Effect of Aspergillus niger prolyl endopeptidase in patients with celiac disease on a long-term gluten-free diet

BACKGROUND

The gluten-free diet (GFD) has limitations, and there is intense research in the development of adjuvant therapies.

AIM

To examine the effects of orally administered Aspergillus niger prolyl endopeptidase protease (AN-PEP) on inadvertent gluten exposure and symptom prevention in adult celiac disease (CeD) patients following their usual GFD.

METHODS

This was an exploratory, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial that enrolled CeD patients on a long-term GFD. After a 4-wk run-in period, patients were randomized to 4 wk of two AN-PEP capsules (GliadinX; AVI Research, LLC, United States) at each of three meals per day or placebo. Outcome endpoints were: (1) Average weekly stool gluten immunogenic peptides (GIP) between the run-in and end of treatments and between AN-PEP and placebo; (2) celiac symptom index (CSI); (3) CeD-specific serology; and (4) quality of life. Stool samples were collected for GIP testing by ELISA every Tuesday and Friday during run-ins and treatments.

RESULTS

Forty patients were randomized for the intention-to-treat analysis, and three were excluded from the per-protocol assessment. Overall, 628/640 (98.1%) stool samples were collected. GIP was undetectable (< 0.08 μg/g) in 65.6% of samples, and no differences between treatment arms were detected. Only 0.5% of samples had GIP concentrations sufficiently high (> 0.32 μg/g) to potentially cause mucosal damage. Median GIP concentration in the AN-PEP arm was 44.7% lower than in the run-in period. One-third of patients exhibiting GIP > 0.08 μg/g during run-in had lower or undetectable GIP after AN-PEP treatment. Compared with the run- in period, the proportion of symptomatic patients (CSI > 38) in the AN-PEP arm was significantly lower (P < 0.03). AN-PEP did not result in changes in specific serologies.

CONCLUSION

This exploratory study conducted in a real-life setting revealed high adherence to the GFD. The AN-PEP treatment did not significantly reduce the overall GIP stool concentration. However, given the observation of a significantly lower prevalence of patients with severe symptoms in the AN-PEP arm, further clinical research is warranted.

Upper gastrointestinal endoscopic findings in celiac disease at diagnosis: A multicenter international retrospective study

BACKGROUND

Gastroduodenal endoscopy and biopsy following positive specific serology is considered the gold standard to diagnose celiac disease (CeD) in adults. Whether upper endoscopy helps detect comorbid conditions is unknown.

AIM

To investigate the prevalence of non-celiac endoscopic findings in patients in whom endoscopy was performed to confirm CeD diagnosis.

METHODS

This is an observational, descriptive, multicenter, retrospective study that reports endoscopic findings obtained in adult patients enrolled in local registries from four tertiary centers. We collected data reported on first endoscopy, indicated for investigation of CeD. Diagnosis of CeD was performed by histology (≥ Marsh 2 type mucosal damage) and specific serology. Two European and one North American center included biopsy-confirmed CeD following positive serology. A fourth center (South America) included symptomatic patients undergoing endoscopy, irrespective of CeD serology. The latter cohort included a non-CeD control group.

RESULTS

A total of 1328 patients (80% female; 35 years median age) were enrolled, of whom 95.6% had positive specific serology. In 135 patients, endoscopy revealed 163 abnormalities unrelated to CeD (prevalence: 10.1%). Erosive reflux esophagitis (6.4%), gastric erosions (2.0%), and suspicion of esophageal metaplasia (1.2%) were the most common findings. Biopsy-confirmed Barrett’s esophagus was infrequent (0.2%). No endoscopic cancer was detected. Older patients (≥ 51 years of age) had a higher prevalence of endoscopic findings than those ≤ 50 (P < 0.01). Within the South American cohort, CeD was associated with a lower rate (8.2%) of comorbid endoscopic findings compared with controls (29.1%; P < 0.001). In the adjusted multivariate analysis of this cohort, having CeD was associated with a 72% reduction in the risk of any endoscopic abnormality (P < 0.0001), and having alarm symptoms was associated with a 37% reduction in the risk of finding at least one endoscopic lesion (P < 0.02).

CONCLUSION

In this large multicenter study, young adults with positive CeD serology had few comorbid endoscopic findings. Although patients over 51 years had a high prevalence of non-CeD gastroduodenal mucosal damage, no malignancy or premalignant lesions were found.

Risk perception and knowledge of COVID-19 in patients with celiac disease

BACKGROUND

We recently demonstrated that the odds of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with celiac disease (CeD) is similar to that of the general population. However, how patients with CeD perceive their COVID-19 risk may differ from their actual risk.

AIM

To investigate risk perceptions of contracting COVID-19 in patients with CeD and determine the factors that may influence their perception.

METHODS

We distributed a survey throughout 10 countries between March and June 2020 and collected data on demographics, diet, COVID-19 testing, and risk perceptions of COVID-19 in patients with CeD. Participants were recruited through various celiac associations, clinic visits, and social media. Risk perception was assessed by asking individuals whether they believe patients with CeD are at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 when compared to the general population. Logistic regression was used to determine the influencing factors associated with COVID-19 risk perception, such as age, sex, adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD), and comorbidities such as cardiac conditions, respiratory conditions, and diabetes. Data was presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs)

RESULTS

A total of 10737 participants with CeD completed the survey. From them, 6019 (56.1%) patients with CeD perceived they were at a higher risk or were unsure if they were at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to the non-CeD population. A greater proportion of patients with CeD perceived an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 when compared to infections in general due to their CeD (56.1% vs 26.7%, P < 0.0001). Consequently, 34.8% reported taking extra COVID-19 precautions as a result of their CeD. Members of celiac associations were less likely to perceive an increased risk of COVID-19 when compared to non-members (49.5% vs 57.4%, P < 0.0001). Older age (aOR: 0.99; 95%CI: 0.99 to 0.99, P < 0.001), male sex (aOR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.76 to 0.93, P = 0.001), and strict adherence to a GFD (aOR: 0.89; 95%CI: 0.82 to 0.96, P = 0.007) were associated with a lower perception of COVID-19 risk and the presence of comorbidities was associated with a higher perception of COVID-19 risk (aOR: 1.38; 95%CI: 1.22 to 1.54, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Overall, high levels of risk perceptions, such as those found in patients with CeD, may increase an individual’s pandemic-related stress and contribute to negative mental health consequences. Therefore, it is encouraged that public health officials maintain consistent communication with the public and healthcare providers with the celiac community. Future studies specifically evaluating mental health in CeD could help determine the consequences of increased risk perceptions in this population.