) and lower symptom scores (OR 0.9, p = 0.01) were also determinants of effectiveness.Conclusion: Reduced symptom severity, use of high doses, and use of budesonide orodispersible tablets particularly were all independent predictors of tC effectiveness.

Background: The impact of biologics on the risk of postoperative complications (PC) in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is still an ongoing debate. This lack of evidence is more relevant for ustekinumab and vedolizumab. Aims: To evaluate the impact of biologics on the risk of PC. Methods: A retrospective study was performed in 37 centres. Patients treated with biologics within 12 weeks before surgery were considered “exposed”. The impact of the exposure on the risk of 30-day PC and the risk of infections was assessed by logistic regression and propensity score-matched analysis. Results: A total of 1535 surgeries were performed on 1370 patients. Of them, 711 surgeries were conducted in the exposed cohort (584 anti-TNF, 58 vedolizumab and 69 ustekinumab). In the multivariate analysis, male gender (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.2–2.0), urgent surgery (OR: 1.6; 95% CI: 1.2–2.2), laparotomy approach (OR: 1.5; 95% CI: 1.1–1.9) and severe anaemia (OR: 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3–2.6) had higher risk of PC, while academic hospitals had significantly lower risk. Exposure to biologics (either anti-TNF, vedolizumab or ustekinumab) did not increase the risk of PC (OR: 1.2; 95% CI: 0.97–1.58), although it could be a risk factor for postoperative infections (OR 1.5; 95% CI: 1.03–2.27). Conclusions: Preoperative administration of biologics does not seem to be a risk factor for overall PC, although it may be so for postoperative infections.

Musculoskeletal symptoms are the most common extraintestinal manifestations of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). An essential step in the management of these patients is to establish referral algorithms through the use of appropriate screening tools. Our objective was to evaluate the performance of two simple questionnaires to detect inflammatory arthritis (IA) in patients with IBD. Two questionnaires, one for detecting axial IA and the other for peripheral IA, were tested among 112 IBD unselected consecutive patients of both sexes, aged 18–45 years. The study period was from January to December 2016. Each questionnaire was composed of three simple questions. If the patient answered affirmatively at least to two of the three questions, the questionnaire was considered positive. Clinical diagnosis of IA based on an expert’s opinion was the reference gold standard. To obtain a weighted value of sensitivity and specificity, likelihood ratio (LR) values were calculated. Twenty-seven percent of the patients were considered positive responders to the axial questionnaire while 32% were considered positive responders to the peripheral questionnaire. Twenty-four patients (21.4%) were diagnosed with axial IA, whereas 26% had peripheral IA. The axial questionnaire yielded a sensitivity of 87.5% (67.6–97.3), specificity of 89.8% (81.5–92.2) and LR+ of 8.6 (4.5–16.2). For the peripheral questionnaire, these values were 82.8% (64.2–94.2), 87.4% (79–93.3), and 6.6 (3.8–11.4), respectively. Both questionnaires showed an adequate screening capacity for IA in patients with IBD. Their specificity, together with their simplicity, can make them suitable detection tools in gastroenterology and general medicine consultations.

Background: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) predominantly affects males across all ages; however, little is known about sex differences for other aspects of EoE. Objective: To investigate associations between sex and clinical presentation, endoscopic features, treatment choice and response in EoE patients in real‐world practice. Methods: Cross‐sectional analysis of the multicenter EoE CONNECT registry. The independent contribution of patients' sex and other relevant variables were statistically assessed by multivariate models. Results: A total of 2976 patients (76% male) were evaluated. Males were diagnosed at a younger age compared to females (32.7 ± 14.8 vs. 34.8 ± 15.6 years, respectively; p = 0.002) with similar diagnostic delay. EoE symptoms varied significantly between sexes, with food impaction predominating in males and dysphagia, heartburn, regurgitation and abdominal and epigastric pain in females. However, female sex contributed to higher symptom severity at diagnosis as measured with Dysphagia Symptom Score ( R ² = 0.57; p = 0.013) and presented higher peak eosinophil count in esophageal biopsies ( p = 0.005). Males showed increased risk of stricturing or mixed phenotypes (adjusted OR 1.43, 95%CI:1.05–1.96; p = 0.024). No association was found between patients’ sex and first‐line treatment modality: proton pump inhibitors (PPI) were preferred over topical corticosteroids in patients with inflammatory phenotypes instead of stricturing or mixed phenotypes, and in patients who did not present food impaction. Both topical corticosteroids and dietary interventions were preferred over PPI in pediatric patients regardless of sex. Conclusions: Sex is associated with clinical and phenotypical presentation of EoE at diagnosis, with more fibrotic findings in males but higher symptom score in females.