Should wheat, barley, rye, and/or gluten be avoided in a 6-food elimination diet?

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), a food antigen-mediated disease, is effectively treated with the dietary elimination of six foods commonly associated with food allergies (milk, wheat, egg, soy, tree nuts/peanuts and fish/shellfish). Because wheat shares homologous proteins (including gluten) with barley and rye and may also be processed with these grains, some clinicians have suggested barley and rye may also trigger EoE as a result of cross-reaction and/or cross-contamination with wheat. In this opinion paper, we discuss the theoretical risks of cross-reactivity and cross-contamination among wheat, barley, and rye proteins (including gluten), assess common practices at EoE treatment centers, and provide recommendations for dietary treatment and future studies of EoE

One Food versus Six Food Elimination Diet Therapy for Treatment of Eosinophilic Esophagitis: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Empirical elimination diets are effective for achieving histological remission in eosinophilic oesophagitis, but randomised trials comparing diet therapies are lacking. We aimed to compare a six-food elimination diet (6FED) with a one-food elimination diet (1FED) for the treatment of adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis. Methods: We conducted a multicentre, randomised, open-label trial across ten sites of the Consortium of Eosinophilic Gastrointestinal Disease Researchers in the USA. Adults aged 18-60 years with active, symptomatic eosinophilic oesophagitis were centrally randomly allocated (1:1; block size of four) to 1FED (animal milk) or 6FED (animal milk, wheat, egg, soy, fish and shellfish, and peanut and tree nuts) for 6 weeks. Randomisation was stratified by age, enrolling site, and gender. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients with histological remission (peak oesophageal count <15 eosinophils per high-power field [eos/hpf]). Key secondary endpoints were the proportions with complete histological remission (peak count ≤1 eos/hpf) and partial remission (peak counts ≤10 and ≤6 eos/hpf) and changes from baseline in peak eosinophil count and scores on the Eosinophilic Esophagitis Histology Scoring System (EoEHSS), Eosinophilic Esophagitis Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS), Eosinophilic Esophagitis Activity Index (EEsAI), and quality of life (Adult Eosinophilic Esophagitis Quality-of-Life and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Global Health questionnaires). Individuals without histological response to 1FED could proceed to 6FED, and those without histological response to 6FED could proceed to swallowed topical fluticasone propionate 880 μg twice per day (with unrestricted diet), for 6 weeks. Histological remission after switching therapy was assessed as a secondary endpoint. Efficacy and safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. This trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02778867, and is completed. Findings: Between May 23, 2016, and March 6, 2019, 129 patients (70 [54%] men and 59 [46%] women; mean age 37·0 years [SD 10·3]) were enrolled, randomly assigned to 1FED (n=67) or 6FED (n=62), and included in the ITT population. At 6 weeks, 25 (40%) of 62 patients in the 6FED group had histological remission compared with 23 (34%) of 67 in the 1FED group (difference 6% [95% CI -11 to 23]; p=0·58). We found no significant difference between the groups at stricter thresholds for partial remission (≤10 eos/hpf, difference 7% [-9 to 24], p=0·46; ≤6 eos/hpf, 14% [-0 to 29], p=0·069); the proportion with complete remission was significantly higher in the 6FED group than in the 1FED group (difference 13% [2 to 25]; p=0·031). Peak eosinophil counts decreased in both groups (geometric mean ratio 0·72 [0·43 to 1·20]; p=0·21). For 6FED versus 1FED, mean changes from baseline in EoEHSS (-0·23 vs -0·15; difference -0·08 [-0·21 to 0·05]; p=0·23), EREFS (-1·0 vs -0·6; difference -0·4 [-1·1 to 0·3]; p=0·28), and EEsAI (-8·2 vs -3·0; difference -5·2 [-11·2 to 0·8]; p=0·091) were not significantly different. Changes in quality-of-life scores were small and similar between the groups. No adverse event was observed in more than 5% of patients in either diet group. For patients without histological response to 1FED who proceeded to 6FED, nine (43%) of 21 reached histological remission; for patients without histological response to 6FED who proceeded to fluticasone propionate, nine (82%) of 11 reached histological remission. Interpretation: Histological remission rates and improvements in histological and endoscopic features were similar after 1FED and 6FED in adults with eosinophilic oesophagitis. 6FED had efficacy in just less than half of 1FED non-responders and steroids had efficacy in most 6FED non-responders. Our findings indicate that eliminating animal milk alone is an acceptable initial dietary therapy for eosinophilic oesophagitis

International consensus recommendations for eosinophilic gastrointestinal disease nomenclature.

BACKGROUND & AIMS Substantial heterogeneity in terminology used for eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGID), particularly the catchall term "eosinophilic gastroenteritis", limits clinical and research advances. We aimed to achieve an international consensus for standardized EGID nomenclature. METHODS This consensus process utilized Delphi methodology. An initial naming framework was proposed and refined in iterative fashion, then assessed in a first round of Delphi voting. Results were discussed in two consensus meetings, the framework was updated, and re-assessed in a second Delphi vote, with a 70% threshold set for agreement. RESULTS Of 91 experts participating, 85 (93%) completed the first and 82 (90%) completed the second Delphi surveys. Consensus was reached on all but two statements. "EGID" was the preferred umbrella term for disorders of GI tract eosinophilic inflammation in the absence of secondary causes (100% agreement). Involved GI tract segments will be named specifically and use an "Eo" abbreviation convention: eosinophilic gastritis (now abbreviated EoG), eosinophilic enteritis (EoN), and eosinophilic colitis (EoC). The term "eosinophilic gastroenteritis" is no longer preferred as the overall name (96% agreement). When >2 GI tract areas are involved, the name should reflect all of the involved areas. CONCLUSIONS This international process resulted in consensus for updated EGID nomenclature for both clinical and research use. EGID will be the umbrella term rather than "eosinophilic gastroenteritis", and specific naming conventions by location of GI tract involvement are recommended. As more data are developed, this framework can be updated to reflect best practices and the underlying science