暂无摘要。

Elemental diets have been employed for the management of various diseases for over 50 years, with several mechanisms mediating their beneficial effects. Yet, they are underutilized due to poor palatability, access, cost, and lack of awareness regarding their clinical efficacy. Therefore, in this review, we aimed to systematically search and review the literature to summarize the formulation variability, mechanisms of action, clinical applications, and tolerability of the elemental diets in gastrointestinal diseases. While large prospective trials are lacking, elemental diets appear to exhibit objective and subjective clinical benefit in several diseases, including eosinophilic esophagitis, eosinophilic gastroenteritis, inflammatory bowel diseases, small intestinal bacterial overgrowth, intestinal methanogen overgrowth, chemoradiotherapy-associated mucositis, and celiac disease. Although some data support the long-term use of elemental diets as an add-on supplement for chronic pancreatitis and Crohn\'s disease, most of the literature on exclusive elemental diets focuses on inducing remission. Therefore, subsequent treatment strategies for maintaining remission need to be adopted in chronic/relapsing diseases. Several mechanistic pathways were identified to mediate the effects of elemental diets, including food additive and allergen-free content, high passive absorption rate, and anti-inflammatory properties. High rates of intolerance up to 40% are seen in the trials where exclusive elemental diets were administered orally due to poor organoleptic acceptability; however, when tolerated, adverse events were rare. Other limitations of elemental diets are cost, access, and lifestyle/social restrictions. Moreover, judicious use is advised in presence of a concomitant restrictive food intake disorders. Elemental diets offer a potentially highly efficacious dietary intervention with minor side effects. Palatability, cost, access, and social restrictions are common barriers of use. Prospective clinical trials are needed to elucidate the role of elemental formulas in the management of individual diseases.

BACKGROUND: A combination of proton-pump inhibitors (PPI) and topical steroids (TS) is used to treat children with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE). However, a subset of children do not respond to this combination therapy. We aimed to identify the esophageal transcriptional, cell composition, and microbial differences between the non-responders (EoE-PPI-TSnr; n = 7) and responders (EoE-PPI-TSr; n = 7) to the combination therapy for EoE and controls (n = 9) using metatranscriptomics.
METHODS: Differential gene expression analysis was used to identify transcriptional differences, validated using the EoE diagnostic panel (EDP). Deconvolution analysis was performed to identify differences in their cell type composition. Microbiome analysis was conducted from esophageal biopsies RNAseq data, and microbial abundance was correlated with esophageal gene expression.
RESULTS: In all, 3164 upregulated and 3154 downregulated genes distinguished EoE-PPI-TSnr from EoE-PPI-TSr. Eosinophilic inflammatory response, cytokine signaling, and collagen formation pathways were significantly upregulated in EoE-PPI-TSnr. There was a 56% overlap in dysregulated genes between EoE-PPI-TSnr and EDP, with a perfect agreement in the directionality of modulation. Eosinophils, dendritic cells (DCs), immature DCs, megakaryocytic-erythroid progenitors, and T helper type 1 cells were significantly higher in EoE-PPI-TSnr. There was no significant difference in microbiome diversity. The relative abundance of Fusobacterium sp. and Acinetobacter sp. notably differed in EoE-PPI-TSnr and correlated with the key pathways.
CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide critical insights into the molecular, cellular, and microbial factors associated with the lack of response to PPI and TS combination therapy in children with EoE. This study advances our understanding of the pathobiology of EoE while guiding personalized treatment strategies.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic immune-mediated disease involving inflammation of the esophagus. Endoscopy is essential in the diagnosis and treatment of EoE and shows typical findings, including esophageal edema, rings, exudates, furrows, and stenosis. However, studies involving pediatric and adult patients with EoE suggest that even a normally appearing esophagus can be diagnosed as EoE by endoscopic biopsy. Therefore, in patients with suspected EoE, biopsy samples should be obtained from the esophagus regardless of endoscopic appearance. Moreover, follow-up endoscopies with biopsy after therapy initiation are usually recommended to assess response. Although previous reports of endoscopic ultrasonography findings in patients with EoE have shown diffuse thickening of the esophageal wall, including lamina propria, submucosa, and muscularis propria, its role in EoE remains uncertain and requires further investigation. Endoscopic dilation or bougienage is a safe and effective procedure that can be used in combination with medical and/or dietary elimination therapy in patients with esophageal stricture for the management of dysphagia and to prevent its recurrence.

2024年欧洲和北美儿科胃肠、肝病和营养学会发布了“儿童非食管嗜酸粒细胞性胃肠道疾病国际联合指南”，详细阐述了疾病的定义、流行病学、临床特征、诊治方法，为该病的临床实践提供了决策依据。本文对指南的主要内容进行解读。.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: Benralizumab is an eosinophil-depleting anti-interleukin-5 receptor α monoclonal antibody. The efficacy and safety of benralizumab in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis are unclear.
METHODS: In a phase 3, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assigned patients 12 to 65 years of age with symptomatic and histologically active eosinophilic esophagitis in a 1:1 ratio to receive subcutaneous benralizumab (30 mg) or placebo every 4 weeks. The two primary efficacy end points were histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) and the change from baseline in the score on the Dysphagia Symptom Questionnaire (DSQ; range, 0 to 84, with higher scores indicating more frequent or severe dysphagia) at week 24.
RESULTS: A total of 211 patients underwent randomization: 104 were assigned to receive benralizumab, and 107 were assigned to receive placebo. At week 24, more patients had a histologic response with benralizumab than with placebo (87.4% vs. 6.5%; difference, 80.8 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 72.9 to 88.8; P<0.001). However, the change from baseline in the DSQ score did not differ significantly between the two groups (difference in least-squares means, 3.0 points; 95% CI, -1.4 to 7.4; P = 0.18). There was no substantial between-group difference in the change from baseline in the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score, which reflects endoscopic abnormalities. Adverse events were reported in 64.1% of the patients in the benralizumab group and in 61.7% of those in the placebo group. No patients discontinued the trial because of adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS: In this trial involving patients 12 to 65 years of age with eosinophilic esophagitis, a histologic response (≤6 eosinophils per high-power field) occurred in significantly more patients in the benralizumab group than in the placebo group. However, treatment with benralizumab did not result in fewer or less severe dysphagia symptoms than placebo. (Funded by AstraZeneca; MESSINA ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04543409.).

BACKGROUND: Dupilumab is a human monoclonal antibody that blocks interleukin-4 and interleukin-13 pathways and has shown efficacy in five different atopic diseases marked by type 2 inflammation, including eosinophilic esophagitis in adults and adolescents.
METHODS: In this phase 3 trial, we randomly assigned, in a 2:2:1:1 ratio, patients 1 to 11 years of age with active eosinophilic esophagitis who had had no response to proton-pump inhibitors to 16 weeks of a higher-exposure or lower-exposure subcutaneous dupilumab regimen or to placebo (two groups) (Part A). At the end of Part A, eligible patients in each dupilumab group continued the same regimen and those in the placebo groups were assigned to higher-exposure or lower-exposure dupilumab for 36 weeks (Part B). At each level of exposure, dupilumab was administered in one of four doses tiered according to baseline body weight. The primary end point was histologic remission (peak esophageal intraepithelial eosinophil count, ≤6 per high-power field) at week 16. Key secondary end points were tested hierarchically.
RESULTS: In Part A, histologic remission occurred in 25 of the 37 patients (68%) in the higher-exposure group, in 18 of the 31 patients (58%) in the lower-exposure group, and in 1 of the 34 patients (3%) in the placebo group (difference between the higher-exposure regimen and placebo, 65 percentage points [95% confidence interval {CI}, 48 to 81; P<0.001]; difference between the lower-exposure regimen and placebo, 55 percentage points [95% CI, 37 to 73; P<0.001]). The higher-exposure dupilumab regimen led to significant improvements in histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic measures as compared with placebo. The improvements in histologic, endoscopic, and transcriptomic measures between baseline and week 52 in all the patients were generally similar to the improvements between baseline and week 16 in the patients who received dupilumab in Part A. In Part A, the incidence of coronavirus disease 2019, nausea, injection-site pain, and headache was at least 10 percentage points higher among the patients who received dupilumab (at either dose) than among those who received placebo. Serious adverse events were reported in 3 patients who received dupilumab during Part A and in 6 patients overall during Part B.
CONCLUSIONS: Dupilumab resulted in histologic remission in a significantly higher percentage of children with eosinophilic esophagitis than placebo. The higher-exposure dupilumab regimen also led to improvements in measures of key secondary end points as compared with placebo. (Funded by Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; EoE KIDS ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04394351.).

BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic inflammatory disease of the esophagus characterized by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction and histologically by predominantly eosinophilic infiltration of the squamous epithelium. European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) published a guideline in 2014; however, the rapid evolution of knowledge about pathophysiology, diagnostic criteria, and therapeutic options have made an update necessary.
METHODS: A consensus group of pediatric gastroenterologists from the ESPGHAN Working Group on Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Diseases (ESPGHAN EGID WG) reviewed the recent literature and proposed statements and recommendations on 28 relevant questions about EoE. A comprehensive electronic literature search was performed in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases from 2014 to 2022. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to assess the quality of evidence and formulate recommendations.
RESULTS: A total of 52 statements based on the available evidence and 44 consensus-based recommendations are available. A revision of the diagnostic protocol, options for initial drug treatment, and the new concept of simplified empiric elimination diets are now available. Biologics are becoming a part of the potential armamentarium for refractory EoE, and systemic steroids may be considered as the initial treatment for esophageal strictures before esophageal dilation. The importance and assessment of quality of life and a planned transition to adult medical care are new areas addressed in this guideline.
CONCLUSIONS: Research in recent years has led to a better understanding of childhood EoE. This guideline incorporates the new findings and provides a practical guide for clinicians treating children diagnosed with EoE.