• 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

    77,369
    Total Members
    3,093
    Most Online
    Tesy
    Newest Member
    Tesy
    Joined
  • 0

    Cliff Notes Version of the FDA'S Gluten Free Food Labeling Act Webinar


    Carissa Bell

    Celiac.com 10/24/2013 - I recently attended the FDA'S Gluten-Free Food Labeling Act seminar and I wanted to share with you what I learned.  


    Ads by Google:




    ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADS
    Ads by Google:



    Photo: CC-- SumOfUsThe FDA’s gluten-free labeling rule is not mandatory, meaning manufacturers are not required to call out “gluten” in food products.  While the regulation is voluntary, what’s important to know is that any product that is labeled gluten-free must meet certain FDA requirements.  To simplify, a packaged food product regulated by the FDA that is labeled gluten-free must contain less than 20 parts per million (ppm) gluten, but it must also comply with additional criteria beyond this specific threshold.  20 ppm is not  based on serving size either, which is key to remember. 

    The use of a “gluten-free” label does not replace the need to comply with the mandatory allergen labeling that requires wheat and the other top allergens to be listed.  As much as most of us would like, there is currently no way to guarantee “zero gluten.” Current validated testing methods cannot test to that level.  Food products that are labeled “no gluten,” “free of gluten,” and “without gluten” must also comply with the FDA’s gluten-free ruling. The claims “made no with no gluten-containing ingredients” and “not made with gluten-containing ingredients” do not have to comply with the ruling. 

    The regulation will allow inherently gluten-free foods, such as a bag of raw carrots or bottle water, to be labeled gluten-free. Here’s an example: While there can still be the case where one package of fresh broccoli may be labeled gluten-free while another may not be, both are still safe for people with celiac disease because broccoli in its natural state is gluten-free.  Oats are not considered a gluten-containing grain, but they may come into contact with wheat by cross contamination.  You should only eat flours that are labeled gluten-free.  The FDA does not have the authority to regulate gluten-free claims. 

    Restaurants serving gluten-free food must do everything in their power to keep food gluten-free if they are making this claim.  Foods labeled by the USDA are not covered by the FDA labeling act.  Also, beverages regulated by TTB are not covered by the FDA'S labeling either.  The most startling thing that I learned is that it is not unusual for a manufacturer to use barley and still label the product gluten-free.  The bottom line is that even if the product is labeled gluten-free, read every ingredient and read it twice just to make sure you're safe!

    0


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Since the 20ppm is not based on serving size does this mean the amount in the package is less than 20ppm if there is more than one serving in a package?

    Also won't manufacturers who label their product gluten free have to make sure there is no barley in their product? Or is this just something that happens now that will be addressed by the new rules?

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Doesn't sound like the new FDA gluten-free ruling will have much benefit for those of us with celiac. Couldn't trust gluten-free claims before, and there really isn't a reason to trust them any more in the future. It is not a bit surprising that the ruling won't be all that helpful, for us. Good for industry, though.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest Allison

    Posted

    Thank you for the clarifying information! I had an idea this was the case with labeling but now I know for sure.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest Robert M.

    Posted

    Thank you for the information. Looks like it's still up to us to guard our food choices. Our family looks at every label to cover my dietary problems. I watch each mouthful of food I eat. Again, thank you.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Since the 20ppm is not based on serving size does this mean the amount in the package is less than 20ppm if there is more than one serving in a package?

    Also won't manufacturers who label their product gluten free have to make sure there is no barley in their product? Or is this just something that happens now that will be addressed by the new rules?

    I think you are incorrectly interpreting this concept--manufacturers don't add gluten up to 20ppm...their products must test below this, which is considered a safe level for celiacs.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest carissa bell

    Posted

    Doesn't sound like the new FDA gluten-free ruling will have much benefit for those of us with celiac. Couldn't trust gluten-free claims before, and there really isn't a reason to trust them any more in the future. It is not a bit surprising that the ruling won't be all that helpful, for us. Good for industry, though.

    Donnie,

    You are exactly right, couldn't trust them before and I trust them less now. Which is why I am trying to go back to my gluten free roots and eat only foods that are naturally gluten free and doesn't come out of a box.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest carissa bell

    Posted

    Thank you for the clarifying information! I had an idea this was the case with labeling but now I know for sure.

    Allison,

    you are very welcome!! As soon as I learned about this webinar I knew I had to attend so that I could share the information with all of you! There is a lot of information and much of it was confusing, so I am happy to de-confuse you as much as possible.

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest carissa bell

    Posted

    Thank you for the information. Looks like it's still up to us to guard our food choices. Our family looks at every label to cover my dietary problems. I watch each mouthful of food I eat. Again, thank you.

    Robert,

    You are quite welcome. I too read every single label and guard every bite I ingest, you have to.

    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 emoji 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   8 Members, 0 Anonymous, 947 Guests (See full list)

  • Related Articles

    Scott Adams
    Celiac.com 07/21/2004 - Tonight the U.S. House of Representatives, under the leadership of Rep. Nita Lowey (D-NY), passed the Food Allergen Labeling and Consumer Protection Act (S. 741).
    This landmark legislation will require the top 8 food allergens [milk, eggs, peanuts, tree nuts, fish, shellfish, wheat and soy] to be listed on food labels by January 1, 2006.
    The bill also requires the FDA to develop rules for the use of the term gluten-free on product labels by January 2008.
    The One Voice of the Celiac Community has been heard !
    American Celiac Task Force
    actf@fogworks.net

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 08/10/2011 - For growing numbers of Americans, and millions overall, it is important to eat food that is gluten-free. For these people, maintaining good health, and avoiding serious and unpleasant side effects means avoiding gluten, a protein found in wheat, rye and barley.
    However, the question of what, exactly is meant by a food label that claims the food to be "gluten-free" has continued to elude the FDA for the last seven years.
    Because the FDA has no current standard for the term, "gluten-free" means essentially whatever any given manufacturer wants it to mean. Thus, a "gluten-free" label does not mean that a food is free of any and all gluten, or even that it's free of all but trace amounts.
    There should be a gluten-free standard by now, but there is not. In 2004, Congress passed a law requiring the Food and Drug Administration to define the phrase 'gluten-free' by 2008. That deadline passed with the FDA providing no such definition, and we still have no official ruling today, in 2011.
    For people who must avoid gluten, doing so is essential to maintaining good health. However, avoiding gluten in processed products, even those that are gluten-free in theory, can be a challenge. Also, to be fair, there can be unforeseen challenges to establishing these standards. Sometimes products that seem to contain gluten-free ingredients - corn tortillas, say, or roasted peanuts - can pick up traces of gluten during processing.
    Often, gluten can hide deep inside an ingredient list, as such ingredients as "caramel coloring," "emulsifiers," "natural juices" and dozens of other common additives may or may not contain gluten, depending on where and how those ingredients were made.
    A "gluten-free" label ought to offer peace of mind, but so far, the phrase has been better for corporate bottom lines than for consumers. While the FDA has dithered about the meaning of "gluten-free," the market for those products has exploded. In 2003, it was $100 million; next year, it's estimated to be $2.6 billion.
    Some manufacturers go to great lengths to ensure that their gluten-free products are, in fact, free of gluten. Many test ingredients and scrupulously avoid contamination in their factories. Many also test final products to make sure they are safely gluten-free. Other manufacturers do none of that. And without a uniform standard for labels, people at risk can't reliably know the difference.
    The Center for Celiac Research has faulted the FDA for spending far too much time on studies. The group calls for the agency to act quickly to establish a uniform definition. Celiac.com concurs one-hundred percent.
    Millions of Americans with celiac disease and gluten intolerance deserve to be able to shop for and eat foods that are reliably gluten-free.
    This article echoes an editorial in the Houston Chronicle, titled: Sickening - After seven years, why can't the FDA define 'gluten-free'?

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 08/31/2012 - Since August 4th, 2012, Canadian Food Allergen Labeling Regulations require all food products containing gluten, or any of ten other major allergens, to clearly state their presence on the label.
    This change marks an important step in consumer safety that will benefit the estimated three million Canadians with celiac disease and gluten sensitivity, as well as others with sensitivities to major food allergens.
    For people with celiac disease, consuming gluten can cause anemia, nutritional deficiencies, a blistering skin rash, and an increased risk of other autoimmune diseases such as Type 1 diabetes. It can also lead to some cancers of the gut.
    One major problem for people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity is that, unless clearly stated on the label, it can be difficult to tell whether or not gluten is present in foods they may buy.
    A 2009 Health Canada survey of approximately 7,000 people revealed that 96.1% of individuals read every ingredient on all food products to figure out whether the product contains gluten.
    Nearly eighty percent of those surveyed said that their greatest challenge was with incomplete labeling.
    For people who are sensitive to gluten and/or other major allergens, this new labeling rule will remove much of the guesswork from grocery shopping, and substantially reduce the risk to individuals sensitive or intolerant to gluten or other allergens.
    Those risks include an estimated 14,000 emergency hospital wards each year that are the result of reactions to gluten and other allergens, which carry a projected $5 million in extra health care costs.
    Source:
    PRWeb

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 03/18/2015 - A man who suffers from celiac disease has sued the FDA for allowing gluten to be used as a coating on prescription drug and over-the-counter medicine capsules.
    Remember, people with celiac disease can suffer intestinal damage when they consume gluten. This can damage can lead to neurological, among other disorders.
    The man, Michael Weber, was taking a generic drug seven years ago, and developed side effects consistent with ingesting gluten.
    Weber says he was unable to determine the drug’s gluten status through his pharmacist, and
    Weber went on to petition the FDA to either eliminate wheat gluten in medicines or require new labeling on drugs containing the protein.
    In 2011, the FDA sought public comments about the issue. In 2014, the FDA issued gluten-free definitions and labeling standards for commercial foods, but has failed to act on drugs. So Weber has now filed a lawsuit to demand the FDA do something. The complaint can be read here.
    This raises a couple of questions: Do people with celiac disease deserve to know if there is gluten in their medicine? Do they deserve access to medicines that are gluten-free? Should the FDA definitions and labeling standards also apply to drugs and medicines?

  • Recent Articles

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/18/2018 - Celiac disease has been mainly associated with Caucasian populations in Northern Europe, and their descendants in other countries, but new scientific evidence is beginning to challenge that view. Still, the exact global prevalence of celiac disease remains unknown.  To get better data on that issue, a team of researchers recently conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to get a reasonably accurate estimate the global prevalence of celiac disease. 
    The research team included P Singh, A Arora, TA Strand, DA Leffler, C Catassi, PH Green, CP Kelly, V Ahuja, and GK Makharia. They are variously affiliated with the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi, India; Innlandet Hospital Trust, Lillehammer, Norway; Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Gastroenterology Research and Development, Takeda Pharmaceuticals Inc, Cambridge, MA; Department of Pediatrics, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy; Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; USA Celiac Disease Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; and the Department of Gastroenterology and Human Nutrition, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
    For their review, the team searched Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE for the keywords ‘celiac disease,’ ‘celiac,’ ‘tissue transglutaminase antibody,’ ‘anti-endomysium antibody,’ ‘endomysial antibody,’ and ‘prevalence’ for studies published from January 1991 through March 2016. 
    The team cross-referenced each article with the words ‘Asia,’ ‘Europe,’ ‘Africa,’ ‘South America,’ ‘North America,’ and ‘Australia.’ They defined celiac diagnosis based on European Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition guidelines. The team used 96 articles of 3,843 articles in their final analysis.
    Overall global prevalence of celiac disease was 1.4% in 275,818 individuals, based on positive blood tests for anti-tissue transglutaminase and/or anti-endomysial antibodies. The pooled global prevalence of biopsy-confirmed celiac disease was 0.7% in 138,792 individuals. That means that numerous people with celiac disease potentially remain undiagnosed.
    Rates of celiac disease were 0.4% in South America, 0.5% in Africa and North America, 0.6% in Asia, and 0.8% in Europe and Oceania; the prevalence was 0.6% in female vs 0.4% males. Celiac disease was significantly more common in children than adults.
    This systematic review and meta-analysis showed celiac disease to be reported worldwide. Blood test data shows celiac disease rate of 1.4%, while biopsy data shows 0.7%. The prevalence of celiac disease varies with sex, age, and location. 
    This review demonstrates a need for more comprehensive population-based studies of celiac disease in numerous countries.  The 1.4% rate indicates that there are 91.2 million people worldwide with celiac disease, and 3.9 million are in the U.S.A.
    Source:
    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun;16(6):823-836.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.037.

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/16/2018 - Summer is the time for chips and salsa. This fresh salsa recipe relies on cabbage, yes, cabbage, as a secret ingredient. The cabbage brings a delicious flavor and helps the salsa hold together nicely for scooping with your favorite chips. The result is a fresh, tasty salsa that goes great with guacamole.
    Ingredients:
    3 cups ripe fresh tomatoes, diced 1 cup shredded green cabbage ½ cup diced yellow onion ¼ cup chopped fresh cilantro 1 jalapeno, seeded 1 Serrano pepper, seeded 2 tablespoons lemon juice 2 tablespoons red wine vinegar 2 garlic cloves, minced salt to taste black pepper, to taste Directions:
    Purée all ingredients together in a blender.
    Cover and refrigerate for at least 1 hour. 
    Adjust seasoning with salt and pepper, as desired. 
    Serve is a bowl with tortilla chips and guacamole.

    Dr. Ron Hoggan, Ed.D.
    Celiac.com 06/15/2018 - There seems to be widespread agreement in the published medical research reports that stuttering is driven by abnormalities in the brain. Sometimes these are the result of brain injuries resulting from a stroke. Other types of brain injuries can also result in stuttering. Patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus, an area of the brain that regulates some motor functions, experienced a return or worsening of stuttering that improved when the stimulation was turned off (1). Similarly, stroke has also been reported in association with acquired stuttering (2). While there are some reports of psychological mechanisms underlying stuttering, a majority of reports seem to favor altered brain morphology and/or function as the root of stuttering (3). Reports of structural differences between the brain hemispheres that are absent in those who do not stutter are also common (4). About 5% of children stutter, beginning sometime around age 3, during the phase of speech acquisition. However, about 75% of these cases resolve without intervention, before reaching their teens (5). Some cases of aphasia, a loss of speech production or understanding, have been reported in association with damage or changes to one or more of the language centers of the brain (6). Stuttering may sometimes arise from changes or damage to these same language centers (7). Thus, many stutterers have abnormalities in the same regions of the brain similar to those seen in aphasia.
    So how, you may ask, is all this related to gluten? As a starting point, one report from the medical literature identifies a patient who developed aphasia after admission for severe diarrhea. By the time celiac disease was diagnosed, he had completely lost his faculty of speech. However, his speech and normal bowel function gradually returned after beginning a gluten free diet (8). This finding was so controversial at the time of publication (1988) that the authors chose to remain anonymous. Nonetheless, it is a valuable clue that suggests gluten as a factor in compromised speech production. At about the same time (late 1980’s) reports of connections between untreated celiac disease and seizures/epilepsy were emerging in the medical literature (9).
    With the advent of the Internet a whole new field of anecdotal information was emerging, connecting a variety of neurological symptoms to celiac disease. While many medical practitioners and researchers were casting aspersions on these assertions, a select few chose to explore such claims using scientific research designs and methods. While connections between stuttering and gluten consumption seem to have been overlooked by the medical research community, there is a rich literature on the Internet that cries out for more structured investigation of this connection. Conversely, perhaps a publication bias of the peer review process excludes work that explores this connection.
    Whatever the reason that stuttering has not been reported in the medical literature in association with gluten ingestion, a number of personal disclosures and comments suggesting a connection between gluten and stuttering can be found on the Internet. Abid Hussain, in an article about food allergy and stuttering said: “The most common food allergy prevalent in stutterers is that of gluten which has been found to aggravate the stutter” (10). Similarly, Craig Forsythe posted an article that includes five cases of self-reporting individuals who believe that their stuttering is or was connected to gluten, one of whom also experiences stuttering from foods containing yeast (11). The same site contains one report of a stutterer who has had no relief despite following a gluten free diet for 20 years (11). Another stutterer, Jay88, reports the complete disappearance of her/his stammer on a gluten free diet (12). Doubtless there are many more such anecdotes to be found on the Internet* but we have to question them, exercising more skepticism than we might when reading similar claims in a peer reviewed scientific or medical journal.
    There are many reports in such journals connecting brain and neurological ailments with gluten, so it is not much of a stretch, on that basis alone, to suspect that stuttering may be a symptom of the gluten syndrome. Rodney Ford has even characterized celiac disease as an ailment that may begin through gluten-induced neurological damage (13) and Marios Hadjivassiliou and his group of neurologists and neurological investigators have devoted considerable time and effort to research that reveals gluten as an important factor in a majority of neurological diseases of unknown origin (14) which, as I have pointed out previously, includes most neurological ailments.
    My own experience with stuttering is limited. I stuttered as a child when I became nervous, upset, or self-conscious. Although I have been gluten free for many years, I haven’t noticed any impact on my inclination to stutter when upset. I don’t know if they are related, but I have also had challenges with speaking when distressed and I have noticed a substantial improvement in this area since removing gluten from my diet. Nonetheless, I have long wondered if there is a connection between gluten consumption and stuttering. Having done the research for this article, I would now encourage stutterers to try a gluten free diet for six months to see if it will reduce or eliminate their stutter. Meanwhile, I hope that some investigator out there will research this matter, publish her findings, and start the ball rolling toward getting some definitive answers to this question.
    Sources:
    1. Toft M, Dietrichs E. Aggravated stuttering following subthalamic deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease--two cases. BMC Neurol. 2011 Apr 8;11:44.
    2. Tani T, Sakai Y. Stuttering after right cerebellar infarction: a case study. J Fluency Disord. 2010 Jun;35(2):141-5. Epub 2010 Mar 15.
    3. Lundgren K, Helm-Estabrooks N, Klein R. Stuttering Following Acquired Brain Damage: A Review of the Literature. J Neurolinguistics. 2010 Sep 1;23(5):447-454.
    4. Jäncke L, Hänggi J, Steinmetz H. Morphological brain differences between adult stutterers and non-stutterers. BMC Neurol. 2004 Dec 10;4(1):23.
    5. Kell CA, Neumann K, von Kriegstein K, Posenenske C, von Gudenberg AW, Euler H, Giraud AL. How the brain repairs stuttering. Brain. 2009 Oct;132(Pt 10):2747-60. Epub 2009 Aug 26.
    6. Galantucci S, Tartaglia MC, Wilson SM, Henry ML, Filippi M, Agosta F, Dronkers NF, Henry RG, Ogar JM, Miller BL, Gorno-Tempini ML. White matter damage in primary progressive aphasias: a diffusion tensor tractography study. Brain. 2011 Jun 11.
    7. Lundgren K, Helm-Estabrooks N, Klein R. Stuttering Following Acquired Brain Damage: A Review of the Literature. J Neurolinguistics. 2010 Sep 1;23(5):447-454.
    8. [No authors listed] Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Weekly clinicopathological exercises. Case 43-1988. A 52-year-old man with persistent watery diarrhea and aphasia. N Engl J Med. 1988 Oct 27;319(17):1139-48
    9. Molteni N, Bardella MT, Baldassarri AR, Bianchi PA. Celiac disease associated with epilepsy and intracranial calcifications: report of two patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 1988 Sep;83(9):992-4.
    10. http://ezinearticles.com/?Food-Allergy-and-Stuttering-Link&id=1235725 
    11. http://www.craig.copperleife.com/health/stuttering_allergies.htm 
    12. https://www.celiac.com/forums/topic/73362-any-help-is-appreciated/
    13. Ford RP. The gluten syndrome: a neurological disease. Med Hypotheses. 2009 Sep;73(3):438-40. Epub 2009 Apr 29.
    14. Hadjivassiliou M, Gibson A, Davies-Jones GA, Lobo AJ, Stephenson TJ, Milford-Ward A. Does cryptic gluten sensitivity play a part in neurological illness? Lancet. 1996 Feb 10;347(8998):369-71.

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/14/2018 - Refractory celiac disease type II (RCDII) is a rare complication of celiac disease that has high death rates. To diagnose RCDII, doctors identify a clonal population of phenotypically aberrant intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). 
    However, researchers really don’t have much data regarding the frequency and significance of clonal T cell receptor (TCR) gene rearrangements (TCR-GRs) in small bowel (SB) biopsies of patients without RCDII. Such data could provide useful comparison information for patients with RCDII, among other things.
    To that end, a research team recently set out to try to get some information about the frequency and importance of clonal T cell receptor (TCR) gene rearrangements (TCR-GRs) in small bowel (SB) biopsies of patients without RCDII. The research team included Shafinaz Hussein, Tatyana Gindin, Stephen M Lagana, Carolina Arguelles-Grande, Suneeta Krishnareddy, Bachir Alobeid, Suzanne K Lewis, Mahesh M Mansukhani, Peter H R Green, and Govind Bhagat.
    They are variously affiliated with the Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, and the Department of Medicine at the Celiac Disease Center, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, USA. Their team analyzed results of TCR-GR analyses performed on SB biopsies at our institution over a 3-year period, which were obtained from eight active celiac disease, 172 celiac disease on gluten-free diet, 33 RCDI, and three RCDII patients and 14 patients without celiac disease. 
    Clonal TCR-GRs are not infrequent in cases lacking features of RCDII, while PCPs are frequent in all disease phases. TCR-GR results should be assessed in conjunction with immunophenotypic, histological and clinical findings for appropriate diagnosis and classification of RCD.
    The team divided the TCR-GR patterns into clonal, polyclonal and prominent clonal peaks (PCPs), and correlated these patterns with clinical and pathological features. In all, they detected clonal TCR-GR products in biopsies from 67% of patients with RCDII, 17% of patients with RCDI and 6% of patients with gluten-free diet. They found PCPs in all disease phases, but saw no significant difference in the TCR-GR patterns between the non-RCDII disease categories (p=0.39). 
    They also noted a higher frequency of surface CD3(−) IELs in cases with clonal TCR-GR, but the PCP pattern showed no associations with any clinical or pathological feature. 
    Repeat biopsy showed that the clonal or PCP pattern persisted for up to 2 years with no evidence of RCDII. The study indicates that better understanding of clonal T cell receptor gene rearrangements may help researchers improve refractory celiac diagnosis. 
    Source:
    Journal of Clinical Pathologyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2018-205023

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/13/2018 - There have been numerous reports that olmesartan, aka Benicar, seems to trigger sprue‐like enteropathy in many patients, but so far, studies have produced mixed results, and there really hasn’t been a rigorous study of the issue. A team of researchers recently set out to assess whether olmesartan is associated with a higher rate of enteropathy compared with other angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs).
    The research team included Y.‐H. Dong; Y. Jin; TN Tsacogianis; M He; PH Hsieh; and JJ Gagne. They are variously affiliated with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA, USA; the Faculty of Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Science at National Yang‐Ming University in Taipei, Taiwan; and the Department of Hepato‐Gastroenterology, Chi Mei Medical Center in Tainan, Taiwan.
    To get solid data on the issue, the team conducted a cohort study among ARB initiators in 5 US claims databases covering numerous health insurers. They used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for enteropathy‐related outcomes, including celiac disease, malabsorption, concomitant diagnoses of diarrhea and weight loss, and non‐infectious enteropathy. In all, they found nearly two million eligible patients. 
    They then assessed those patients and compared the results for olmesartan initiators to initiators of other ARBs after propensity score (PS) matching. They found unadjusted incidence rates of 0.82, 1.41, 1.66 and 29.20 per 1,000 person‐years for celiac disease, malabsorption, concomitant diagnoses of diarrhea and weight loss, and non‐infectious enteropathy respectively. 
    After PS matching comparing olmesartan to other ARBs, hazard ratios were 1.21 (95% CI, 1.05‐1.40), 1.00 (95% CI, 0.88‐1.13), 1.22 (95% CI, 1.10‐1.36) and 1.04 (95% CI, 1.01‐1.07) for each outcome. Patients aged 65 years and older showed greater hazard ratios for celiac disease, as did patients receiving treatment for more than 1 year, and patients receiving higher cumulative olmesartan doses.
    This is the first comprehensive multi‐database study to document a higher rate of enteropathy in olmesartan initiators as compared to initiators of other ARBs, though absolute rates were low for both groups.
    Source:
    Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics