Background: Histological changes induced by gluten in the duodenal mucosa of patients with non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) are poorly defined. Objectives: To evaluate the structural and inflammatory features of NCGS compared to controls and coeliac disease (CeD) with milder enteropathy (Marsh I-II). Methods: Well-oriented biopsies of 262 control cases with normal gastroscopy and histologic findings, 261 CeD, and 175 NCGS biopsies from 9 contributing countries were examined. Villus height (VH, in μm), crypt depth (CrD, in μm), villus-to-crypt ratios (VCR), IELs (intraepithelial lymphocytes/100 enterocytes), and other relevant histological, serologic, and demographic parameters were quantified. Results: The median VH in NCGS was significantly shorter (600, IQR: 400–705) than controls (900, IQR: 667–1112) (p < 0.001). NCGS patients with Marsh I-II had similar VH and VCR to CeD [465 µm (IQR: 390–620) vs. 427 µm (IQR: 348–569, p = 0·176)]. The VCR in NCGS with Marsh 0 was lower than controls (p < 0.001). The median IEL in NCGS with Marsh 0 was higher than controls (23.0 vs. 13.7, p < 0.001). To distinguish Marsh 0 NCGS from controls, an IEL cut-off of 14 showed 79% sensitivity and 55% specificity. IEL densities in Marsh I-II NCGS and CeD groups were similar. Conclusion: NCGS duodenal mucosa exhibits distinctive changes consistent with an intestinal response to luminal antigens, even at the Marsh 0 stage of villus architecture.
Nomenclature and diagnosis of seronegative coeliac disease and chronic non-coeliac enteropathies in adults: the Paris consensus
Objective Differential diagnosis of villous atrophy (VA) without coeliac antibodies in adults includes seronegative coeliac disease (CD) and chronic enteropathies unrelated to gluten, ie. non-coeliac enteropathies (NCEs). There is currently no international consensus on the nomenclature and diagnostic criteria for these enteropathies. In this work, a Delphi process was conducted to address this diagnostic and clinical uncertainty. Design An international task force of 13 gastroenterologists from six countries was recruited at the 16th International Coeliac Disease Symposium, Paris, 2019. Between September 2019 and July 2021, a Delphi process was conducted through mail surveys to reach a consensus on which conditions to consider in the differential diagnosis of VA with negative coeliac serology and the clinical diagnostic approaches required for these conditions. A 70% agreement threshold was adopted. Results Chronic enteropathies characterised by VA and negative coeliac serology can be attributed to two main clinical scenarios: forms of CD presenting with negative serology, which also include seronegative CD and CD associated with IgA deficiency, and NCEs, with the latter recognising different underlying aetiologies. A consensus was reached on the diagnostic criteria for NCEs assisting clinicians in differentiating NCEs from seronegative CD. Although in adults seronegative CD is the most common aetiology in patients with VA and negative serology, discriminating between seronegative CD and NCEs is key to avoid unnecessary lifelong gluten-free diet, treat disease-specific morbidity and contrast poor long-term outcomes. Conclusion This paper describes the Paris consensus on the definitions and diagnostic criteria for seronegative CD and chronic NCEs in adults.
Randomised clinical trial: significant biochemical and colonic transit effects of the farnesoid X receptor agonist tropifexor in patients with primary bile acid diarrhoea
SummaryBackgroundIn primary bile acid diarrhoea, feedback by farnesoid X receptor (FXR) and fibroblast growth hormone 19 (FGF19) on hepatic bile acid production is impaired.AimsTo evaluate the safety, mechanisms and efficacy of negative feedback by FXR activation with tropifexor, a non‐bile acid FXR agonist, in patients with primary bile acid diarrhoea.MethodsIn this double‐blind, multicentre, randomised, cross‐over study, patients received tropifexor 60 µg or placebo once daily for 14 days in each of two treatment periods. Primary objectives included tropifexor safety and tolerability, and on stool frequency and form. Other assessments included pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic measures, biochemical markers and gastrointestinal transit.ResultsTwenty patients (tropifexor 60 µg/placebo [N = 10]; placebo/tropifexor 60 µg [N = 10]) were enrolled. Adverse event rates were lower with tropifexor vs placebo (52.9% vs 73.7%). No patient had pruritus during tropifexor intake. There were no significant differences in stool frequency, stool form or loperamide use between treatments. Tropifexor increased FGF19 and decreased 7α‐hydroxy‐4‐cholesten‐3‐one (C4) levels for up to 8 h. Plasma tropifexor concentrations peaked at 5 hours post‐dose on days 1 and 12. At day 12, tropifexor caused reduction in peak total bile acid concentration (33%, P = 0.032) and exposure (36%, P = 0.005). Moreover, tropifexor showed a significant increase in ascending colon half‐emptying time (P = 0.036).ConclusionsTropifexor 60 µg once daily had acceptable safety and tolerability. Changes in FGF19 and C4 showed effective target engagement; however, higher doses may be required to observe stool frequency changes. Slowing of ascending colon emptying suggests therapeutic potential of tropifexor in patients with primary bile acid diarrhoea.ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT02713243.
Outcome measures in coeliac disease trials: the Tampere recommendations
Objective A gluten-free diet is the only treatment option of coeliac disease, but recently an increasing number of trials have begun to explore alternative treatment strategies. We aimed to review the literature on coeliac disease therapeutic trials and issue recommendations for outcome measures. Design Based on a literature review of 10 062 references, we (17 researchers and 2 patient representatives from 10 countries) reviewed the use and suitability of both clinical and non-clinical outcome measures. We then made expert-based recommendations for use of these outcomes in coeliac disease trials and identified areas where research is needed. Results We comment on the use of histology, serology, clinical outcome assessment (including patient-reported outcomes), quality of life and immunological tools including gluten immunogenic peptides for trials in coeliac disease. Conclusion Careful evaluation and reporting of outcome measures will increase transparency and comparability of coeliac disease therapeutic trials, and will benefit patients, healthcare and the pharmaceutical industry.
Transition from childhood to adulthood in coeliac disease: the Prague consensus report
The process of transition from childhood to adulthood is characterised by physical, mental and psychosocial development. Data on the transition and transfer of care in adolescents/young adults with coeliac disease (CD) are scarce. In this paper, 17 physicians from 10 countries (Sweden, Italy, the USA, Germany, Norway, the Netherlands, Australia, Britain, Israel and Denmark) and two representatives from patient organisations (Association of European Coeliac Societies and the US Celiac Disease Foundation) examined the literature on transition from childhood to adulthood in CD. Medline (Ovid) and EMBASE were searched between 1900 and September 2015. Evidence in retrieved reports was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation method. The current consensus report aims to help healthcare personnel manage CD in the adolescent and young adult and provide optimal care and transition into adult healthcare for patients with this disease. In adolescence, patients with CD should gradually assume exclusive responsibility for their care, although parental support is still important. Dietary adherence and consequences of non-adherence should be discussed during transition. In most adolescents and young adults, routine small intestinal biopsy is not needed to reconfirm a childhood diagnosis of CD based on European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) or North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (NASPGHAN) criteria, but a biopsy may be considered where paediatric diagnostic criteria have not been fulfilled, such as, in a patient without biopsy at diagnosis, additional serology (endomysium antibody) has not been performed to confirm 10-fold positivity of tissue transglutaminase antibodies or when a no biopsy strategy has been adopted in an asymptomatic child.
Screening for celiac disease in the general population and in high‐risk groups
Background Celiac disease (CD) occurs in approximately 1% of the Western population. It is a lifelong disorder that is associated with impaired quality of life (QOL) and an excessive risk of comorbidity and death. Objectives To review the literature on screening for CD in relation to the current World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for mass screening. Methods We performed a PubMed search to identify indexed papers on CD screening with a publication date from 1900 until 1 June 2014. When we deemed an abstract relevant, we read the corresponding paper in detail. Results CD fulfills several WHO criteria for mass screening (high prevalence, available treatment and difficult clinical detection), but it has not yet been established that treatment of asymptomatic CD may reduce the excessive risk of severe complications, leading to higher QOL nor that it is cost‐effective. Conclusions Current evidence is not sufficient to support mass screening for CD, but active case‐finding may be appropriate, as we recognize that most patients with CD will still be missed by this strategy. Although proof of benefit is still lacking, screening for CD may be appropriate in high‐risk groups.
Diagnosis and management of adult coeliac disease: guidelines from the British Society of Gastroenterology
A multidisciplinary panel of 18 physicians and 3 non-physicians from eight countries (Sweden, UK, Argentina, Australia, Italy, Finland, Norway and the USA) reviewed the literature on diagnosis and management of adult coeliac disease (CD). This paper presents the recommendations of the British Society of Gastroenterology. Areas of controversies were explored through phone meetings and web surveys. Nine working groups examined the following areas of CD diagnosis and management: classification of CD; genetics and immunology; diagnostics; serology and endoscopy; follow-up; gluten-free diet; refractory CD and malignancies; quality of life; novel treatments; patient support; and screening for CD.