Wheat challenge in self-reported gluten sensitivity: a comparison of scoring methods

Effects of gluten on dyspeptic symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

CONTEXT

Research on the effects of gluten on dyspeptic symptoms has shown conflicting results.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials was to assess the effects of gluten on dyspeptic symptoms.

DATA SOURCES

A systematic search of the PubMed, ISI Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Embase online databases was performed up to May 2022.

DATA EXTRACTION

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that examined the impact of a gluten-free diet, a low-gluten diet, or a gluten challenge on dyspeptic symptoms, including early satiety, epigastric pain, bloating, and nausea, were selected independently by 2 authors. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) framework was used to assess the certainty of the evidence. Results were pooled using a random-effects model and expressed as weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95%CIs.

DATA ANALYSIS

Of the 7641 citations retrieved, 27 articles (18 RCTs and 9 non-RCTs) were included in the systematic review. Of those, 5 RCTs were eligible for the meta-analysis. The pooled results indicated that gluten challenge significantly increased the severity of bloating (WMD = 0.67; 95%CI, 0.37-0.97; I2 = 81.8%; n = 6), early satiety (WMD = 0.91; 95%CI, 0.58-1.23; I2 = 27.2%; n = 5), and epigastric pain (WMD = 0.46; 95%CI, 0.17-0.75; I2 = 65.8%; n = 6). However, the effect of gluten challenge on the severity of nausea (WMD = 0.13; 95%CI, -0.17 to 0.43; I2 = 0.0%, n = 5) was nonsignificant.

CONCLUSION

Gluten challenge significantly worsened dyspeptic symptoms, including bloating, early satiety, and epigastric pain, but did not affect nausea. These findings suggest that gluten restriction could be efficient in reducing dyspeptic symptoms. Well-designed large RCTs recruiting homogenous groups of patients with functional dyspepsia are needed to clarify the effectiveness of gluten restriction on dyspeptic symptoms.

Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity: An Update

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is a clinical entity characterized by the absence of celiac disease and wheat allergy in patients that trigger reproducible symptomatic responses to gluten-containing foods consumption. Due to the lack of sensitive and reproducible biomarkers for NCGS diagnosis, placebo-controlled gluten challenges must be carried out for its diagnosis. The gluten challenges can be either double- or single-blind, for research or clinical practice purposes, respectively. For improving our understanding about the magnitude and relevance of NCGS in different populations, epidemiological studies based on self-report have been carried out. However, the gluten challenge-based prevalence of NCGS remains to be estimated. Since NCGS was recently recognized as a clinical entity, more studies are needed to delve into NCGS pathogenesis, for instance, the molecular interactions between the suspected cereal grain components that trigger NCGS, such as fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) and amylase and trypsin inhibitors, and the immune system remains to be elucidated. Although still under debate, NCGS patients can be susceptible to only one or more than one of the NCGS triggers. The treatment of NCGS involves the dietary restriction of the suspected triggers of the disease, but there is controversial data about the effectiveness of different dietary interventions such as the gluten-free diet and low-FODMAP diet. Certainly, our understanding of NCGS is improving quickly due to the constant availability of new scientific information on this topic. Thus, the aim of the present narrative review is to present an up-to-date overview on NCGS from epidemiology to current therapy.

Non-celiac wheat sensitivity: rationality and irrationality of a gluten-free diet in individuals affected with non-celiac disease: a review

Non-celiac gluten or wheat sensitivity (NCWS) is a “clinical entity induced by the ingestion of wheat leading to intestinal and/or extraintestinal symptoms that improve once the wheat-containing foodstuff is removed from the diet, and celiac disease and wheat allergy have been excluded”. This mostly accepted definition raises several points that remain controversial on this condition. In the present review, the authors summarize the most recent advances in the clinic and research on NCWS through an accurate analysis of different studies. We screened PubMed, Medline, Embase, and Scopus using the keywords “non-celiac gluten sensitivity”, “non-celiac wheat sensitivity”, and “diagnosis”. We would like to emphasize two main points, including (A) the controversial clinical and etiological aspects in different trials and experiences with particular attention to the Salerno criteria for the diagnosis of NCWS and (B) the histological aspects. The etiology of NCWS remains controversial, and the relationship with irritable bowel syndrome is obscure. Histologically, the duodenal mucosa may show a variable pattern from unremarkable to a slight increase in the number of T lymphocytes in the superficial epithelium of villi. The endorsement of this disease is based on a positive response to a gluten-free diet for a limited period, followed by the reappearance of symptoms after gluten challenge. The Salerno expert criteria may help to diagnose NCWS accurately. Social media and inaccurate interpretation of websites may jeopardize the diagnostic process if individuals self-label as gluten intolerant.

Non-celiac gluten or wheat sensitivity: It's complicated!

In the last 30 years, non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) has emerged as an intriguing and controversial topic in gastroenterology. The diagnosis of NCGS/NCWS requires a symptomatic reaction to gluten, or wheat-containing food, and remission of symptoms with gluten or wheat challenge, in patients in whom celiac disease and wheat allergy have been excluded. There have been several randomized clinical trials (RCT) addressing this issue which have produced controversial results. In this issue of Neurogastroenterology and Motility, a double-blind placebo-controlled randomized trial in patients with suspected NCGS on GFD, did not reproduce symptoms after gluten intake compared to placebo. This mini-review addresses outstanding issues related to the diagnosis of NCGS/NCWS as well as areas of interest for future studies that could explain, in part, the controversy in this area.

Food Therapy in Sinosphere Asia

Traditional Chinese Food Therapy has long been an integral part of dietary practices in Sinosphere Asia. This therapy is defined by the classification of foods into cooling (Yin) and heaty (Yang) and the manipulation of dietary intake of these foods as a therapeutic strategy for chronic diseases. Both functional dyspepsia (FD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are chronic, functional gut disorders widely prevalent in Sinosphere Asia. Diet is increasingly recognized as a symptom trigger in FD and IBS, and the evidence suggesting the utility of diet therapies as front-line management is growing, particularly in the West. Specifically, a diet low in Fermentable, Oligosaccharides, Disaccharides, Monosaccharides, and Polyols is an efficacious therapy for patients with IBS. In contrast, a proportion of patients with IBS in Sinosphere Asia utilize Chinese Food Therapy for symptom management. Chinese Food Therapy provides an attractive target for integration with evidence-based Western dietary therapies as a management strategy in FD and IBS. However, significant gaps in research exist with the utility of Chinese Food Therapy that first need to be addressed. This includes a lack of standardization for heaty and cooling classification, limited mechanistic rationale or clinical studies supporting its efficacy in FD and IBS, and the lack of an ideal practitioner for implementation of Chinese Food Therapy. Hence, the review provides a summary of the role of diet and nutrition in Sinosphere Asia with an emphasis on FD and IBS, and an examination of how modern dietary practices may be able to be integrated into practices in this region.

Fructan, Rather Than Gluten, Induces Symptoms in Patients With Self-Reported Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity is characterized by symptom improvement after gluten withdrawal in absence of celiac disease. The mechanisms of non-celiac gluten sensitivity are unclear, and there are no biomarkers for this disorder. Foods with gluten often contain fructans, a type of fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides and polyols. We aimed to investigate the effect of gluten and fructans separately in individuals with self-reported gluten sensitivity.

METHODS

We performed a double-blind crossover challenge of 59 individuals on a self-instituted gluten-free diet, for whom celiac disease had been excluded. The study was performed at Oslo University Hospital in Norway from October 2014 through May 2016. Participants were randomly assigned to groups placed on diets containing gluten (5.7 g), fructans (2.1 g), or placebo, concealed in muesli bars, for 7 days. Following a minimum 7-day washout period (until the symptoms induced by the previous challenge were resolved), participants crossed over into a different group, until they completed all 3 challenges (gluten, fructan, and placebo). Symptoms were measured by Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale Irritable Bowel Syndrome (GSRS-IBS) version. A linear mixed model for analysis was used.

RESULTS

Overall GSRS-IBS scores differed significantly during gluten, fructan, and placebo challenges; mean values were 33.1 ± 13.3, 38.6 ± 12.3, and 34.3 ± 13.9, respectively (P = .04). Mean scores for GSRS-IBS bloating were 9.3 ± 3.5, 11.6 ± 3.5, and 10.1 ± 3.7, respectively, during the gluten, fructan, and placebo challenges (P = .004). The overall GSRS-IBS score for participants consuming fructans was significantly higher than for participants consuming gluten (P = .049), as was the GSRS bloating score (P = .003). Thirteen participants had the highest overall GSRS-IBS score after consuming gluten, 24 had the highest score after consuming fructan, and 22 had the highest score after consuming placebo. There was no difference in GSRS-IBS scores between gluten and placebo groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study of individuals with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity, we found fructans to induce symptoms, measured by the GSRS-IBS. Clinicaltrials.gov no: NCT02464150.

Re-challenge Studies in Non-celiac Gluten Sensitivity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is a clinical entity characterized by intestinal and/or extra-intestinal symptoms related to the ingestion of gluten in individuals that are not affected by either celiac disease (CD) or wheat allergy (WA). Since we do not have specific biomarkers for NCGS, the diagnosis is based on the evidence of a clear relationship between the ingestion of gluten (re-challenge) and clinical symptoms, after a remission during the gluten-free diet (GFD). Several re-challenge studies have been published so far to evaluate the real prevalence of NCGS, reporting conflicting results. In the present article, we provide a systematic review with meta-analysis of the existing literature on re-challenge studies to evaluate prevalence figures of NCGS after re-challenge procedures. Methods: All clinical trials performing a gluten re-challenge with or without a placebo control in patients with a suspected diagnosis of NCGS were included. Search results were limited to studies published in English language. No publication date or publication status restrictions were imposed. Results: Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was a considerable heterogeneity related to different sample size, type, and amount of gluten administered, duration of challenge and different type of placebo. The overall pooled percentage of patients with a diagnosis of NCGS relapsing after a gluten challenge was 30%, ranging between 7 and 77%. The meta-analysis showed a not significant relative risk (RR) of relapse after gluten challenge as compared to placebo (RR = 0.4; 95% CI = -0.15-0.9; p = 0.16). The overall pooled percentage of patients with a diagnosis of NCGS relapsing after a gluten challenge performed according to the recent Salerno criteria was significantly higher as compared to the percentage of patients relapsing after placebo (40 vs. 24%; p = 0.003), with a significant RR of relapse after gluten challenge as compared to placebo (RR = 2.8; 95% CI = 1.5-5.5; p = 0.002). Conclusions: The prevalence of NCGS after gluten re-challenge is low, and the percentage of relapse after a gluten or a placebo challenge is similar. However, a higher number of patients will be correctly classified with NCGS if applying the recent Salerno criteria.