• Join our community!

    Do you have questions about celiac disease or the gluten-free diet?

  • Ads by Google:
     




    Get email alerts Subscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter

    Ads by Google:



       Get email alertsSubscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter

  • Member Statistics

    72,192
    Total Members
    3,093
    Most Online
    Sharon Routsis
    Newest Member
    Sharon Routsis
    Joined
  • Announcements

    • admin

      Frequently Asked Questions About Celiac Disease   04/24/2018

      This Celiac.com FAQ on celiac disease will guide you to all of the basic information you will need to know about the disease, its diagnosis, testing methods, a gluten-free diet, etc.   Subscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter   What is Celiac Disease and the Gluten-Free Diet? What are the major symptoms of celiac disease? Celiac Disease Symptoms What testing is available for celiac disease?  Celiac Disease Screening Interpretation of Celiac Disease Blood Test Results Can I be tested even though I am eating gluten free? How long must gluten be taken for the serological tests to be meaningful? The Gluten-Free Diet 101 - A Beginner's Guide to Going Gluten-Free Is celiac inherited? Should my children be tested? Ten Facts About Celiac Disease Genetic Testing Is there a link between celiac and other autoimmune diseases? Celiac Disease Research: Associated Diseases and Disorders Is there a list of gluten foods to avoid? Unsafe Gluten-Free Food List (Unsafe Ingredients) Is there a list of gluten free foods? Safe Gluten-Free Food List (Safe Ingredients) Gluten-Free Alcoholic Beverages Distilled Spirits (Grain Alcohols) and Vinegar: Are they Gluten-Free? Where does gluten hide? Additional Things to Beware of to Maintain a 100% Gluten-Free Diet What if my doctor won't listen to me? An Open Letter to Skeptical Health Care Practitioners Gluten-Free recipes: Gluten-Free Recipes
  • 0

    MORE RESISTANCE TO THE LARGE PREVALENCE OF CELIAC DISEASE


    Dr. Ron Hoggan, Ed.D.

    This article originally appeared in the Spring 2011 edition of Celiac.com's Journal of Gluten-Sensitivity.


    Ads by Google:




    ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADS
    Ads by Google:



    Celiac.com 09/07/2011 - Through the hard work and concerted efforts of many support groups and individuals throughout the US, along with the generosity of Instituto Di Ricerca in Italy, research funding was accumulated. Early in the Twenty-First Century, under the auspices of the Center for Celiac Disease Research, a new epoch in celiac disease awareness was born. Spearheaded by Dr. Alessio Fasano and several other prominent gastroenterologists, a large multi-center study was undertaken and the rate of celiac disease in the general U.S. population was determined to be at least 1 in 133 (1). This pains-taking, thorough, time-consuming and expensive research started a landslide of opinions that shifted the medical paradigm on the prevalence of celiac disease in the US, and caused ripples in medical thinking throughout the world. Celiac disease quickly became known as a very common ailment that is partly driven by a genetic predisposition, and is now thought to afflict about one percent of Americans. This increase in recognized prevalence is largely the result of studies that are conducted by testing blood from healthy blood donors to determine these numbers (more on this shortly). Yet a recent article from the medical literature asserts that current reports of the prevalence of celiac disease are over-estimating the actual portion of the population that is afflicted by this ailment. This article, published in the Annals of Medicine and Expert Opinion in December of 2010,  offers its own estimate the prevalence of celiac disease at about 1 in 160 (2).  What are we to believe? Is the rate of celiac disease really overestimated by many of the experts conducting research in this area? Or is there some other explanation?

    Photo: CC-RDECOMThere are actually several reasons that Biagi and colleagues have arrived at their reduced estimate of prevalence, and there is good cause to reject their claim in favor of the data indicating a prevalence of celiac disease that is close to 1% of American and other populations where gluten grains form a major part of the diet. The biases expressed by Biagi et al combine in this report to form what is probably the most glaring cause of their aberrant finding. These biases show up, both in their computations and in several emotion laden statements that appear in their report. There are also some indications to suggest that the statistical methods they employed are not appropriate for the data presented, especially when publishing an account that relies so heavily on statistical tools. For instance, they have failed to include some of the published data that fit within their inclusion criteria and would have significantly altered their results. There are also several confounding variables that were either overlooked or that warranted more attention than they were given by Biagi et al.  Finally, despite their acknowledgement of some of the weaknesses in the process by which they arrived at their estimate, they have chosen to impugn the work of other researchers who have reported a higher frequency of celiac disease rather than entertain the possibility that it is their own analyses and paradigm that are problematic. Even their choice of research method, the systematic review, is suspect, as it offers more opportunities for inclusion of the very errors they have made.

    Systematic reviews provide estimates based on averages of published research findings drawn from groups of studies of similar structure and design. The intent of this approach is to dampen the effects of extreme results, providing a more widely applicable and a more generally accurate perspective, eliminating variations driven by geographic location, accessibility of health care, research biases, etc. This is a useful tool that can be very helpful to busy clinicians by providing summaries that explain and clarify variations in findings as well as identifying mitigating factors in extreme findings. When done properly, these reviews reduce bias and other confounding factors, ultimately enhancing evidence-based optimal health care (3). However, Biagi and colleagues have fallen short of these ideals (2). They twice refer to their feelings in this report. Such expressions of the authors’ personal feelings reflect biases and preconceived notions that should not form any part of a scientific report. Yet they repeatedly do so. They go on to offer a rather snide parenthetic comment suggesting abuses of tissue transglutaminase testing. Such remarks demonstrate strong personal biases that interfere with the provision of objective information. Since bias reduction is an important, stated objective of the systematic review, this report by Biagi and colleagues should have been rejected by those who reviewed it.

    Biagi and colleagues do acknowledge that published research results vary so widely that they can not use the superior statistical method called a meta-analysis. (This is a method that can be especially useful with respect to celiac disease because when groups of research subjects are small, meta-analyses can be used to combine the findings from many small groups and provide more meaningful information.) The authors of the paper in question explain their choice of systematic review, yet this approach requires an exhaustive exploration of the relevant literature (3) which should have reached further than the small set of search terms they used.  In the interests of accuracy, it is important to find most or all of the relevant literature. Their limited search methods may explain why they missed several important studies, including the investigation of 989 Saharawi children by Catassi et al (4). Such studies would have altered their findings substantially which they side-step in a letter defending their original paper, published in the subsequent issue of the same journal (5). For instance, Catassi et al found a 5.6% prevalence of celiac disease among the sub-Saharan African children investigated (4). That is five and one half times as frequent as the prevalence figure that they have impugned. Surely they needed to at least acknowledge the existence of this report. They neither included it nor acknowledged it. In their letter of defence they assert that diagnoses were made on the basis of blood tests, not intestinal biopsies. However, many of the studies they did include in their data also offered diagnoses on the basis of blood tests in the absence of intestinal biopsies (5). 

    Biagi et al also assert over-estimation due to inclusion of “patients already known to be affected by celiac disease” (celiac disease). But how could their approach lead to an accurate tally of the percentage of all persons in a given population who have celiac disease? There appears to be some confusion about the meaning of the term “prevalence”. For instance, if a test group of 10,000 is identified and all participants are tested for celiac disease, yet several of them were previously diagnosed with celiac disease, Biagi and colleagues expect these previously diagnosed celiac patients to be excluded. Most of those who were previously diagnosed would test negative because they are now eating a gluten free diet. According to the Biagi paper, we should either exclude these people from our test group, or identify them as not having celiac disease. Either alternative is likely to produce much less accurate results than including them in the group that has celiac disease. (This approach alone would produce the faulty results they report in any population where there is reasonable access to modern health care.) Prevalence, after all, is a statement of the number of cases of a particular disease in a particular population. Excluding cases that were previously identified just doesn’t make any sense.

    Further, since IgA deficiency forms almost 2% of some populations (6) and the prevalence of celiac disease in IgA deficiency, in the same population is reported at 14% (4), such a significant confounding variable warrants attention. Yet Biagi et al do not even mention it. Let me explain. If total IgA was not measured in some, most, or all of the studies reviewed by Biagi et al, then IgA deficiency should reduce the reported prevalence by about 14%.  That difference alone would bridge most of the gap between the 1:133 and 1:160 prevalence findings.    

    But serology (blood testing) misses more than just IgA deficiency (7). This significant portion of the reports reviewed should therefore be expected to significantly under-estimate the prevalence of celiac disease. This is because, in these studies, case finding is often done with serological testing. Thus, these researchers will often fail to detect, and they will therefore have failed to biopsy, significant numbers of cases of seronegative celiac disease, both because of those excluded as blood donors due to their anaemia and/or malnourished condition and because of those who are seronegative, whether due to IgA deficiency or other reasons. 
    If any of the studies Biagi and colleagues reviewed used symptoms and signs for case finding, this is yet another source of underestimation, one that is probably the cause of current under-diagnosis of celiac disease that is estimated at above 95%.

    These authors point out that “anaemia or insufficient body weight are universally recognized as criteria that preclude enrolment as blood donors.” Since more than one quarter (13/41) of the studies they reviewed report rates based on case finding through the screening of healthy blood donors, the results of these studies must underestimate prevalence regardless of the authors’ feelings on the topic. Yet it is their feelings they harken to on this issue: “We feel that we did not find this difference because of the wide heterogeneity of the published papers which hampered a specific analysis focusing on this point.” I don’t much care what they feel. I want to know what evidence they can report. If they are interested in communicating about their feelings, there are many appropriate venues for such exchanges, but the medical research literature seems, at best, a very questionable choice.

    Much of the evidence they offered in support of their assertions that researchers are over-estimating celiac disease could more accurately be seen as inducing under-estimations of this common ailment.

    Finally, are the researchers who authored 41 separate reports failing so miserably at the diagnostic process that they miss the mark on a majority of marginal cases of celiac disease? This is the thrust of the Biagi et al statement:
    “Again, patients with minimal intestinal lesions and/or negative coeliac antibodies were always considered to be affected by celiac disease. Although these patients certainly exist, in our clinical experience they are very rare and most of the time they are not affected by celiac disease but are the result of diagnostic mistakes.“(2)
    In short, Biagi and colleagues claim to be so superior to the world leaders in celiac research that Biagi et al’s clinical experience is somehow more valid and accurate than the peer-reviewed, reported findings of most others working in this field (5).

    The proposition that the majority of celiac researchers are over-estimating the prevalence of celiac disease ignores variations due to IgA deficiency, seronegativity (negative blood tests), and ignores the variability of intestinal damage as shown by the Marsh system and other approaches for evaluating intestinal histology and/or diagnosing celiac disease without intestinal biopsies (8, 9, 10, 11, 12). Further, while many investigators have reported that potential or latent celiac disease often shows a similar constellation of signs and symptoms to those seen in celiac disease, Bertini et al have recently demonstrated that many cases of potential celiac disease show the same signatures of metabolic disturbances, both in the bloodstream and in urinary excretions, as those found in celiac disease (12). Such disturbances, whether in the context of celiac disease or potential celiac disease, normalize on a gluten free diet (13). In all, the Biagi et al article reflects the authors’ biases, serious limitations in the authors’ applications of the relevant statistical tools, and calls into question the quality of the process in this instance.

    Sources:

    1. Fasano A, Berti I, Gerarduzzi T, Not T, Colletti RB, Drago S, Elitsur Y, Green PH, Guandalini S, Hill ID, Pietzak M, Ventura A, Thorpe M, Kryszak D, Fornaroli F, Wasserman SS, Murray JA, Horvath K. Prevalence of celiac disease in at-risk and not-at-risk groups in the United States: a large multicenter study. Arch Intern Med. 2003 Feb 10;163(3):286-92
    2. Biagi F, Klersy C, Balduzzi D, Corazza GR. Are we not over-estimating the prevalence of coeliac disease in the general population? Ann Med. 2010 Dec;42(8):557-61. Epub 2010 Oct 1.
    3. Cook DJ, Mulrow celiac disease, Haynes RB.Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997 Mar 1;126(5):376-80.
    4. Catassi C, Rätsch IM, Gandolfi L, Pratesi R, Fabiani E, El Asmar R, Frijia M, Bearzi I, Vizzoni L. Why is coeliac disease endemic in the people of the Sahara? Lancet. 1999 Aug 21;354(9179):647-8.
    5. Hoggan, R. Comment on: Are we not over-estimating the prevalence of celiac disease in the general population? Annals of Medicine and Expert Opinion, 2011, 43: 164-65
    6. Bahari A, Karimi M, Sanei-Moghaddam I, Firouzi F, Hashemi M. Prevalence of celiac disease among blood donors in Sistan and Balouchestan Province, Southeastern Iran. Arch Iran Med. 2010 Jul;13(4):301-5.
    7. Sugai E, Hwang HJ, Vázquez H, Smecuol E, Niveloni S, Mazure R, Mauriño E, Aeschlimann P, Binder W, Aeschlimann D, Bai JC. New serology assays can detect gluten sensitivity among enteropathy patients seronegative for anti-tissue transglutaminase. Clin Chem. 2010 Apr;56(4):661-5. Epub 2009 Dec 18.
    8. Kurppa K, Ashorn M, Iltanen S, Koskinen LL, Saavalainen P, Koskinen O, Mäki M, Kaukinen K. Celiac disease without villous atrophy in children: a prospective study. J Pediatr. 2010 Sep;157(3):373-80, 380
    9. Salmi TT, Collin P, Reunala T, Mäki M, Kaukinen K. Diagnostic methods beyond conventional histology in coeliac disease diagnosis. Dig Liver Dis. 2010 Jan;42(1):28-32.
    10. Kaukinen K, Collin P, Mäki M.Latent coeliac disease or coeliac disease beyond villous atrophy? Gut. 2007 Oct;56(10):1339-40.
    11. Troncone R, Auricchio R, Granata V. Issues related to gluten-free diet in coeliac disease. Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2008 May;11(3):329-33.
    12. Bertini I, Calabrò A, De Carli V, Luchinat C, Nepi S, Porfirio B, Renzi D, Saccenti E, Tenori L. The metabonomic signature of celiac disease. J Proteome Res. 2009 Jan;8(1):170-7.
    13. Bernini P, Bertini I, Calabro A, la Marca G, Lami G, Luchinat C, Renzi D, Tenori L. Are Patients with Potential Celiac Disease Really Potential? The Answer of Metabonomics.  J Proteome Res. 2010 Dec.

    Image Caption: Photo: CC-RDECOM
    0


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Guest CeliBelli

    Posted

    Excellent, hard-hitting article. We need more critical analysis such as this that holds the medical profession accountable.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Popular Contributors

  • Ads by Google:

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 459 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

  • Related Articles

    Destiny Stone
    Celiac.com 07/14/2010 - Intestinal biopsy is considered the the gold standard for celiac disease testing. However, biopsy is an  invasive procedure and most people would be happy to avoid biopsy all together. Based solely on serology, a new diagnostic standard  has been proposed that would no longer require intestinal biopsy for celiac disease diagnosis in some patients.
    Researchers performed duodenal biopsy and serology in six-hundred and seventy-nine adults who were at high risk and low risk for celiac disease. They tested blood samples  to detect antibodies to tissue transglutaminase (tTG) and deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP). The goal of researchers was to establish the diagnostic performance of various serological tests for diagnosing celiac disease in patients with varying pretest results. In this study, they hope to find potential serological algorithms to decrease the requirement for biopsy.
    One-hundred and sixty-one consecutive adults with undiagnosed, but suspected intestinal disorders were selected as the high-risk group to be evaluated for celiac disease. Five-hundred and eighteen patients who had been referred for routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy due to non-specific symptoms such as indigestion, were randomly selected for the low-risk group.
    Prevalence of celiac disease was found in 39.1% of the high-risk group, and 3.3% of the low-risk group. Of the  high-risk patients, all individual assays demonstrated a high diagnostic efficacy, while the low-risk group demonstrated a lower diagnostic efficacy.
    The serological findings of this study demonstrated that the algorithm used for individual assays allows patients to avoid biopsy with a negative serology; and positive serology results would require a patient to undergo biopsy. The DGF/tTG Screen assay  may very well be recognized as the best preliminary test for celiac disease. The combination of two tests which include a DGP/tTG screening, may have the ability to  identify celiac disease correctly in various clinical situations, which would allow biopsy to be avoided in the vast majority of cases.
    Although the findings were significant for this study, small bowel histology is still deemed the gold standard for accurate celiac disease diagnosis. Further validation of the algorithms is necessary to confirm the findings of this study before new diagnostic guidelines can be considered.

    Source:
    World J Gastroenterol. 2010 Jul 7;16(25):3144-52.
     



    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 12/16/2014 - Will people with celiac disease spend money on drugs designed to reduce or eliminate adverse reactions to gluten? Drug researchers and investors are betting they will.
    Currently, the only proven treatment for celiac disease is a strict gluten-free diet. However, a number of companies are looking to debut drugs for treating celiac disease in the next five years, With that in mind, Abhilok Garg, Ph.D., an immunology analyst with research and consulting firm GlobalData, is projecting sales such drugs in the US and five major European markets Germany, France, Spain, Italy and the UK, to reach approximately $551.1 million by 2023.
    The launches of Alba/Teva’s larazotide acetate, Alvine/AbbVie’s latiglutenase, and BioLineRX’s BL-7010 portend a new world of therapies for the estimated 600,000 diagnosed celiac patients in these countries.
    With early trials looking promising and no obvious problems on the horizon, analysts expect larazotide acetate to enter the US and 5EU markets in Q1 2018 and Q1 2019, respectively, followed by latiglutenase in Q1 2019 and Q1 2020.
    Latiglutenase is currently being developed as a chronic drug treatment, GlobalData’s interviews with KOLs have indicated that clinical experience with this drug could dictate the way it is prescribed to patients, and that it may in some cases be used as an “on demand” treatment,” says Dr. Garg.
    Larazotide acetate works by modulating tight junctions (TJs) in the small bowel epithelium, and has tried to maximize recent research showing that people with celiac disease do have altered intracellular spaces and TJ structures in the lower esophagus.
    BL-7010 works by sequestering gliadins, effectively masking them from enzymatic degradation and preventing the formation of immunogenic peptides that trigger an adverse immune reaction when people with celiac disease consume wheat. BL-7010 has cleared early trial hurdles and been found to be safe and well tolerated in both single and repeated-dose administrations.
    Does the idea of a reliable treatment for celiac disease appeal to you? Would you try such drugs, or just stick with the gluten-free diet? 
    Source:
    Pharmabiz.com

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 01/21/2015 - Congratulations, shoppers with celiac disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivy, you are among the world's best informed and most loyal consumers, according to Paul Valder, President and CEO of the Allergen Control Group.
    The Allergen Control Group, with the endorsement of the Canadian Celiac Association (CCA), operates the Gluten Free Certification Program (GFCP).
    Speaking of these consumers, Valder says that they are not only the best ingredient label readers in the world, but "[o]nce they've identified a brand as safe, they'll stick with it, even if that means visiting multiple stores on a weekly basis."
    The Gluten-Free Certification Program has certified over 100 facilities in 12 countries, and over 2,500 products. Currently, over 130 GFCP-approved and trained auditors provide global coverage to accommodate today's multi-national supply chains. Brand loyalty among gluten-free consumers can be encouraged with a certified gluten-free product label.
    Such a label, says Mr. Valder, "…creates a distinction from other products that are advertised as gluten-free."
    Does this sound like you? Do you read every ingredient on every label? Will you travel to multiple stores to find your trusted gluten-free brand? Share your comments below.
    Read more at Global Food Safety Resource.
     

  • Recent Articles

    Tammy Rhodes
    Celiac.com 04/24/2018 - Did you know in 2017 alone, the United States had OVER TENS OF THOUSANDS of people evacuate their homes due to natural disasters such as fires, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes and tsunamis? Most evacuation sites are not equipped to feed your family the safe gluten free foods that are required to stay healthy.  Are you prepared in case of an emergency? Do you have your Gluten Free Emergency Food Bag ready to grab and go?  
    I have already lived through two natural disasters. Neither of which I ever want to experience again, but they taught me a very valuable lesson, which is why I created a Gluten Free Emergency Food Bag (see link below). Here’s my story. If you’ve ever lived in or visited the Los Angeles area, you’re probably familiar with the Santa Ana winds and how bitter sweet they are. Sweet for cleaning the air and leaving the skies a brilliant crystal blue, and bitter for the power outages and potential brush fires that might ensue.  It was one of those bitter nights where the Santa Ana winds were howling, and we had subsequently lost our power. We had to drive over an hour just to find a restaurant so we could eat dinner. I remember vividly seeing the glow of a brush fire on the upper hillside of the San Gabriel Mountains, a good distance from our neighborhood. I really didn’t think much of it, given that it seemed so far from where we lived, and I was hungry! After we ate, we headed back home to a very dark house and called it a night. 
    That’s where the story takes a dangerous turn….about 3:15am. I awoke to the TV blaring loudly, along with the lights shining brightly. Our power was back on! I proceeded to walk throughout the house turning everything off at exactly the same time our neighbor, who was told to evacuate our street, saw me through our window, assuming I knew that our hillside was ablaze with flames. Flames that were shooting 50 feet into the air. I went back to bed and fell fast asleep. The fire department was assured we had left because our house was dark and quiet again. Two hours had passed.  I suddenly awoke to screams coming from a family member yelling, “fire, fire, fire”! Flames were shooting straight up into the sky, just blocks from our house. We lived on a private drive with only one way in and one way out.  The entrance to our street was full of smoke and the fire fighters were doing their best to save our neighbors homes. We literally had enough time to grab our dogs, pile into the car, and speed to safety. As we were coming down our street, fire trucks passed us with sirens blaring, and I wondered if I would ever see my house and our possessions ever again. Where do we go? Who do we turn to? Are shelters a safe option? 
    When our daughter was almost three years old, we left the West Coast and relocated to Northern Illinois. A place where severe weather is a common occurrence. Since the age of two, I noticed that my daughter appeared gaunt, had an incredibly distended belly, along with gas, stomach pain, low weight, slow growth, unusual looking stool, and a dislike for pizza, hotdog buns, crackers, Toast, etc. The phone call from our doctor overwhelmed me.  She was diagnosed with Celiac Disease. I broke down into tears sobbing. What am I going to feed my child? Gluten is everywhere.
    After being scoped at Children's Hospital of Chicago, and my daughters Celiac Disease officially confirmed, I worried about her getting all the nutrients her under nourished body so desperately needed. I already knew she had a peanut allergy from blood tests, but just assumed she would be safe with other nuts. I was so horribly wrong. After feeding her a small bite of a pistachio, which she immediately spit out, nuts would become her enemy. Her anaphylactic reaction came within minutes of taking a bite of that pistachio. She was complaining of horrible stomach cramps when the vomiting set in. She then went limp and starting welting. We called 911.
    Now we never leave home without our Epipens and our gluten free food supplies. We analyze every food label. We are hyper vigilant about cross contamination. We are constantly looking for welts and praying for no stomach pain. We are always prepared and on guard. It's just what we do now. Anything to protect our child, our love...like so many other parents out there have to do every moment of ever day!  
    Then, my second brush with a natural disaster happened, without any notice, leaving us once again scrambling to find a safe place to shelter. It was a warm and muggy summer morning, and my husband was away on a business trip leaving my young daughter and me to enjoy our summer day. Our Severe Weather Alert Radio was going off, again, as I continued getting our daughter ready for gymnastics.  Having gotten used to the (what seemed to be daily) “Severe Thunderstorm warning,” I didn’t pay much attention to it. I continued downstairs with my daughter and our dog, when I caught a glimpse out the window of an incredibly black looking cloud. By the time I got downstairs, I saw the cover to our grill literally shoot straight up into the air. Because we didn’t have a fenced in yard, I quickly ran outside and chased the cover, when subsequently, I saw my neighbor’s lawn furniture blow pass me. I quickly realized I made a big mistake going outside. As I ran back inside, I heard debris hitting the front of our home.  Our dog was the first one to the basement door! As we sat huddled in the dark corner of our basement, I was once again thinking where are we going to go if our house is destroyed. I was not prepared, and I should have been. I should have learned my lesson the first time. Once the storm passed, we quickly realized we were without power and most of our trees were destroyed. We were lucky that our house had minimal damage, but that wasn’t true for most of the area surrounding us.  We were without power for five days. We lost most of our food - our gluten free food.
    That is when I knew we had to be prepared. No more winging it. We couldn’t take a chance like that ever again. We were “lucky” one too many times. We were very fortunate that we did not lose our home to the Los Angeles wildfire, and only had minimal damage from the severe storm which hit our home in Illinois.
      
    In 2017 alone, FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) had 137 natural disasters declared within the United States. According to FEMA, around 50% of the United States population isn’t prepared for a natural disaster. These disasters can happen anywhere, anytime and some without notice. It’s hard enough being a parent, let alone being a parent of a gluten free family member. Now, add a natural disaster on top of that. Are you prepared?
    You can find my Gluten Free Emergency Food Bags and other useful products at www.allergynavigator.com.  

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 04/23/2018 - A team of researchers recently set out to learn whether celiac disease patients commonly suffer cognitive impairment at the time they are diagnosed, and to compare their cognitive performance with non-celiac subjects with similar chronic symptoms and to a group of healthy control subjects.
    The research team included G Longarini, P Richly, MP Temprano, AF Costa, H Vázquez, ML Moreno, S Niveloni, P López, E Smecuol, R Mazure, A González, E Mauriño, and JC Bai. They are variously associated with the Small Bowel Section, Department of Medicine, Dr. C. Bonorino Udaondo Gastroenterology Hospital; Neurocience Cognitive and Traslational Institute (INECO), Favaloro Fundation, CONICET, Buenos Aires; the Brain Health Center (CESAL), Quilmes, Argentina; the Research Council, MSAL, CABA; and with the Research Institute, School of Medicine, Universidad del Salvador.
    The team enrolled fifty adults with symptoms and indications of celiac disease in a prospective cohort without regard to the final diagnosis.  At baseline, all individuals underwent cognitive functional and psychological evaluation. The team then compared celiac disease patients with subjects without celiac disease, and with healthy controls matched by sex, age, and education.
    Celiac disease patients had similar cognitive performance and anxiety, but no significant differences in depression scores compared with disease controls.
    A total of thirty-three subjects were diagnosed with celiac disease. Compared with the 26 healthy control subjects, the 17 celiac disease subjects, and the 17 disease control subjects, who mostly had irritable bowel syndrome, showed impaired cognitive performance (P=0.02 and P=0.04, respectively), functional impairment (P<0.01), and higher depression (P<0.01). 
    From their data, the team noted that any abnormal cognitive functions they saw in adults with newly diagnosed celiac disease did not seem not to be a result of the disease itself. 
    Their results indicate that cognitive dysfunction in celiac patients could be related to long-term symptoms from chronic disease, in general.
    Source:
    J Clin Gastroenterol. 2018 Mar 1. doi: 10.1097/MCG.0000000000001018.

    Connie Sarros
    Celiac.com 04/21/2018 - Dear Friends and Readers,
    I have been writing articles for Scott Adams since the 2002 Summer Issue of the Scott-Free Press. The Scott-Free Press evolved into the Journal of Gluten Sensitivity. I felt honored when Scott asked me ten years ago to contribute to his quarterly journal and it's been a privilege to write articles for his publication ever since.
    Due to personal health reasons and restrictions, I find that I need to retire. My husband and I can no longer travel the country speaking at conferences and to support groups (which we dearly loved to do) nor can I commit to writing more books, articles, or menus. Consequently, I will no longer be contributing articles to the Journal of Gluten Sensitivity. 
    My following books will still be available at Amazon.com:
    Gluten-free Cooking for Dummies Student's Vegetarian Cookbook for Dummies Wheat-free Gluten-free Dessert Cookbook Wheat-free Gluten-free Reduced Calorie Cookbook Wheat-free Gluten-free Cookbook for Kids and Busy Adults (revised version) My first book was published in 1996. My journey since then has been incredible. I have met so many in the celiac community and I feel blessed to be able to call you friends. Many of you have told me that I helped to change your life – let me assure you that your kind words, your phone calls, your thoughtful notes, and your feedback throughout the years have had a vital impact on my life, too. Thank you for all of your support through these years.

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 04/20/2018 - A digital media company and a label data company are teaming up to help major manufacturers target, reach and convert their desired shoppers based on dietary needs, such as gluten-free diet. The deal could bring synergy in emerging markets such as the gluten-free and allergen-free markets, which represent major growth sectors in the global food industry. 
    Under the deal, personalized digital media company Catalina will be joining forces with Label Insight. Catalina uses consumer purchases data to target shoppers on a personal base, while Label Insight works with major companies like Kellogg, Betty Crocker, and Pepsi to provide insight on food label data to government, retailers, manufacturers and app developers.
    "Brands with very specific product benefits, gluten-free for example, require precise targeting to efficiently reach and convert their desired shoppers,” says Todd Morris, President of Catalina's Go-to-Market organization, adding that “Catalina offers the only purchase-based targeting solution with this capability.” 
    Label Insight’s clients include food and beverage giants such as Unilever, Ben & Jerry's, Lipton and Hellman’s. Label Insight technology has helped the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) build the sector’s very first scientifically accurate database of food ingredients, health attributes and claims.
    Morris says the joint partnership will allow Catalina to “enhance our dataset and further increase our ability to target shoppers who are currently buying - or have shown intent to buy - in these emerging categories,” including gluten-free, allergen-free, and other free-from foods.
    The deal will likely make for easier, more precise targeting of goods to consumers, and thus provide benefits for manufacturers and retailers looking to better serve their retail food customers, especially in specialty areas like gluten-free and allergen-free foods.
    Source:
    fdfworld.com

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 04/19/2018 - Previous genome and linkage studies indicate the existence of a new disease triggering mechanism that involves amino acid metabolism and nutrient sensing signaling pathways. In an effort to determine if amino acids might play a role in the development of celiac disease, a team of researchers recently set out to investigate if plasma amino acid levels differed among children with celiac disease compared with a control group.
     
    The research team included Åsa Torinsson Naluai, Ladan Saadat Vafa, Audur H. Gudjonsdottir, Henrik Arnell, Lars Browaldh, and Daniel Agardh. They are variously affiliated with the Institute of Biomedicine, Department of Microbiology & Immunology, Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; the Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden; the Department of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition, Karolinska University Hospital and Division of Pediatrics, CLINTEC, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden; the Department of Clinical Science and Education, Karolinska Institute, Sodersjukhuset, Stockholm, Sweden; the Department of Mathematical Sciences, Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden; the Diabetes & Celiac Disease Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences, Lund University, Malmö, Sweden; and with the Nathan S Kline Institute in the U.S.A.
    First, the team used liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC/MS) to analyze amino acid levels in fasting plasma samples from 141 children with celiac disease and 129 non-celiac disease controls. They then crafted a general linear model using age and experimental effects as covariates to compare amino acid levels between children with celiac disease and non-celiac control subjects.
    Compared with the control group, seven out of twenty-three children with celiac disease showed elevated levels of the the following amino acids: tryptophan; taurine; glutamic acid; proline; ornithine; alanine; and methionine.
    The significance of the individual amino acids do not survive multiple correction, however, multivariate analyses of the amino acid profile showed significantly altered amino acid levels in children with celiac disease overall and after correction for age, sex and experimental effects.
    This study shows that amino acids can influence inflammation and may play a role in the development of celiac disease.
    Source:
    PLoS One. 2018; 13(3): e0193764. doi: & 10.1371/journal.pone.0193764