Jump to content



Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-m):


  • You've found your Celiac Tribe! Join our like-minded, private community and share your story, get encouragement and connect with others.

    💬

    • Sign In
    • Sign Up
  • Jefferson Adams
    Jefferson Adams

    Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity Not Holding Up to Scrutiny

    Reviewed and edited by a celiac disease expert.
    Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity Not Holding Up to Scrutiny - Photo: CC--Rick Dikeman
    Caption: Photo: CC--Rick Dikeman

    Celiac.com 08/25/2014 - Numerous people without celiac disease claim to suffer from celiac-like gastrointestinal symptoms when they consume wheat, rye or barley products, and claim that avoiding these products makes them feel better. However, even though many people make this claim, this is largely a self-reported condition. Some data have supported the idea of gluten sensitivity, but the most recent and more complete data seem to indicate that the real culprit might not be gluten, but fermentable, poorly absorbed short-chain carbohydrates known as FODMAPs.

    Photo: CC--Rick DikemanIn fact the same researcher whose early data supported the idea of non-celiac gluten sensitivity also headed the follow-up study that showed no effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates.



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A12):






    Celiac.com Sponsor (A12-m):




    In this third study, that researcher, Peter Gibson at Monash University in Canada set out to assess patients who believe they have NCGS. The study team included Jessica R. Biesiekierski, PhD, RN; Evan D. Newnham, MD, FRACP; Susan J. Shepherd, PhD, APD; Jane G. Muir, PhD, APD; and Peter R. Gibson, MD, FRACP. They are variously affiliated with the Department of Gastroenterology, Eastern Health Clinical School, and the Department of Gastroenterology, Central Clinical School at Monash University, The Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, Australia, and with the Translational Research Center for Gastrointestinal Disorders, Herestraat in Leuven, Belgium.

    The team put out advertisements calling for adults who believed they had non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) and were willing to participate in a clinical trial. Respondents were asked to complete a questionnaire about symptoms, diet, and celiac investigation. They received 248 responses, and completed surveys on a total of 147 people. There were 17 men and 130 women, averaging 43.5 years of age.

    The team eliminated seventy-two percent of the respondents for inadequate exclusion of celiac disease (62%), uncontrolled symptoms despite gluten restriction (24%), and not following a GFD (27%), alone or in combination. A full 15% of respondents had received no testing or examination for celiac disease.

    Gluten avoidance was self-initiated in nearly half of respondents; while it was prescribed by alternative health professionals in 21%, by dietitians in 19%, and by general practitioners in 16%.

    Of 75 respondents who had received duodenal biopsies, nearly one-third had no gluten intake, or inadequate gluten intake, at the time of endoscopy. Inadequate celiac investigation was most common if gluten-avoidance was self-initiated (69%), alternative health professionals (70%), general practitioners (46%), or dietitians (43%).

    A total of 40 respondents fulfilled criteria for NCGS. Those folks showed excellent knowledge of and adherence to a gluten-free diet. However, a full 65% of those who met criteria for NCGS showed intolerance to other foods.

    Just over 1 in 4 respondents self-reporting as NCGS fulfill criteria for its diagnosis, while gluten-avoidance without adequate exclusion of celiac disease is common.

    In 75% of respondents, symptoms are poorly controlled despite gluten avoidance. These results also stress the importance of testing for other food sensitivities, and of celiac screening and evaluation for those people claiming non-celiac gluten-sensitivity.

    Clearly, more study needs to be done to determine if non-celiac gluten sensitivity exists, or if there are other possible causes for the symptoms.

    Sources:

     

    The team put out advertisements calling for adults who believed they had non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) and were willing to participate in a clinical trial. Respondents were asked to complete a questionnaire about symptoms, diet, and celiac investigation. They received 248 responses, and completed surveys on a total of 147 people. There were 17 men and 130 women, averaging 43.5 years of age.

     



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    I don't agree with the conclusion. Dr. Michael Lam has identified some patients with advanced stages of adrenal fatigue syndrome (another illness doctors don't believe in), who have celiac symptoms after inhaling flour (e.g. from baking mix).

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My diagnosis of non-celiac gluten sensitivity was made by physicians who are professors at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. I am not a celiac. I don't have Chron's disease. (I've had blood tests, colonoscopies and a test requiring I drink barium).

     

    I think my case is pretty solid proof that NCGS exists. Any physician researching this is welcome to contact me. I'd be happy to put them in touch with my doctors.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    If you have numerous positive biopsies and don't have DQ2 or DQ8 genes, what term do doctors want to give it? Research on Pubmed shows a lot of newly found genes associated with celiac that have NOTHING to do with the two listed above. Is anyone writing articles on that?

     

    As for FODMAP diet, was handed a copy by a new GI to follow last summer. Said no wheat and or dairy allowed, but you could have beer, raisin bran, whole wheat toast, spelt, oats, yogurt, cheese. Also couldn't have broccoli, onions, garlic, coffee and more. It was 1000s times worse in terms of limitations than a gluten-free/cf diet. Didn't think it made sense and been gluten-free for almost 15 years so I didn't risk it. Have come too far to ever go back to eating gluten if even medically prescribed. Sorry.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    This can hardly be called a study, it is more of a survey. I mean only 2/3 of the respondents were counted because the rest didn't complete the survey. Second statements like "uncontrolled symptoms despite gluten restriction" are vague. Does this mean gluten restrictions didn't help at all? Helped a bit? Most prescription medicines require the slightest of positive effects to be considered worth prescribing so why no the same with the GFD? I do agree people should do more to check for celiac before going on a GFD, at least the blood tests. You have a great site and it would be great to see you up the quality of your reporting and actually read and report on the study, not just the abstract. Also this is one research team, are there any others? It seems to to me this guy has a bit of a vendetta against NCGS.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    (1) Monash University is in Australia, not Canada.

    (2) Can you really draw conclusions from a study that excluded 3/4 of potential participants? I'd guess that the remaining 1/4 had less severe symptoms anyway.

    (3) not to be rude, but the main author is also the main author of the FODMAP diet, which is being commercialized as an app -- so he also has a vested interest in promoting FODMAPs over NCGS. In particular, if you read the abstract, the chosen 40 were overwhelmingly people who also identified other food sensitivities -- so they are people with sensitive stomachs, not people with a wheat/gluten problem.

    The rating isn't because of the poor scholarship in the article, but because none of these questions are raised by the summary.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    To Celiac.com AGAIN!

     

    Concerning "Celiac, the Mysterious and the Medical Need for Gluten Free Diet"

    I was shocked that you would publish these mistaken facts by writer Melissa Reed.

    She writes that, "There are no tests or strict criteria to diagnose gluten sensitivity." There are several labs which have been diagnosing gluten sensitivity for many years now! My self diagnosis for Gluten intolerance was in 2002, and was verified by EnteroLab.com.

    Dr. Ron Hogan has published "An Interview with Dr. Kenneth Fine of EnteroLab.com and the Intestinal Health Institute." Celiac.com- 10-9-13.

     

    As for her warning about avoiding a gluten-free diet before seeing your doctor, it has been

    suggested by several past celiac researchers that testing may not be necessary at all if a

    gluten-free diet is successful in eliminating troubling side-effects.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    To Celiac.com AGAIN!

     

    Concerning "Celiac, the Mysterious and the Medical Need for Gluten Free Diet"

    I was shocked that you would publish these mistaken facts by writer Melissa Reed.

    She writes that, "There are no tests or strict criteria to diagnose gluten sensitivity." There are several labs which have been diagnosing gluten sensitivity for many years now! My self diagnosis for Gluten intolerance was in 2002, and was verified by EnteroLab.com.

    Dr. Ron Hogan has published "An Interview with Dr. Kenneth Fine of EnteroLab.com and the Intestinal Health Institute." Celiac.com- 10-9-13.

     

    As for her warning about avoiding a gluten-free diet before seeing your doctor, it has been

    suggested by several past celiac researchers that testing may not be necessary at all if a

    gluten-free diet is successful in eliminating troubling side-effects.

    As the article you mention in Journal of Gluten Sensitivity points out (An Interview with Dr. Kenneth Fine of EnteroLab.com and the Intestinal Health Institute), Dr. Fine's research hasn't been published, and is not generally accepted by the medical community.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Talk about a misleading headline and "study." I agree that it's more like a survey. If these people really wanted to discover the truth about non-celiac gluten sensitivity, they'd be testing things like cholesterol levels, reproductive hormones, serotonin levels. They'd be asking questions about improvement in symptoms related to migraine headaches, depression, anxiety, diabetes, thyroid issues, inflammation, arthritis, and infertility. They'd be looking at overall weight loss or weight gain. As far as other food sensitivities go: it's no secret that eliminating gluten very often makes other hidden sensitivities more noticeable. How many celiacs find out they have dairy issues once they eliminate gluten? And Dr. Fine's research is not generally accepted by the medical community? Big surprise. His research supports the notion that changing your diet can improve your health. Where's the money to be made in that? Sure, gluten-free bakeries are prospering, but not pharmaceutical companies. That reminds me, who ponies up the cash for medical research? Well, a great deal of the funding comes from pharmaceutical companies. Can you even imagine how much money they stand to lose if a change in diet eliminated the need for antidepressants, anti-inflammatory drugs, infertility treatments, and the like?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I think poeple misunderstand this research when applying it to diet. Also I agree with previous comments that FODMAP diet lists/instructions are inconsistent between practitioners. This is an evolving process. Folks that feel better when tey eat gluten free foods may indeed be because they are avoiding the FODMAPS in wheat etc. Which would make avoiding gluten part of the equation: where have you seen a FODMAP free food that has gluten?Also remember FODMAPs will irritate any intestine that already has issues, so probably is a good treatment for many GI problems, not just gluten sensitivity. I honestly think since is way behind in the celiac disease/gluten immuno-reactivity area, for personal experience I can thing of infinite hypothesis to test that have not been tested. I do not have celiac disease (per doctor) close family member does; I have seen many doctors and none has a clue what I have. Had a good time when I stop eating gluten a few years back, but as I get older, more and more things make me sick.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

      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.


  • About Me

    Jefferson Adams

    Jefferson Adams is Celiac.com's senior writer and Digital Content Director. He earned his B.A. and M.F.A. at Arizona State University, and has authored more than 2,500 articles on celiac disease. His coursework includes studies in science, scientific methodology, biology, anatomy, medicine, logic, and advanced research. He previously served as SF Health News Examiner for Examiner.com, and devised health and medical content for Sharecare.com. Jefferson has spoken about celiac disease to the media, including an appearance on the KQED radio show Forum, and is the editor of the book "Cereal Killers" by Scott Adams and Ron Hoggan, Ed.D.


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):
    Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):





    Celiac.com Sponsors (A17-m):




  • Related Articles

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 09/15/2009 - Active delivery of recombinant autoantigens or allergens to intestinal mucosa by genetically modified Lactococcus lactis (LL) offers a unique therapeutic approach for the induction of tolerance to gluten proteins.
    A team of researchers recently set out to determine whether oral administration of LL-delivered DQ8-specific gliadin epitope induces Ag-specific tolerance.
    The research team was made up of Inge L. Huibregtse, Eric V. Marietta, Shadi Rashtak, Frits Koning, Pieter Rottiers, Chella S. David; Sander J. H. van Deventer, and Joseph A. Murray under the auspices of the Center for Experimental and Molecular Medicine of the Academic Medical Center of the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands.
    Celiac disease is associated with either HLA-DQ2- or HLA-DQ8-restricted responses to specific antigenic epitopes of gliadin, and may be treated by induction of Ag-specific tolerance.
    The research team engineered LL to secrete a deamidated DQ8 gliadin epitope (LL-eDQ8d) and then observed the induction of Ag-specific tolerance in NOD AB degrees DQ8 transgenic mice. The team measured tolerance by delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction, cytokine measurements, eDQ8d-specific proliferation, and regulatory T cell analysis.
    Oral administration of LL-eDQ8d induced suppression of local and systemic DQ8-restricted T cell responses in NOD AB degrees DQ8 transgenic mice. Result was an Ag-specific decrease of the proliferative capacity of inguinal lymph node (ILN) cells and lamina propria cells. Production of IL-10 and TGF-beta and a significant induction of Foxp3(+) regulatory T cells were associated with the eDQ8d-specific suppression induced by LL-eDQ8d.
    These results support the development of orally administered Ag-secreting LL to treat gluten-sensitive disorders. Such treatments may be effective even in cases of established hypersensitivity.

    Journal of immunology (Baltimore, Md. : 1950) 2009;183(4):2390-6



    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 01/27/2010 - New research indicates that the same genetic variants that make a person more susceptible for developing one set of autoimmune diseases may actually make them less susceptible to others.
    A Stanford University research team collaborated with a California hospital and clinical center to perform meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies on half a dozen autoimmune conditions, including type 1 diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis.
    The team uncovered a pattern in the grouping of specific diseases based on SNP data, with certain variables that increased risk for developing some conditions while protecting against others.
    SNPs are short for "single nucleotide polymorphisms — pronounced "snips." They are DNA sequence variations that occur when a single nucleotide (A,T,C,or G) in the genome sequence is altered
    The SNP data led the team to suggest that there may be benefits in classifying autoimmune diseases according to shared genetic factors rather than considering them a single group.
    "Maybe we should stop considering all autoimmune diseases in one lumped category," senior author Atul Butte, a pediatric and bioinformatics researcher at Stanford University and director of the Lucile Packard Children's Hospital's Center for Pediatric Bioinformatics, says in a statement. "It looks as if there may be at least two different kinds."
    The team points out that all autoimmune diseases share common disease mechanisms, but that certain autoimmune diseases share more such mechanisms than do others.
    Past research suggests that individuals with type 1 diabetes face greater risk of developing autoimmune diseases such as autoimmune thyroid disease, multiple sclerosis, and celiac disease.
    And, they added, at least one SNP has been discovered to have opposing effects under varying autoimmune conditions: the G allele of that SNP, called rs2076530, is more common in individuals with type 1 diabetes or rheumatoid arthritis whereas  those with systematic lupus erythematosus typically show the A allele. Given the strong connection between celiac disease, diabetes and other auto-immune conditions, the data seem intriguing.
    These discoveries led Butte and his colleagues to speculate about the way in which genetic factors relate to autoimmune disease clusters.
    The team used meta-analysis to assess 573 SNPs in several GWAS of six autoimmune diseases — type 1 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, Crohn's disease, multiple sclerosis, autoimmune thyroid disease, and ankylosing spondylitis — and five non-autoimmune diseases.
    By looking closely at alleles associated with each disease and determining the strength of these associations, the team crafted a so-called "genetic variation score" to evaluate connections between certain alleles and diseases across multiple genotyping platforms.
    The team evaluated nearly 600 SNPs. They found nine SNPs in which one allele appears to raise individual risk for multiple sclerosis and autoimmune thyroid disease, while lowering the risk for rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis. The alternative alleles for these SNPs, meanwhile, showed the opposite effect.
    "What was surprising was our finding that at nine locations generally associated with autoimmunity risk, where a particular chemical unit conferred a heightened risk of certain autoimmune diseases, but reduced risk of getting certain others," noted lead author Marina Sirota, who serves in a graduate capacity in Butte's Stanford University lab.
    Based on their findings, the research team proposes at least two distinct groups of autoimmune diseases: one containing rheumatoid arthritis and ankylosing spondylitis and another containing multiple sclerosis and autoimmune thyroid disease.
    In the mean time, the team observed, type 1 diabetes appeared to have similarities with both of groups; having some characteristics of autoimmune thyroid disease, but not of multiple sclerosis. Crohn's disease, in contrast, showed no such cluster with either group.
    The results will likely help pave the way for a more complete understanding of the biological pathways at play in these autoimmune diseases. They may also give researchers a better sense of how to apply existing therapies, and even how to create new ones.
    "Several of these nine interesting SNPs we've found are located in or near genes that code for molecules found on cell surfaces," Butte said, "which makes them potentially easier targets for the drugs pharmaceutical researchers are best at producing."
    The team expects the number and nature of SNPs involved will likely grow as more autoimmune disease GWAS reveal new genetic variants associated with these and other diseases.
    "As more genomic information becomes available on increasingly advanced platforms, this sort of analysis can be done on more diseases, possibly hundreds of them," Sirota noted.

    Source: GenomeWeb News



    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 10/26/2011 - In vitro and in clinical studies have shown that oxidative stress plays a role in gluten-induced toxicity,  but no studies have observed this activity in living tissue.
    A research team set out to examine the role of nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor2 in gliadin-mediated toxicity in human Caco-2 intestinal cells and in gliadin-sensitive human leukocyte antigen-DQ8 transgenic mice (DQ8), along with assessing the protective activity of CLA.
    The research team included Paolo Bergamo, Marta Gogliettino, Gianna Palmieri, Ennio Cocca, Francesco Maurano, Rosita Stefanile, Marco Balestrieri, Giuseppe Mazzarella, Chella David, and Mauro Rossi.
    The team had previously observed the protective role played by conjugated linoleic acid (CLA), which works by the activation of nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor2 (Nrf2), which serves as a crucial transcription factor for the synthesis of antioxidant and detoxifying enzymes (phase 2).
    To assess gliadin effects in differentiated Caco-2 cells and in DQ8 mice, they fed the mice a gliadin-containing diet with or without CLA supplementation, and then combined enzymatic, immunochemical, immunohistochemical, and quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) data.
    In both laboratory tests, and in living tissue tests, they found gliadin toxicity accompanied by downregulation of phase 2 and elevated proteasome-acylpeptide hydrolase activity.
    Interestingly, in DQ8 mice intestine, gliadin did not generate severe oxidative stress extent or pathological reactions like those found in celiac patients. Moreover, the reactions that did result were mitigated by CLA.
    From these results, the researchers conclude that CLA offers beneficial effects against the reduction of key intestinal cytoprotective defenses. This indicates a new nutritional approach for the treatment of intestinal disease associated with altered redox homeostasis.
    Source:

    Molecular Nutrition and Food Research; Vol 55 Issue S2. DOI: 10.1002/mnfr.201100295


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 08/16/2012 - Tests for blood antibodies against native gliadin (anti-nGli) are still often assumed to perform better in the diagnosis of celiac disease in young children than tests for antibodies to deamidated gliadin (anti-dGli), tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG), and endomysium (EmA).
    A team of researchers recently set out to determine whether testing IgG and IgA antibodies Against native gliadin was best for diagnosing celiac disease in children under 2-years old. Specifically they wanted to compare the performance of assays for anti-nGli, anti-dGli, anti-tTG, and EmA in this age group.
    The research team included T. Richter, X. Bossuyt, P. Vermeersch, H.H. Uhlig, M. Stern, A. Hauer, K.P. Zimmer, L. Mearin, J.H. Roo, C. Dähnrich, and T. Mothes.
    They are affiliated with the University Children's Hospital, the Children's Hospital of the Clinical Centre, "Sankt Georg," and the Institute of Laboratory Medicine, Clinical Chemistry and Molecular Diagnostics at University Hospital in Leipzig, Germany; with the Department Laboratory Medicine of University Hospital in Leuven, Belgium, the University Children's Hospital in Tübingen, Germany, the University Children's Hospital in Graz, Austria, the University Children's Hospital in Giessen, Germany, the Department of Paediatrics at Leiden University Medical Centre in Leiden, The Netherlands, and with EUROIMMUN Medizinische Labordiagnostika GmbH in Lübeck, Germany.
    For their study, they conducted a retrospective analysis of 184 children. The study group included 42 children with celiac disease under normal diet, and a control group of 142 children up to 2 years of age.
    The team measured immunoglobulin (Ig) A- and IgG-anti-dGli, IgA- and IgG-anti-nGli, IgA- and IgG-anti-tTG, and IgA-EmA in blood samples. They calculated areas under receiver operating characteristics curves, sensitivities, specificities, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios, as well as diagnostic odds ratios.
    When all the data was complete, they found that only tests for IgG-anti-dGli, IgA-anti-tTG, and IgA-EmA had high specificity (≥0.96) connected with high sensitivity (≥0.86), with high positive predictive values (≥0.52 and ≥0.69 at pretest probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1, respectively) and negative predictive values (≥0.99 and ≥0.98 at pretest probabilities of 0.05 and 0.1, respectively).
    These tests also showed high positive likelihood ratio (≥24) at low negative likelihood ratio (≤0.15) and high diagnostic odds ratios (≥136).
    From their data, the team concluded that using anti-nGli tests to diagnose celiac disease in young children was not helpful. They maintain that IgA-anti-tTG, IgA-EmA, and IgG-anti-dGli provided much more reliable results than anti-nGli in diagnosing celiac disease in young children.
    Source:
    J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2012 Jul;55(1):21-25.


  • Popular Now

×
×
  • Create New...