Skip to main content
Download PDF

There is a long way from current clinical practice in Denmark compared to recent published English guideline on management of children with eosinophilic oesophagitis

BMC Pediatrics volume 24, Article number: 24 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

A low incidence of eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) in children in the North Denmark Region (NDR) were measured in 2007–2017. Few of the children diagnosed before 2017 were treated to remission suggesting a lack of awareness. While there currently are no guidelines for treating EoE in Denmark, a new English guideline was published in 2022 renewing focus on the disease.

Objective

The aim of this study was to measure the difference of current Danish clinical practice for treatment and follow-up of EoE children in the NDR with the new English guideline from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the British Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN).

Methods

This retrospective, register-based DanEoE cohort study included 31 children diagnosed with EoE between 2007 and 2021 in NDR. Medical records were reviewed and information about treatment and follow-up were collected.

Results

In 32% of the children with EoE in the NDR, first-line treatment corresponded with the new English guideline. One in 6 children were never started on any treatment even though treatment always is recommended. Histologic evaluation within 12 weeks as recommended was performed in 13% of the children.

Conclusions

In Denmark focus on improving EoE treatment and follow-up for children is needed, as there is a significant difference between current clinical practice and the recommendations in the new English guideline.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Eosinophilic oesophagitis (EoE) is a chronic, immune-mediated disease of the oesophagus characterized by oesophageal dysfunction, and inflammation with ≥15 eosinophils per high-power field (hpf) in the oesophageal epithelium [1]. EoE affects both adults and children [1]. The prevalence among children in Europe is 41/100,000 with an increasing incidence [2]. More adults than children are diagnosed with EoE [2], which may partly be explained by the complex symptomatology of the disease in children, resulting in lack of detection [3]. Infants, toddlers or young children may present with abdominal pain, heartburn, vomiting, food avoidance, and failure to thrive [3]. Typical symptoms for adolescents are dysphagia and food bolus obstruction [3]. If untreated EoE can lead to the development of oesophageal strictures, psychiatric comorbidity, and low quality of life [1, 4]. EoE is often easy to treat with Proton Pump Inhibitors (PPIs) or topical corticosteroids [5, 6]. Elimination diets are also a possibility but require more endoscopies and may have social side effects along with poor compliance [7]. Due to the heterogeneity of EoE several guidelines have been published to help clinicians to navigate and secure evidence-based treatment [8,9,10,11,12,13,14]. In Denmark, a national guideline for treatment of EoE in children does not exist and the tradition has been to use the ESPHGAN guideline from 2014 [9]. For the entire country a very low incidence has been found using the medical registries, probably mostly explained by a lack of detection [15]. In the North Denmark Region (NDR) all EoE children’s medical records were reviewed in a quality project for children diagnosed in 2007–2017 [16]. The project showed a diagnostic delay of more than 4 years, which is more than twice as long as compared to studies of other European countries [17]. Furthermore, these children were rarely treated and followed up according to the ESPHGAN guideline from 2014 [9, 16]. Since then, several efforts have been set in motion to raise awareness of EoE treatment in adults. It is thought to have affected the pediatric population too. In 2022 a new guideline from the British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and the British Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) was published and bring EoE into focus again [9, 10]. The aim of this study was to measure the difference of the current clinical practice for treatment and follow-up of EoE children in the NDR with the BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline.

Methods

Study population

This is a retrospective, population- and registry-based study of children in the DanEoE2 cohort. The DanEoE cohort has previously been described in detail [18]. Briefly, all citizens having an EoE diagnosis and living in NDR are included in the cohort by use of the pathology registry [19]. The pathology registry in Denmark is among the best in the world [20, 21]. The inclusion criteria for the cohort were at least one oesophageal biopsy with 15 or more eosinophils in one hpf between 2007 and 2017 (DanEoE) and 2018–2021 (DanEoE2). Exclusion criteria were living outside the NDR, and for this study age ≥ 18 years at diagnosis or not fulfilling the AGREE criteria for EoE [22]. In the pediatric part of the cohort all medical records, endoscopies and histology reports were reviewed and entered in the database by a medical student and discussed with an experienced gastroenterologist (ALK) for validation. We compared the BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline with the clinical practice in the DanEoE children from 2007 to 2021 to establish differences. The NDR is a geographically well-defined area with approximately 600,000 citizens, of which 120,000 are children. The composition of the citizens resembles the other four regions in Denmark ensuring a high external generalizability [15]. All Danish citizens have free access to the health care system. In Denmark, all individuals are assigned a unique security number that links all medical record including laboratory investigations, pathology, microbiology and radiology results [20, 21].

The BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline and recommendations

The BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline is evidence-based recommendations for the diagnostics and management of EoE in adults and children [10]. There are a total of 57 statements. The statements focusing on treatment and follow-up in children are presented in Supplemental Table 1. Briefly, first-line treatment may include high-dose PPIs, specific diets, or topical corticosteroids. The BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline recommends omeprazole 20 mg twice a day or equivalent. In this study omeprazole 20 mg twice a day is considered equivalent to pantoprazole 40 mg twice a day, lansoprazole 30 mg twice a day, esomeprazole 20 mg twice a day, or rabeprazole 20 mg twice a day. First-line treatment was defined as the first initiated therapy after eosinophilia was shown in a biopsy from the oesophagus. If the treatment failed, and a new treatment was initiated, it was considered a second-line treatment, whereas a dose change or change of diet was not.

Fig. 1
figure 1

Flowchart for the inclusion and exclusion process

Full size image

Statistics

Descriptive staticitcs were given as median and range (25–75 percentile [IQR]) or mean (stardarddeviation [SD]) for continuous varible as appropriate. Groups were compared with a Wilcoxon Rank Sum test. For categorical variables, counts and percentages were displayed. Incidence of our study population was calculated on the basis of data from the governmental institution Statistics Denmark (dst.dk). P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. The SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, Nc., USA) was used to perform the data management and statistics.

Results

Between 2007 and 2021 a total of 31 children was confirmed with EoE in the NDR (Fig. 1). Of the 31 patients diagnosed with EoE, 18 of the patients were diagnosed between 2007 and 2017 and 13 of the patients between 2018 and 2021. Data on the 18 patients diagnosed between 2007 and 2017 are previously published (DanEoE cohort) [16]. Differences compared to children diagnosed after 2017 (DanEoE2 cohort) will be presented in this study.

The DanEoE cohort and DanEoE2 cohort differences

Of the 13 children diagnosed between 2018 and 2021 (DanEoE2 cohort) 77% were males (10/13) and 23% were females (3/13). The median age at debut was 13 (11;15) years, this had not changed compared to 2007–2017 (p = 1.0). The median diagnostic delay was 123 weeks (60;393), which was numerically 19 weeks longer compared to 2007-17, but not statistically significant (p = 0.6). The incidence for EoE in children in 2018–2021 was 2.9/100,000 which was a numerical increase of 2.04/100,000 compared to 2007–2017.

Clinical practice in the NDR from 2007 to 2021 compared to the new guideline: First-line treatment and follow-up

The BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline recommends first-line treatment as either high-dose PPIs BID, topical corticosteroid, or elimination diet with a step-up approach starting with 2 food elimination diet

First-line treatment in consistent with the new guideline was initiated in 32% (10/31) of all patients and 31% (4/13) of the patients after 2017. One patient was treated with 2 food elimination diet, and the rest with high-dose PPIs BID (Fig. 2). Details are presented in Supplemental Table 2. Other treatment options not included in the new 2022 guideline was initiated in 52% (16/31) of the children (Fig. 2). This included different types of diets, low-dose PPIs, or a combination of these. Five patients (16%) were never treated (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

First-line treatment of EoE in children. The figure shows the percentage of cases with current clinical practice in the North Denmark Region in 2007–2021 that were in line with the new BSG and BSPGHAN guideline from 2022

Full size image

The BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline recommends systematic follow-up with both symptomatic and histologic evaluation within 12 weeks

In the NDR symptomatic follow-up was completed in 77% (24/31) of children (Figs. 3) and 85% (11/13) of the children after 2017. Histologic follow-up within 12 weeks was completed in 13% (4/31) of the children (Figs. 3) and 15% (2/13) of the children after 2017. Combined symptomatic and histologic remission after first-line treatment was achieved in 6% (2/31) within 12 weeks (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Percentage of clinical practice in North Denmark Region from 2007–2021 in line with follow-up after initial treatment recommended by the BSG and BSPGHAN.

Full size image

Clinical practice in the NDR from 2007 to 2017 compared to the new guideline: Second-line treatment, follow-up, and maintenance therapy

The BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline: If the initial treatment fails, it is recommended to start a second-line treatment in all cases

In the NDR second-line treatment consistent with the new guideline was started in 22% (5/23) of the patients without symptomatic and histologic remission after initial treatment. One child corresponding to 4% (1/23) achieved combined symptomatic and histologic remission after second-line treatment.

Follow-up recommendations after second-line treatmet are the same as after first-line

Only one child received third-line treatment. The child achieved symptomatic remission, but not histologic remission.

In total 10% (3/31) of the patients achieving combined symptomatic and histologic remission when efficacy of all treatments started were counted.

If the time aspect was not considered, a total of 42% (13/31) children were rebiopsied at some point. Of the patients who were rebiopsied, 30% (4/13) were rebiopsied after being transferred to an adult gastroenterologist at age 18.

The BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline recommends a maintenance treatment to prevent relapse

Maintenance treatment after ensured symptomatic and histologic remission was prescribed in 3% (1/31) of all the patients.

Discussion

This retrospective, register-based study of children with EoE in the NDR from 2007 to 2021 showed that current clinical practice is considerably different compared to the new English guideline from BSG and BSPGHAN. First-line treatment recommendations corresponded to 32% of treatments administrated in the children in the NDR. One in 6 children did not start on any treatment. Histologic evaluation within 12 weeks as recommended was performed in 13% of the children.

Study population and incidence

A rising incidence from 0.86 to 2.9/100,000 after 2017 was observed, indicating an increased recognition of the disease. Increasing of the EoE incidence is a national phenomenon documented by the Danish registry study by Allin et al. [15]. However, the increase in children is much lower than seen in adults and in general lower than the European average and globally [2, 15]. The median age in the current study was 13 years and unchanged between the two cohorts. In a retrospective, multicenter study of 410 children diagnosed between 1999 and 2016 from 26 European pediatric gastroenterology centers by Hoofien et al. the median age was reported to be 9.1 years [23]. A cross-sectional study from Spain with 148 prospectively recruited children with EoE diagnosed between 2014 and 2016 reported a median age of 10.43 years, but this study only recruited children under the age of 15 years [24]. The higher median age observed in our study indicates that the awareness of EoE in younger children needs improvement in Denmark. A considerable reason could be an insufficient focus of the disease in Medical Education activities. Particularly when educating Pediatricians and General Practitioners. Also, the unspecific symptomatology seen in younger children make them more difficult to diagnose. EoE is especially seen among atopic children [23], and the disease should therefore especially be considered in patients with atopy or other allergic diseases.

Differences between the ESPHGAN 2014 guideline used in Denmark up to 2022, and the recent published BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline

Since pediatricians in Denmark never have had a national guideline for EoE, the ESPHGAN guideline from 2014 have been recommended for clinical use. When comparing the 2014 and the 2022 guidelines, there are notable differences. The differences concerning treatment are (1) PPIs are no longer a trial to exclude gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD), but considered as a treatment option, and (2) step-up elimination diet starting with a two-food elimination has replaced targeted elimination diet of specific food triggers based on allergy testing [9, 10]. Treatment lengths and follow-up regiments are unchanged in the two guidelines [9, 10].

Management and treatment plan

Most of the children diagnosed with EoE started on treatment and almost all of them started PPI treatment. In most cases the dose was too low or was only taken once per day, suggesting that treatment reflected other possible diagnosis than EoE e.g., reflux among the pediatricians. Low-dose PPIs were often initiated in the children due to reflux symptoms, and the treating physician might have forgotten to increase the dose later, when the EoE diagnose was confirmed. The recommendations to divide the treatment in two doses per day is based on a meta-analysis from Lucendo et al. [25] that describes a non-significant trend towards increased efficacy for two times per day dosing compared with a onetime per day dose. Even though two doses per day are preferable and recommended, it is likely that some patients might have better compliance with one high dose PPI per day. The second most common treatment was diet treatment, but rarely in accordance with previous or current EoE guidelines. Histologic evaluations were rarely performed. General anesthesia and endoscopies might worry parents and clinicians in Denmark, but it is found to be safe [26, 27]. Symptoms do not correlate well with oesophageal inflammation and should not be used as the sole measure of disease activity [28]. Therefore, repeat biopsies are important to assed disease activity. Asymptomatic patients may still have inflammation, and untreated patients are believed to have an increased risk of fibrotic disease with stricturing in the future [29]. When comparing the period before and after 2017 regarding first line treatment and follow up within 12 weeks, there where almost no improvement. This add to the argument that medical activities have been lacking up till 2021 and more education is needed. Second-line treatment was started in one of five cases where this was relevant. Mostly the second-line treatment was treatment with topical corticosteroids. The impression from reviwing all the medical records is that Danish clinicians are reluctant to prescribe topical corticosteroids to children. This is unfortunate as topical corticosteroids are very effective with few and mild side effects e.g., oral candidiasis but not growth retardation, adrenal insufficiency, diabetes or osteoporosis [10, 23, 30]. Treatment with topical corticosteroids was only started if parents were recommended this by a specialist, indicating that EoE treatment would benefit from standardizing treatment in Denmark using a nationally recognized guideline.

Strength and limitations

The findings from the NDR is expected to be comparable to the rest of the country as the Danish regions have a very similar demographic [31]. The population-based cohort based on the pathology registries, followed by review of the medical records, and diagnosis based on the AGREE consensus is thought to ensure validity of data. However, it is a small study emphasizing the detection problems we have with EoE children. This has been shown in a national registry study to be a problem in all Danish regions [15]. With the current Danish practice there is a risk that many of the diagnosed EoE children are insufficiently treated. This study suggests that EoE treatment needs national attention.

Conclusion

Focus on improving treatment and follow-up for children diagnosed with EoE is still needed in Denmark, where significant differences between current clinical practice and the recommendations in the BSG and BSPGHAN 2022 guideline are observed.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

EoE:

Eosinophilic oesophagitis

NDR:

North Denmark Region

BSG:

British Society of Gastroenterology

BSPGHAN:

British Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology

PPI:

Proton Pump Inhibitor

Hpf:

High power field

GORD:

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease

References

  1. Liacouras CA, Furuta GT, Hirano I, Atkins D, Attwood SE, Bonis PA, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis: Updated consensus recommendations for children and adults. J Allergy Clin Immunol [Internet]. 2011;128(1):3–20. Available from: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L51361918&from=export.

  2. Navarro P, Arias Á, Arias-González L, Laserna-Mendieta EJ, Ruiz-Ponce M, Lucendo AJ. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the growing incidence and prevalence of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults in population-based studies. Aliment Pharmacol Ther [Internet]. 2019;49(9):1116–25. Available from: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L627203273&from=export.

  3. De Matteis A, Pagliaro G, Corleto VD, Pacchiarotti C, Di Giulio E, Villa MP, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis in children: clinical findings and Diagnostic Approach. Curr Pediatr Rev. 2020;16(3):206–14.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Mukkada V, Falk GW, Eichinger CS, King D, Todorova L, Shaheen NJ. Health-related quality of life and costs Associated with Eosinophilic Esophagitis: a systematic review. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2018;16(4):495–503e8.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Freedberg DE, Kim LS, Yang Y-X. The risks and benefits of long-term use of Proton Pump inhibitors: Expert Review and best practice advice from the American Gastroenterological Association. Gastroenterology. 2017;152(4):706–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Nennstiel S, Schlag C. Treatment of eosinophlic esophagitis with swallowed topical corticosteroids. World J Gastroenterol. 2020;26(36):5395–407.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Munoz-Persy M, Lucendo AJ. Treatment of eosinophilic esophagitis in the pediatric patient: an evidence-based approach. Eur J Pediatr. 2018;177(5):649–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Furuta GT, Liacouras CA, Collins MH, Gupta SK, Justinich C, Putnam PE, et al. Eosinophilic esophagitis in children and adults: a systematic review and consensus recommendations for diagnosis and treatment. Gastroenterology. 2007;133(4):1342–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Papadopoulou A, Koletzko S, Heuschkel R, Dias JA, Allen KJ, Murch SH, et al. Management guidelines of eosinophilic esophagitis in childhood. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2014;58(1):107–18.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Dhar A, Haboubi HN, Attwood SE, Auth MKH, Dunn JM, Sweis R, et al. British Society of Gastroenterology (BSG) and British Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (BSPGHAN) joint consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and management of eosinophilic oesophagitis in children and adults. Gut. 2022;71(8):1459–87.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vermeulen BD, Bogte A, Verhagen MA, Pullens HJM, Siersema PD. Management of eosinophilic esophagitis in daily clinical practice. Dis Esophagus. 2018;31(2):1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lucendo AJ, Molina-Infante J, Arias Á, von Arnim U, Bredenoord AJ, Bussmann C, et al. Guidelines on eosinophilic esophagitis: evidence-based statements and recommendations for diagnosis and management in children and adults. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2017;5(3):335–58.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Andersen IB, Bremholm L, Havelund T, Jørgensen SP, Krarup AL, Mohammadi M, et al. Eosinofil øsofagitis. 2019;1–16.

  14. Hirano I, Chan ES, Rank MA, Sharaf RN, Stollman NH, Stukus DR, et al. AGA Institute and the Joint Task Force on Allergy-Immunology Practice parameters Clinical guidelines for the management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis. Gastroenterology. 2020;158(6):1776–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Allin KH, Poulsen G, Melgaard D, Frandsen LT, Jess T, Krarup AL. Eosinophilic oesophagitis in Denmark: Population-based incidence and prevalence in a nationwide study from 2008 to 2018. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2022;10(7):640–50.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Hollænder M, Terkelsen JH, Kramme F, Bredal K, Kragholm K, Dalby K, et al. The incidence of eosinophilic oesophagitis in 2007–2017 among children in North Denmark Region is lower than expected. BMC Pediatr. 2022;22(1):183.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Shaheen NJ, Mukkada V, Eichinger CS, Schofield H, Todorova L, Falk GW. Natural history of eosinophilic esophagitis: a systematic review of epidemiology and Disease course. Dis Esophagus. 2018;31(8).

  18. Krarup AL, Drewes AM, Ejstrud P, Laurberg PT, Vyberg M. Implementation of a biopsy protocol to improve detection of esophageal eosinophilia: a Danish registry-based study. Endoscopy. 2021;53(1):15–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Erichsen R, Lash TL, Hamilton-Dutoit SJ, Bjerregaard B, Vyberg M, Pedersen L. Existing data sources for clinical epidemiology: the Danish National Pathology Registry and Data Bank. Clin Epidemiol. 2010;2:51–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Frank L. Epidemiology. The epidemiologist’s dream: Denmark. Vol. 301, Science. New York, N.Y.). United States;; 2003. p. 163.

  21. Frank L. Epidemiology. When an entire country is a cohort. Volume 287. Science (New York, N.Y.). United States;; 2000. pp. 2398–9.

  22. Spergel JM, Dellon ES, Liacouras CA, Hirano I, Molina-Infante J, Bredenoord AJ, et al. Summary of the updated international consensus diagnostic criteria for eosinophilic esophagitis: AGREE conference. Ann Allergy, Asthma Immunol. 2018;121(3):281–4.

  23. Hoofien A, Dias JA, Malamisura M, Rea F, Chong S, Oudshoorn J, et al. Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis: results of the European Retrospective Pediatric Eosinophilic Esophagitis Registry (RetroPEER). J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2019;68(4):552–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. La Mahillo-Fernández OIE, Fernández Fernández I, Barrio Torres S, Román Riechmann J, Gutiérrez Junquera E. Rising trend in p​ediatric eosinophilic esophagitis incidence in Spain: results of a prospective study 2014-16. Pediatr Allergy Immunol Off Publ Eur Soc Pediatr Allergy Immunol. 2021;32(6):1307–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Lucendo AJ, Arias Á, Molina-Infante J. Efficacy of Proton Pump Inhibitor Drugs for Inducing Clinical and histologic remission in patients with symptomatic esophageal eosinophilia: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol off Clin Pract J Am Gastroenterol Assoc. 2016;14(1):13–22e1.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Wengrower D, Gozal D, Gozal Y, Meiri C, Golan I, Granot E, et al. Complicated endoscopic pediatric procedures using deep sedation and general anesthesia are safe in the endoscopy suite. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;39(3):283–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sun LS, Li G, Miller TLK, Salorio C, Byrne MW, Bellinger DC, et al. Association between a single general anesthesia exposure before Age 36 months and neurocognitive outcomes in later childhood. JAMA. 2016;315(21):2312–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Frandsen LT, Westmark S, Melgaard D, Krarup AL. Effectiveness of PPI treatment and guideline adherence in 236 patients with eosinophilic oesophagitis-results from the population-based DanEoE cohort shows a low complication rate. United Eur Gastroenterol J. 2021;9(8):910–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Kumar S, Choi S, Gupta SK. Eosinophilic Esophagitis - A Primer for Otolaryngologists. JAMA Otolaryngol - Head Neck Surg [Internet]. 2019;145(4):373–80. Available from: https://www.embase.com/search/results?subaction=viewrecord&id=L626517069&from=export.

  30. Rosen I, Mahamed A, Garah J, Magen-Rimon R, Shaoul R. The management and course of eosinophilic oesophagitis in Israeli children. Acta Paediatr. 2021;110(5):1653–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Andersen O. Det Nye demografiske danmarkskort. 500th ed. København: Danmarks Statistiks Trykkeri; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

A special thanks to Kimberly Desouza for linguistic help.

Funding

The study was supported by an unrestricted grant from Vifor Pharma, and Marie Pedersen and Jensine Heibergs foundation (00026). The funders had no role in the design, conduct, or reporting of the study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark

    Kasper Bredal, Jacob Holmen Terkelsen, Martin Hollænder Nielsen, Dorte Melgaard & Anne Lund Krarup

  2. Center for Clinical Research, North Denmark Regional Hospital, Hjørring, Denmark

    Kasper Bredal, Jacob Holmen Terkelsen & Martin Hollænder Nielsen

  3. Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark

    Line Tegtmeier Frandsen & Anne Lund Krarup

  4. Department of Emergency Medicine and Trauma Center, Aalborg University Hospital, Hobrovej 18-22, Aalborg, DK-9000, Denmark

    Line Tegtmeier Frandsen, Dorte Melgaard & Anne Lund Krarup

Authors
  1. Kasper Bredal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Line Tegtmeier Frandsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jacob Holmen Terkelsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Martin Hollænder Nielsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Dorte Melgaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Anne Lund Krarup
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

KB, JHT, MHN, DM and ALK contributed to the study design. The data collection were completed by KB, LTF and ALK. All authors contribute to data analysis, writing and critically reviewing of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anne Lund Krarup.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

DanEoE was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency, ID number 2018–59. The ethical committee evaluated the project as not being in need of ethical approval within Danish law. The need for consent to participate was deemed unnecessary according to national regulations (The Ethics committee).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bredal, K., Frandsen, L.T., Terkelsen, J.H. et al. There is a long way from current clinical practice in Denmark compared to recent published English guideline on management of children with eosinophilic oesophagitis. BMC Pediatr 24, 24 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-023-04483-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12887-023-04483-3

Keywords

BMC Pediatrics

ISSN: 1471-2431

Contact us