Background and aims:No recommendations exist regarding optimal follow-up schedule in patients with eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) under maintenance treatment. Methods:We retrospectively evaluated a long-term surveillance concept at the Swiss EoE clinic, where clinical, endoscopic and histological disease activity is assessed annually regardless of EoE symptoms. Data on 159 adult patients under maintenance steroid treatment with available follow-up were analyzed. Patients were classified as having close (duration between visits <18 months) or non-close follow-up (≥18 months). Results:We analyzed a total of 309 follow-up visits of 159 patients (123 males, age at diagnosis 38.9 � 15.4 years). 157 (51%) visits were within a close follow-up schedule (median duration between visits of 1.0 years (interquartile range (IQR) 0.9-1.2)), while 152 visits (49%) were not (median duration between visits 2.9 years (IQR 2.0-4.1)). There was no difference regarding ongoing clinical, endoscopic, and histological disease activity, and adherence to prescribed steroid treatment between the two groups. However, stricture formation was significantly less frequently observed at visits within a close follow-up schedule (22.9 vs. 33.6%, p = 0.038).Absence of close follow-up was a significant risk factor for stricture development in a multivariate regression model. Patients who achieved histological remission and were followed within a close-follow-up schedule had significantly earlier detection of histological relapse compared to patients not within such close follow-up. Conclusion:Close follow-up is associated with fewer stricture formation and appears to result in earlier detection of histological relapse in patients with

Background Extraintestinal manifestations (EIM) contribute significantly to the burden of disease in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Pain is a leading symptom in IBD and could be seen as an EIM itself. Treatment of IBD associated pain is challenging and insufficiently studied. A better knowledge on the association of pain and IBD specific treatment is warranted to improve the management of IBD patients. Methods All patients of the Swiss IBD Cohort Study (SIBDCS) (n = 2152) received a questionnaire regarding pain localization, pain character, and the use of IBD specific medication. Results 1263 completed questionnaires were received. Twenty-one out of 184 patients (10%) receiving anti-TNF treatment compared to 142 out of 678 patients (21%) not receiving anti-TNF medication reported elbow pain (p = 0.002) while 28 out of 198 patients (14%) receiving steroid treatment significantly more often reported elbow pain compared to 59 from 696 patients (8%) not receiving steroids (p = 0.021). Furthermore, we found significantly more female patients under anti-TNF treatment to report knee/ lower leg pain and ankle/ foot pain compared to their male counterparts (36% vs. 20% and 22% vs. 10%, respectively, p = 0.015 for both comparisons). The frequency of knee, lower leg, ankle and foot pain was especially low in male patients under anti-TNF treatment, indicating a high benefit of male patients from anti-TNF therapy regarding EIM. Conclusions The frequency of elbow pain was lower in IBD patients treated with anti-TNF but higher in patients treated with steroids.