← Issue №10/
week of Sep 6, 2026/
the whole section, in full
Esophagus/Reflux, in full.
All 5 Esophagus/Reflux papers in this issue,
as full cards, ranked by clinical utility. The issue page carries the strongest few;
this is the section, whole.
Actionability = is there something to do. Prevalence = how much of a general GI practice it touches. Stakes = how consequential the decision is. Evidence strength = how far the study design and the result support the action. Novelty = how likely you are not already doing it.
Clinical takeawayconsider parenteral anticancer drugs (e.g., bevacizumab, paclitaxel) in the differential for esophageal ulcers, especially in patients without typical pill esophagitis risk factors
What it foundSignals detected for 15 oral drugs and 7 parenteral anticancer drugs, with doxycycline and dabigatran etexilate showing median onset times of 8 and 12.5 days for pill-induced esophagitis.
ContextThis literature reports that comprehensive analysis of adverse event databases supports early detection and prevention of drug-induced esophageal ulcers, including potential associations with parenteral drugs.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology, 'ACG Clinical Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease' (Katz PO et al., Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117(1):27-56). DOI 10.14309/ajg.0000000000001538, PMID 34807007. PARTIAL COVER ONLY - see source_verification_note. No society guideline dedicated to medication-induced (pill) esophagitis exists.ShowHide
Decision at stakeidentifying and managing medication-induced esophageal ulcers
Discontinue or reformulate the offending pill (e.g., doxycycline→alternative antibiotic if clinically appropriate, oral bisphosphonate→IV zoledronate after risk/benefit assessment, extended-release KCl→liquid if needed, ferrous sulfate→liquid or IV iron if malabsorption present) and deliver administration counseling. Treat with PPI BID (or vonoprazan) for 4-8 weeks for symptom relief and healing, considering sucralfate slurry as adjunctive therapy in select cases with severe mucosal injury. Provide teach-back counseling to prevent recurrence. Repeat EGD if symptoms persist, and pursue motility workup for recurrent episodes despite proper administration.
Clinical takeawayWhen confirming EGJOO after manometry in symptomatic patients, be aware that FLIP and TBE may disagree (33.7% discordance). Consider adding a barium tablet to TBE to improve agreement. If clinical suspicion remains high despite a negative confirmatory test, pursue additional testing.
What it foundIn 101 symptomatic patients with CCv4.0 manometric EGJOO, FLIP and TBE agreed in 66.3% of cases (κ=0.22), improving to κ=0.43 with barium tablet addition to TBE; FLIP alone was positive in 30, TBE alone in 4, and both in 11, while 56 had both tests negative.
ContextCurrent practice relies on FLIP or TBE to confirm manometric EGJOO, but their comparative performance was unclear. This study quantifies their discordance and shows improved agreement with barium tablet addition to TBE.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (ACG), Vaezi MF, Pandolfino JE, Yadlapati RH, Greer KB, Kavitt RT. "ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Achalasia." Am J Gastroenterol. 2020 Sep;115(9):1393-1411. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000731ShowHide
Decision at stakeconfirming EGJOO diagnosis with FLIP or TBE
…FOLLOW-UP: use timed barium esophagram as the first-line test to evaluate continued or recurrent symptoms after definitive therapy (strong, very low); the Eckardt score alone or HRM alone should not be used to define treatment failure. Do not obtain routine gastrografin esophagram after dilation, reserve it for clinical suspicion of perforation (strong, low).…
From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes TREATMENT, RETREATMENT, SURVEILLANCE.
Our full summary of this standardShowHide
Evaluate for achalasia any patient with dysphagia to solids and liquids, regurgitation, or chest pain, and specifically consider it in patients presumed to have GERD who do not respond to acid suppression (strong recommendation, very low quality). Diagnose with high-resolution manometry using esophageal pressure topography rather than conventional line tracings (strong, high). Subtype by Chicago Classification (I, II, III), this is a conditional recommendation (low quality): subtyping may inform prognosis and treatment choice, with type II having the most favorable outcomes and type III requiring a longer/tailored myotomy; ACG does not make subtyping mandatory for diagnosis. Always perform upper endoscopy in suspected achalasia to exclude pseudoachalasia from an obstructing mass; use cross-sectional imaging and/or endoscopic ultrasound in difficult cases (ACG states this as narrative guidance, not a numbered recommendation, and specifies no biopsy protocol). FLIP is described as complementary, useful in patients who cannot tolerate manometry and as an arbiter in difficult cases where manometry fails to diagnose achalasia despite high clinical suspicion, not as a required confirmatory test. TREATMENT: pneumatic dilation is superior to medical therapy for symptom relief and esophageal emptying (strong, very low). PD and laparoscopic Heller myotomy are both effective and equivalent short- and long-term for patients who are candidates for definitive therapy (strong, high). POEM and LHM give comparable symptomatic improvement (strong, moderate). POEM and PD give comparable symptomatic improvement in type I or II (conditional, low). For type III, tailored POEM or LHM is recommended as a more efficacious disruptive LES therapy than PD (strong, moderate), ACG does NOT single out POEM over LHM for type III. When surgical myotomy is performed, add fundoplication: myotomy with fundoplication is superior to myotomy alone for controlling distal esophageal acid exposure (strong, moderate), using either Dor or Toupet (conditional, moderate). Botulinum toxin injection is first-line therapy for patients unfit for definitive therapy (strong, moderate), and prior botulinum toxin does not significantly compromise subsequent myotomy performance or outcomes (strong, low). POEM carries a higher incidence of GERD than LHM with fundoplication or PD (strong, moderate). Do not place stents for long-term dysphagia (strong, low). Reserve esophagectomy for surgically fit patients with megaesophagus who have failed other interventions (strong, low), and consider Heller myotomy before esophagectomy in patients who failed PD and POEM when the anatomy is conducive and there is evidence of incomplete myotomy (strong, very low). FOLLOW-UP: use timed barium esophagram as the first-line test to evaluate continued or recurrent symptoms after definitive therapy (strong, very low); the Eckardt score alone or HRM alone should not be used to define treatment failure. Do not obtain routine gastrografin esophagram after dilation, reserve it for clinical suspicion of perforation (strong, low). RETREATMENT: PD is appropriate and safe after failed surgical myotomy or POEM (strong, moderate), and POEM is safe in patients who previously underwent PD or LHM (strong, low). SURVEILLANCE: ACG recommends AGAINST routine endoscopic surveillance for esophageal carcinoma in patients with achalasia (strong, low), although risk is elevated (~1 cancer per 300 patient-years), absolute numbers are low, an estimated >400 endoscopies would be needed to detect one cancer, and surveillance has not demonstrated improved survival.
Clinical takeawayConsider screening for anxiety/depression and non-esophageal DGBI in patients presenting with globus sensation, given the high overlap.
What it foundGlobal prevalence of globus is 0.75%, with 60.5% of cases having anxiety and/or depression, and 49.0% having non-esophageal DGBI.
ContextConfirms and quantifies the known association of globus with psychosocial and other DGBI disorders, providing prevalence data across regions.
Refinessuggested applicable standard· Rome Foundation, "Neuromodulators for Functional Gastrointestinal Disorders (Disorders of Gut−Brain Interaction): A Rome Foundation Working Team Report" (Drossman DA, Tack J, Ford AC, Szigethy E, Törnblom H, Van Oudenhove L), Gastroenterology 2018;154(4):1140-1171.e1, 2018ShowHide
Decision at stakethe use of neuromodulators for globus sensation in the context of DGBI
In DGBI where pain is dominant, a central neuromodulator is a logical part of the treatment profile.…(3) SSRIs are for anxiety, depression and phobic features, not pain: 'SSRIs can be considered in IBS if anxiety states, including hypervigilance, somatic symptom disorder, visceral anxiety, and maladaptive cognitions, are present, and the abdominal pain and diarrhea are not the dominant clinical features.' (4) Functional dyspepsia is treated by Rome IV subgroup.…
From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text.
Our full summary of this standardShowHide
In DGBI where pain is dominant, a central neuromodulator is a logical part of the treatment profile. (1) TCAs are first-line when pain dominates: low-to-modest dosages have the most convincing evidence for chronic GI pain. Start low (10 mg/d helps patients get past early side effects), titrate within 4-6 weeks to 25-75 mg/d at night, and increase further to 100-150 mg/d only if no disturbing side effects develop; evidence for analgesic effect at <25 mg/d is lacking. Tertiary amines (amitriptyline, imipramine) are more anticholinergic/antihistaminic and may be chosen when constipating/sedating effects are useful (IBS-D, disturbed sleep); secondary amines (nortriptyline, desipramine) when those effects are unwanted (IBS-C, or pain with constipation). The TCA class is first-line for IBS, especially IBS-D. (2) SNRIs (duloxetine 30-90 mg, venlafaxine 75-225 mg with >225 mg needed for noradrenergic pain effect, milnacipran) 'may have at least equal benefit as TCAs' for chronic GI pain, but this is extrapolated from fibromyalgia, migraine, widespread body pain and neuropathy; they 'have not been adequately tested for chronic GI pain' and have not been adequately studied in IBS. Their advantage is the absence of anticholinergic/antihistaminic effects that preclude adequate TCA dosing; start in the low-dose range for the first week because nausea is common. SNRIs may be favored for IBS-C. (3) SSRIs are for anxiety, depression and phobic features, not pain: 'SSRIs can be considered in IBS if anxiety states, including hypervigilance, somatic symptom disorder, visceral anxiety, and maladaptive cognitions, are present, and the abdominal pain and diarrhea are not the dominant clinical features.' (4) Functional dyspepsia is treated by Rome IV subgroup. For PDS with early satiety, fullness and nausea predominating: buspirone, dosed as for anxiety, 30 mg/d divided 2-3 times daily, increasable to 60 mg/d (a 4-week trial reduced dyspeptic symptoms). Mirtazapine is 'a good treatment option for PDS when there is chronic nausea and vomiting, or weight loss', 15 mg in the evening for 8 weeks was superior to placebo in FD patients with weight loss and without coexisting anxiety or depression; usual range 15-45 mg in the evening. For EPS, studies mainly support TCAs (amitriptyline), either initially or after an unsuccessful PPI trial; the SNRI group 'can also be considered for patients with EPS who do not tolerate TCA treatment, although confirmatory studies are lacking.' (5) Functional heartburn and functional chest pain (after excluding GERD): 'There is insufficient evidence to recommend a particular class of central agent.' SSRIs have shown some benefit for esophageal pain; low-dose imipramine or amitriptyline 'can be considered,' but those studies are small and one was open-label; venlafaxine 75 mg extended-release at night beat placebo in a young cohort (20-29 years). (6) A comorbid dominant psychiatric diagnosis, identified by clinical assessment or questionnaires such as the HADS, 'may need to be a primary consideration when selecting a neuromodulator'; neuromodulators can alternatively be selected for their peripheral effects (disturbed bowel habit, chronic nausea). (7) Augmentation, reducing the dose of the first agent and adding a second, complementary treatment, is recommended when monotherapy is insufficient or dose-limited by side effects: an azapirone (dyspeptic features, prominent anxiety), a delta ligand (abdominal wall pain, comorbid fibromyalgia; pregabalin 150-600 mg/d, effect expected within a month), an SSRI (dominant anxiety/phobic features), an atypical antipsychotic (quetiapine 25-200 mg for pain with disturbed sleep, the psychiatric range of ≥200-400 mg/d is poorly tolerated; olanzapine/sulpiride for anxiety and nausea), bupropion (prominent fatigue/sleepiness), or a psychological treatment. (8) Behavioral therapy is positioned as an adjunct/augmentation, not as a co-equal mandatory arm: CBT where maladaptive cognitions and catastrophizing are present, DBT/EMDR with a history of PTSD or trauma, hypnosis/mindfulness/relaxation as alternatives; many RCTs support behavioral interventions 'as an adjunct to pharmacologic strategies,' and few studies compare behavioral alone against combination. (9) Continue treatment 6-12 months after treatment response to reduce relapse (empiric recommendation, extrapolated from major depression where 4-9 months is advised); consider longer-term treatment where ongoing psychosocial stress, positive family history, multiple prior episodes, or current psychiatric comorbidity exist. (10) Opioids should be avoided: there are no controlled data supporting opioids in chronic visceral pain, and their use carries substantial risk of opioid-induced constipation and narcotic bowel syndrome. (11) Implementation depends on communication: educate, provide a physiological rationale, address the patient's reluctance to take a 'psychiatric' drug, and involve the patient in medication choice, merely recommending the drug leads to refusal, nonadherence, or anxiety-driven side-effect reports.
New evidenceesophageal cancerbasic sciencetranslational
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: retrospective study with small sample size and non-significant outcomes; await larger trials before favoring RAMIE over VATS in cT3br/cT4b cases.
What it foundRAMIE and VATS had similar 3-year OS (75.4% vs 82.7%, p=0.762) and PFS (51.8% vs 57.8%, p=0.742) in cT3br/cT4b esophageal cancer, with no significant difference in R0 resection rates (90.9% vs 89.5%). Adjuvant nivolumab was administered exclusively in the RAMIE group (27.3% vs. 0.0%, p<0.001).
ContextChallenges the assumption that RAMIE may offer superior oncologic outcomes in high-risk locally advanced esophageal cancer, showing comparable survival and resection rates to VATS despite higher baseline tumor burden in the RAMIE group and exclusive adjuvant nivolumab use in the RAMIE group.
Reinforcessuggested applicable standard· National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN), NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines): Esophageal and Esophagogastric Junction Cancers, Version 2.2023 (peer-reviewed publication; medically-unfit-vs-fit pathway split confirmed unchanged in current Version 3.2025)ShowHide
Decision at stakethe choice between robot-assisted and video-assisted esophagectomy for cT3br/cT4b esophageal cancer
…Definitive chemoradiation for patients who are medically unfit/inoperable for surgery or who decline surgery. cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone with invasion of trachea, great vessels, vertebral body, or heart.…
From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1), BIOMARKERS, POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F) and 2 more.
Our full summary of this standardShowHide
WORKUP (NCCN ESOPH-1): H&P; EGD with biopsy; chest/abdomen CT with oral and IV contrast; pelvis CT with contrast ONLY as clinically indicated; FDG-PET/CT (skull base to mid-thigh) if no evidence of M1 disease; CBC and comprehensive chemistry; EUS if no evidence of M1 or unresectable disease; endoscopic resection (ER) is recommended for accurate staging of early-stage cancers (Tis, T1a, or T1b) and may also be therapeutic; bronchoscopy if the tumor is at or above the carina with no evidence of M1; biopsy of metastatic disease as clinically indicated; assign Siewert category; nutritional assessment and counseling; smoking-cessation counseling; screen for family history. BIOMARKERS: universal MSI (PCR/NGS) or MMR (IHC) testing AND universal PD-L1 testing in ALL newly diagnosed patients; HER2 and CLDN18.2 testing if advanced/metastatic adenocarcinoma is documented or suspected; NGS should be considered. Multidisciplinary evaluation is recommended for stage I-IVA (locoregional) disease (ESOPH-E). ENDOSCOPIC THERAPY (ESOPH-A): the goal of endoscopic therapy (EMR, ESD, and/or ablation) is complete removal or eradication of early-stage disease, pTis, pT1a, and SELECTED superficial pT1b without LVI, plus the pre-neoplastic Barrett's segment. Tis/HGD must first be fully characterized for nodularity, lateral spread and multifocality, with EUS to rule out nodal metastases in select higher-risk cases. Areas of nodularity or ulceration must be RESECTED, not ablated. Completely flat lesions ≤2 cm (squamous HGD/Tis, and BE with flat HGD) should be treated by ER because it gives more accurate histologic assessment; flat lesions >2 cm can be treated by ER but with greater complication risk, and may be treated by ablation alone (data for ablation-alone in squamous HGD are very limited). Lesions pathologically limited to lamina propria/muscularis mucosae (pT1a) or superficial submucosa (pT1b), in the absence of nodal metastases, LVI, or poor differentiation, can be treated with full ER, HOWEVER a thorough patient-and-surgeon discussion of esophagectomy versus the risk of concurrent nodal disease should be undertaken, especially for larger tumors or deeper invasion. Ablation of residual Barrett's should follow ER; complete BE eradication may also be achieved by widefield EMR or ESD at the initial intervention when needed to resect superficial tumor or nodularity ≤2 cm. For SCC, the level of evidence for ablation after ER is LOW; additional ablation may be needed only for multifocal HGD/CIS elsewhere, and may not be needed for completely excised lesions. Endoscopic therapy is 'PREFERRED' for limited early-stage disease: Tis and T1a, ≤2 cm, well or moderately differentiated. Esophagectomy is indicated for extensive carcinoma in situ (pTis/HGD), pT1a, or superficial pT1b, especially nodular disease not adequately controlled endoscopically. PRIMARY TREATMENT, MEDICALLY FIT PATIENTS, ADENOCARCINOMA (ESOPH-13): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy. cT2 N0 HIGH-RISK (LVI, ≥3 cm, or poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → perioperative systemic therapy is PREFERRED (FLOT: 5-FU 2600 mg/m2 IV over 24 h day 1, leucovorin 200 mg/m2, oxaliplatin 85 mg/m2, docetaxel 50 mg/m2, every 14 days, 4 cycles pre- and 4 cycles postoperatively; or FLOT + durvalumab 1500 mg for PD-L1 CPS ≥1 or TAP ≥1%, category 1 for EGJ, category 2A for esophageal adenocarcinoma; note MATTERHORN showed no EFS advantage for durvalumab in diffuse-type disease), QUALIFIER: perioperative therapy is preferred for patients medically fit and with access to frequent toxicity evaluation; preoperative chemoradiation for planned esophagectomy remains an option and may be considered for borderline-resectable patients or patients who are not FLOT candidates (perioperative FOLFOX/CAPOX is another alternative). Consider neoadjuvant or perioperative immune checkpoint inhibitor if the tumor is MSI-H/dMMR (in multidisciplinary consultation; the role of surgery after complete response is unclear). Definitive chemoradiation for patients who are medically unfit/inoperable for surgery or who decline surgery. cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone with invasion of trachea, great vessels, vertebral body, or heart. SQUAMOUS CELL CARCINOMA (ESOPH-2): cT1b-cT2, N0 LOW-RISK (<3 cm, well differentiated) → esophagectomy (non-cervical esophagus). cT2 N0 high-risk (LVI, ≥3 cm, poorly differentiated), cT1b-cT2 N+, or cT3-cT4a any N → PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION is preferred (or definitive chemoradiation). cT4b → definitive chemoradiation, or chemotherapy alone for trachea/great-vessel/vertebral/cardiac invasion. NCCN states explicitly: 'Preoperative chemoradiation is preferred for esophageal SCC.' Preoperative RT dose 41.4-50.4 Gy at 1.8-2.0 Gy/day (23-28 fractions); preferred concurrent regimens include weekly paclitaxel 50 mg/m2 + carboplatin AUC 2 (CROSS, category 1) and fluorouracil + oxaliplatin (category 1). POSTOPERATIVE (ESOPH-F): nivolumab is the preferred postoperative regimen ONLY after PREOPERATIVE CHEMORADIATION with R0 resection and residual pathologic disease (category 1), 240 mg IV every 14 days for 16 weeks, then 480 mg IV every 28 days, maximum treatment duration 1 year. PALLIATION (ESOPH-A/H): esophageal dilation with balloons or bougies for temporary relief of malignant or treatment-related obstruction (avoid overdilation, perforation risk); long-term dysphagia palliation by endoscopic tumor ablation (Nd:YAG laser, PDT, cryoablation) or expandable metal/plastic stents; feeding gastrostomy or jejunostomy for anorexia/dysphagia/malnutrition, but placement of a GASTROSTOMY preoperatively may compromise the gastric vasculature and interfere with gastric-conduit reconstruction and SHOULD BE AVOIDED (feeding jejunostomy is generally preferred for postoperative nutritional support; multidisciplinary expertise is recommended before percutaneous gastrostomy).
Clinical takeawayNo clinical action yet: tezepelumab, a TSLP-targeting monoclonal antibody, has shown efficacy in other T2 inflammatory conditions but has not been studied in EoE.
What it foundTSLP expression and TSLP-mediated T2 inflammatory activity are elevated in esophageal biopsies in active EoE compared to inactive EoE and healthy individuals.
ContextThis review suggests TSLP as a potential therapeutic target in EoE, aligning with its role in other T2 inflammatory diseases like asthma and chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps.
Emergingsuggested applicable standard· American College of Gastroenterology (Dellon ES, Muir AB, Katzka DA, et al.), "ACG Clinical Guideline: Diagnosis and Management of Eosinophilic Esophagitis," American Journal of Gastroenterology, 2025 (120(1):31-59)ShowHide
Decision at stakethe potential role of biologics targeting TSLP in EoE treatment
…BIOLOGICS: dupilumab is suggested for EoE in individuals 12 years of age or older who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy (conditional, moderate) and, as a separate statement, for pediatric patients aged 1-11 years weighing at least 15 kg who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy (conditional, low).…
From our summary of this standard, unedited — the part the paper bears on. … marks omitted text. Our wording, not the guideline's; read the source for its own text. The rest of this standard includes DIAGNOSIS, DILATION, MAINTENANCE and 2 more.
Our full summary of this standardShowHide
ACG 2025 makes 19 GRADE-rated statements plus non-graded key concepts. DIAGNOSIS: EoE is diagnosed by symptoms of esophageal dysfunction plus at least 15 eos/hpf in at least 1 hpf on esophageal biopsy, after evaluating for non-EoE disorders that cause or potentially contribute to esophageal eosinophilia (strong recommendation, low-quality evidence). A PPI trial is NOT a diagnostic criterion and the term PPI-REE is abandoned; PPIs are positioned purely as a treatment. Obtain at least 6 esophageal biopsies from at least 2 esophageal levels (e.g., proximal/mid and distal), targeting endoscopic findings if possible (strong, low). Use a systematic endoscopic scoring system such as the EoE Endoscopic Reference Score (EREFS) at every endoscopy (strong, low). Quantify eosinophil counts, not merely report them as above threshold, on biopsies from every endoscopy performed for EoE (strong, low), since serial counts gauge anti-inflammatory effect; the guideline notes eosinophil density (~60 eos/mm2) may be preferable for cross-setting comparison but that this has not yet been adopted in practice. Key concept: perform the diagnostic endoscopy off treatment (no dietary restriction and no PPI) to maximize diagnostic sensitivity. TREATMENT, the three anti-inflammatory options do NOT carry equal recommendation strength: swallowed topical steroids are recommended (STRONG, moderate evidence); PPIs are suggested (CONDITIONAL, low); empiric food elimination diet is suggested (CONDITIONAL, low). Because the field lacks comparative efficacy trials, the guideline states the choice among them is individualized to disease characteristics and patient preference within a shared decision-making framework, and advises that a single anti-inflammatory therapy be selected initially. Either fluticasone propionate or budesonide is a reasonable initial topical steroid (conditional, low); options include the FDA-approved budesonide oral suspension, the EMA-approved budesonide orodispersible tablet, and off-label asthma preparations adapted for esophageal delivery. Administer topical steroids after meals or at bedtime with nothing to eat or drink for 30-60 minutes to maximize esophageal dwell time; in young children prefer a slurry/suspension over an inhaler device. Dosing (Table 6): high-dose PPI, adults, double the approved reflux dose per day (e.g., omeprazole 20 mg twice daily or 40 mg daily or PPI equivalent); children, 2 mg/kg/day (or 1 mg/kg twice daily). Budesonide, adults 2-4 mg/day, divisible twice daily (approved budesonide oral suspension dosing is 2 mg twice daily); children 1-2 mg/day by age/height/weight. Fluticasone, adults 1,760 mcg/day in divided doses; children 110-880 mcg/day in divided doses. Currently available allergy testing (skin prick, patch, or serum Ig panels) is NOT suggested to direct elimination diets (conditional, very low). Providers MAY consider starting with a less-restrictive empiric elimination (1FED or 2FED) as the initial diet choice, incorporating patient preference through shared decision-making, and should collaborate with a dietician or nutritionist; after an initial dietary response a structured food reintroduction process is advised, with endoscopy and biopsy after each food reintroduced, because symptoms alone must not be used to determine food triggers. BIOLOGICS: dupilumab is suggested for EoE in individuals 12 years of age or older who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy (conditional, moderate) and, as a separate statement, for pediatric patients aged 1-11 years weighing at least 15 kg who are nonresponsive to PPI therapy (conditional, low). Dosing: 15 to <30 kg, 200 mg subcutaneously every other week; 30 to <40 kg, 300 mg subcutaneously every other week; >=40 kg, 300 mg subcutaneously weekly. Key concept: use dupilumab as step-up therapy in difficult-to-treat patients, and consider it in patients with multiple atopic conditions that would independently meet requirements for its use; the guideline explicitly states its position in the treatment algorithm is still being determined. No recommendation can be made for or against cendakimab, benralizumab, lirentelimab, mepolizumab, or reslizumab. Omalizumab is suggested AGAINST (conditional, low), as are cromolyn and montelukast (conditional, very low). DILATION: endoscopic dilation is suggested as an ADJUNCT to medical therapy for esophageal strictures causing dysphagia (conditional, low). Dilation alone does not affect underlying inflammatory disease activity, so in fibrostenotic EoE it should occur in conjunction with effective medical or dietary anti-inflammatory therapy. Use a start-low-and-go-slow approach: begin with a dilator size that may underestimate esophageal caliber, relook after dilation, and work to larger sizes until a mucosal disruption ('dilation effect') or the target diameter is reached. In adults and adolescents, a goal luminal diameter that relieves dysphagia and food impaction, typically at least 16 mm, should be achieved over one or more sessions, depending on initial luminal caliber and the effect observed during dilation. Dilation technique may be chosen by stricture characteristics and endoscopist preference. MAINTENANCE: continuation of EFFECTIVE dietary or pharmacologic therapy is advised to prevent recurrence of symptoms, histologic inflammation, and endoscopic abnormalities, notably graded STRONG despite low-quality evidence, because disease activity almost universally recurs when treatment is stopped. For patients on pharmacologic treatment, providers should consider identifying the lowest effective dose for long-term use, with any dose-reduction decision individualized. MONITORING AND RESPONSE: evaluate treatment response with symptomatic AND endoscopic AND histologic outcomes (strong, low); providers are advised NOT to monitor symptoms alone, since symptoms do not strongly correlate with endoscopic or histologic disease activity. Perform endoscopy to assess response 8-12 weeks after starting a new therapy such as PPI, topical steroid, or food elimination diet; for dupilumab the assessment interval may range from 12 to 24 weeks based on clinical trial findings. Providers MAY consider using a histologic response threshold of <15 eos/hpf, with the improvement in eosinophil count interpreted in the context of other histologic features, endoscopic findings, and symptoms, the guideline frames this as a 'may consider' key concept rather than a fixed target. Follow-up should be individualized and at shorter intervals for patients with complications (food impaction, perforation, strictures requiring dilation, malnutrition); repeat endoscopy after any treatment change such as dose reduction; care gaps of 2 years or more are associated with progression to fibrostenosis. PEDIATRIC-SPECIFIC: in children with EoE and dysphagia, an esophagram is suggested to evaluate fibrostenotic disease (conditional, very low); evaluation by a feeding therapist and/or dietician is suggested as an adjunctive intervention in children with feeding dysfunction (conditional, very low); growth, development including eating skills, and nutrition are treatment goals in children in addition to symptomatic, endoscopic, and histologic goals.