Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Celiac Disease and Wheat Intolerance Syndrome: A Critical Update and Reappraisal

Jericho, Hilary*; Assiri, Asaad; Guandalini, Stefano*

Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: January 2017 - Volume 64 - Issue 1 - p 15–21
doi: 10.1097/MPG.0000000000001312
Invited Review
Free

ABSTRACT Since the first description of celiac disease (CeD) by Samuel Gee in 1888 and the later “miraculous discovery” that bread was responsible for this condition following World War II in Europe, there has been an exponential growth of knowledge regarding CeD. Just when we thought that we knew everything there was to know about it, the disease is, however, offering new challenges, with its presentation having significantly morphed over the years from cases of overt gastrointestinal symptoms, malnutrition, and atrophic villi on duodenal biopsies to that of largely extraintestinal, subtle, or mild symptoms. Along with these changes, unexpectedly a new parallel entity appeared a few years ago and is gaining ground: the so-called nonceliac gluten sensitivity, an improper name because it should actually be referred to as wheat intolerance syndrome given that the role of gluten in all such cases is far from demonstrated and the implication of an immune involvement suggested by the term “sensitivity” is still unfounded. Lastly, wheat can be an offender also through an immunoglobulin E-mediated allergy, whose presence must also be evaluated and ruled out in selected cases.

The practicing physician is therefore now challenged with the task of discerning which patients need to be assessed for one or the other of these disorders, and how.

This review aims at providing an updated, critical reassessment of these 2 entities.

*Department of Pediatrics, University of Chicago Medicine Comer Children's Hospital, Chicago, IL

Department of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Hilary Jericho, MD, Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology, Nutrition, The University of Chicago Medicine, Comer Children's Hospital, 5721 S Maryland Ave, Chicago, IL 60637 (e-mail: Hjericho@peds.bsd.uchicago.edu).

Received 28 April, 2016

Accepted 15 June, 2016

The present work was fully financially supported by King Saud University, through Vice Deanship of research Chairs. There are no prior publications or submissions with significant overlapping information. There are no commercial products mentioned in the manuscript.

The authors report no conflicts of interest.

What Is Known

  • Celiac disease is an autoimmune disease, triggered by the ingestion of gluten in genetically predisposed individuals.
  • The so-called “nonceliac gluten sensitivity” is a term that describes people who report symptoms that respond to the withdrawal of gluten-containing foods from the diet, return upon their reintroduction, have no mucosal injury on duodenal biopsies, and for which celiac disease or wheat allergy have been ruled out.

What Is New

  • Advanced knowledge of possible environmental factors that may lead to the onset of celiac disease.
  • Emerging therapy options for patients with celiac disease.
  • Nonceliac gluten sensitivity” a misleading term, as role of gluten far from being defined. Better term proposed: wheat intolerance syndrome.
  • A possible algorithm to assist in the diagnostic process for patients suspected of wheat intolerance syndrome.
Back to Top | Article Outline

CELIAC DISEASE

Pathophysiology and Presentation

This complex autoimmune disorder is triggered by the ingestion of gluten (the major storage protein in wheat, barley, and rye) in genetically predisposed individuals (those presenting the human leukocyte antigen [HLA] class II genotypes defined as DQ2 and DQ8) leading to inflammation of the small intestinal mucosa.

Gluten is a heterogeneous protein complex. The gluten fractions that are toxic to celiac patients are a mixture of alcohol-soluble proteins called gliadins. Gliadins are rich in glutamine and proline residues, which even the healthy human intestine cannot fully digest (1). As a result, intact gliadin peptides are left in the lumen, and some cross the intestinal barrier (2). These fragments come into contact with the intracellular enzyme tissue transglutaminase (tTG), which deamidates them, leading to a change in shape and increased negative charge. The modified peptides are then easily be captured by the HLA-DQ2 and/or DQ8 molecules expressed on the surface of the lamina propria-associated antigen-presenting cells and are presented to CD4+ T cells leading to a cascade of reactions involving both innate and adaptive immunity and ultimately resulting in the intestinal damage (3).

A wide variety of clinical presentations have been described for CeD, including “typical,” “atypical,” “silent,” and “potential” forms. The typical form consists of gastrointestinal symptoms whereas the atypical form is characterized by predominantly extraintestinal symptoms (Table 1). Silent CeD describes asymptomatic patients with positive blood serology and intestinal inflammation on biopsy; lastly, potential CeD includes patients with positive blood serology who may or may not have symptoms, but show no apparent intestinal inflammation on biopsy.

TABLE 1

TABLE 1

Although the typical presentation was most prevalent in the early and mid-twentieth century, there appears to have been a dramatic change from the 1980s onward with a shift from classical gastrointestinal symptoms to higher rates of atypical and asymptomatic presentations (4–6). In addition, it has been found that, in general, presentations have become milder and poor growth less common (7). The reason for this shift is uncertain, but may partly be the result of an increased awareness of the disease resulting in earlier detection and higher rates of screening at-risk individuals (Table 2).

Table 2

Table 2

Back to Top | Article Outline

Prevalence

Although roughly 30% of the population contain the genes necessary to develop CeD (haplotypes DQ2 and or DQ8), only 1% of the population will actually develop the disease, a prevalence that is increasing worldwide over time (8–13). The reason for this is unclear and though one may be quick to place blame on an increased content of gluten in “modern grains” or an increased consumption of gluten with time, these 2 hypotheses are wrong (14,15) with the consumption of wheat flour (from all classes of wheat) actually dropping from 220 lbs per person in 1900 to 134 lbs per person in 2008 (Fig. 1).

FIGURE 1

FIGURE 1

What other environmental factors may be contributing to the rising prevalence of CeD then? Research is presently focusing on the impact of the mode of delivery (16,17), early life infections (18,19), exposure to antibiotics (20), infant feeding practices (21,22), birth season (23), and socioeconomic status (24,25). It is presently thought that repeated early life infections, regardless of the source, may increase the risk for the development of CeD but that there does not appear to be a significant impact from antibiotic use (18,20). In addition, recent studies have shown that the timing, quantity of gluten offered at its introduction, and the relation to breast-feeding do not appear to play a significant role in changing the natural course of CeD onset either (21,22) (see (26) for a recent systematic review on this topic). At the moment, the most important factor found to have a significant impact on the development of CeD is possession of 2 copies of the HLA-DQ2 allele (the high-risk HLA genotype) (21).

Presently, the favored hypothesis focuses on the role of the microbiota (27). In fact, the intestinal microbiota influences the development of the immune system and autoimmune diseases (28), and alterations in the intestinal microbial composition have been described in patients with CeD, some of which normalize after treatment with a gluten-free diet (GFD) (29). A recent study in mice showed that the intestinal microbiota can positively as well as negatively modulate gluten-induced immunopathology in the intestine and that intestinal microbiota changes may be a factor that increases CeD risk (30). This is clearly a rapidly evolving and exciting field and hopefully new discoveries and advances will be made in the coming years.

Back to Top | Article Outline

DIAGNOSIS

Presently, it is universally recommended that tTG IgA and total serum IgA should be the first line of screening, given their very high sensitivity (31–33). Total serum IgA needs to be determined to guarantee that the patient is able to produce tTG IgA as celiac patients have higher rates of IgA deficiency than the general population (2%) and therefore may have a falsely negative tTG IgA (34). Under these circumstances, both tTG IgG (35–37) and DGP IgG (38) can be useful as markers of CeD as well.

In 2012, an ad hoc task force of ESPGHAN published revised criteria and produced an evidence-based algorithm that allowed skipping the duodenal biopsy under certain circumstances: namely, in children and teenagers showing a history and genetic asset compatible with CeD, tTG-IgA levels >10 times the upper limit of normal and a positive titer of endomysial antibody (39). Although this simplified approach seems valid because it possesses a positive predictive value nearing 100%, it needs to be applied with great care. Children with gastrointestinal complaints diagnosed without endoscopy may have additional disorders that would go undiagnosed by skipping this procedure, though, as demonstrated by a retrospective study performed at the University of Chicago in which 12% of celiac patients were found to have additional diagnoses picked up at the time of endoscopy (40).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Treatment

Strict, lifelong adherence to a GFD remains the only available treatment for patients diagnosed with CeD and should result in a complete return to health in the majority of cases (especially children).

With appropriate instruction from a trained dietician, the GFD can be balanced and healthy. Many patients, however, initiate the diet without guidance and lean toward the convenience of processed gluten-free options leading to diets high in fat, sugar, and sodium without sufficient vitamin and mineral fortification (41) contributing to the weight gain seen in roughly 81% of patients with CeD started on a GFD (42). To insure that the patient is adequately educated, patients should receive an initial consult with a trained dietician and close follow-up.

Alternate pharmacologic therapies being evaluated for the treatment of CeD include enzymes to inactivate immunogenic gluten peptides in the human gastrointestinal tract (2), agents that sequester gluten in the lumen (43), modulators of gut permeability (44) and of antigen presentation and immune responses including those that block tTG (45) and HLA (46), IL-15 inhibitors (47), and the development of vaccines able to induce oral tolerance to gluten (48).

Of these treatment modalities, gluten-specific enzymes able to cleave the highly resistant proline and glutamine bonds within the gliadins’ molecules, thus degrading the immunogenic epitopes within the gluten protein in the stomach, are among the most promising: ALV003, an orally administered mixture of 2 recombinant gluten-specific proteases (cysteine endoprotease isoform b-2 and SC prolyl endopeptidase) had shown impressive and very promising activity versus placebo in significantly preventing the mucosal damage induced by gluten exposure in patients with CeD (49). A recently completed, and as yet unpublished, multicenter clinical trial in symptomatic patients with CeD with significant mucosal injury despite maintaining a GFD, however, failed to show improved mucosal healing compared with placebo, most likely due to a heightened attention to the GFD by the patients recruited (Daniel Adelman, personal communication). It is worth mentioning here that none of the presently marketed “glutenases” have any capacity of detoxifying gluten (50), whereas the Prolyl EndoPeptidase from Aspergillus niger (AN-PEP) appears effective in vitro (50), but clinical trials assessing efficacy are pending.

Larazotide acetate (AT-1001) is Alba Therapeutics's investigational product, a novel tight junction regulator. In fact, it has been hypothesized that blocking gluten entry via the paracellular pathway (a pathway already altered in celiac patients) would prevent gluten toxicity.

In a multicenter study published in 2015 (51) Larazotide acetate at the lowest dose tried (0.5 mg) significantly reduced signs and symptoms in patients with CeD on a GFD better than placebo. These results are certainly encouraging and the drug is now entering phase 3 trials, likely to begin in late 2016 (information available at http://www.innovatebiopharma.com/inn-202.html). One must, however, note that no data have been provided so far supporting its ability to reduce intestinal inflammation.

As for preparations binding gluten in the gut, hence preventing its contact with the gut immune system, the polymer BL-7010 has shown efficacy in an animal model (52) and is presently undergoing phase 1 clinical trials.

A desensitizing vaccine (NEXVAX2—ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00879749) that uses 3 dominant gluten peptides administered subcutaneously to induce a tolerogenic response in patients with CeD is under development. So far, it has been shown to be safe for intradermal injection of CeD and clinical trials on safety and efficacy are on their way.

In addition, as patients with active CeD are thought to have gut dysbiosis, research is also underway to better understand the role for probiotics for these patients. Presently, no evidence-based recommendations exist though (53–55) and given lower levels of regulation, cross contamination of probiotics may occur raising potential concern for their indiscriminate use (56).

A final area of potential interest is Helminth therapy. Parasitic helminths have been found to be efficient down regulators of host immune responses in efforts to promote their own survival (57). Specifically Necator americanus, a hookworm that can persist in the small intestine of mammalian hosts, has shown beneficial effect in CeD leading to gluten tolerance with reduced clinical symptoms, stable marsh changes and intraepithelial lymphocyte counts on intestinal biopsy, reduced intestinal IFN gamma expressing T cells, and increased T regs (58), an effect that the same group was able to associate to increased microbial richness (59). Adverse side effects such as anemia are possible, though, and clearly additional studies addressing safety and efficacy are needed.

What do celiac patients hope for alternative treatment? A recent survey of 256 adult patients with CeD at our center (J. Tomal, D. McKiernan, S. Guandalini, C.E. Semrad, and S. Kupfer, manuscript in preparation) showed that patients with CeD are significantly more interested in taking a novel therapy that protects against inadvertent gluten cross contamination while on a GFD than in one that protects against intentional gluten consumption. In addition, they are more interested in protection against bowel inflammation than symptom control. Similar findings have also recently been reported from a survey on adult patients with CeD in Italy (60).

Although it is likely that some of the alternatives may come to fruition in the next year or 2, a true “cure,” although certainly possible, may take much longer (61).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Wheat Allergy

A second, well-known disorder related to gluten ingestion in children is wheat allergy, which will be very briefly touched here. Wheat is in fact a rather common food allergen and in predisposed subjects it may elicit an allergic response, typically an immunoglobulin E (IgE)-mediated phenomenon. In infants and young children, IgE-mediated reactions to wheat may well include gastrointestinal symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea. Unlike CeD, though, the onset is often more rapid, within minutes to 2 hours from the time of ingestion, and can also include involvement of extraintestinal organs such as skin (with symptoms as erythema, pruritus, urticaria) and the respiratory system (with symptoms of coughing, wheezing, and rhinorrhea) (62).

Allergen-specific IgE antibodies to wheat typically appear within the first 2 years of life, but unlike CeD, which is lifelong, most children eventually will tolerate wheat (63), although the allergy may persist into adolescence in a significant minority of patients (64).

A well-accepted set of criteria for the diagnosis of food allergies is lacking, though (63), and while detection of food-specific IgE implies sensitization it does not necessarily indicate true clinical allergy. Therefore, diagnosis requires a careful medical history, laboratory studies, and, in many cases, an oral food challenge to confirm a diagnosis (62).

Back to Top | Article Outline

WHEAT INTOLERANCE SYNDROME

Pathophysiology and Presentation

Wheat intolerance syndrome (WIS), also referred to as “nonceliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS),” describes people who report symptoms that respond to the withdrawal of wheat from the diet, return upon its reintroduction, have no mucosal injury on duodenal biopsies, and for which CeD or wheat allergy have been ruled out (65). Although NCGS continues to be used, this is an improper name given that the role of gluten is far from demonstrated and the implication of an immune involvement suggested by the term “sensitivity” is still unfounded. The most common symptoms reported with WIS include abdominal discomfort, bloating, gassiness, diarrhea, fatigue, “foggy mind”, headache, and joint pain (66,67).

Despite popular belief, this is not a new disease as reports of this condition date back to 1978, when Ellis and Linaker (68) reported the case of a 43-year-old woman with these GI symptoms that improved after gluten withdrawal but relapsed upon its reintroduction in the absence of CeD and with normal duodenal biopsies both on and off gluten.

The pathophysiology remains unclear, but several hypotheses exist including increased small intestine permeability caused by gliadin (69,70), an adaptive immune response suggested by high antigliadin antibodies present in some patients with WIS (71–73) or an innate immune response secondary to findings of increased small intestinal expression of TLRs, particularly TLR2 and, to a lesser extent, TLR1 and TLR4 (74).

In reality, though, it still remains unclear what exact component of wheat is actually to be blamed for the clinical symptoms. Although gluten is the best recognized culprit, another family of wheat-associated, but not gluten-related, proteins found in wheat termed α-amylase/trypsin inhibitor (ATI) (75) could potentially also be responsible. The unproven role of immunity in this syndrome suggests that a more appropriate name for this entity may be WIS as opposed to the presently used nonceliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS).

In the past few years, fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAP) have gained attention for their possible role in eliciting GI symptoms in patients with self-reported WIS. Follow-up studies have shown that a diet low in FODMAPs leads to greatly reduce symptoms for some (76) even with reexposure to gluten compared with an identical, placebo GFD (76). As many gluten-free foods are low in FODMAPs and gluten-containing foods are high in FODMAPs (Table 3) (77), this may actually suggest that the patients considered to be experiencing WIS are simply experiencing IBS-like symptoms secondary to the ingestion of FODMAPs (78), not gluten (79).

TABLE 3

TABLE 3

Back to Top | Article Outline

Prevalence

Unfortunately, given the lack of objective diagnostic parameters it is difficult to know the true prevalence of WIS. As a surrogate marker of prevalence, subjective surveys approximate prevalence rates from 13% in the UK (80) to 7.3% in Australia (81) to 0.6% in the United States (82).

Back to Top | Article Outline

DIAGNOSIS

Diagnostic criteria for WIS are much harder to establish, given the present lack of any biomarkers. As stated previously, although antibodies to native gliadin have been found to occur somewhat more commonly in patients with WIS than in healthy controls, no consistent laboratory abnormalities or biomarkers have been identified (71–73). Thus, it must be emphasized that a full clinical and laboratory evaluation to exclude CeD and wheat allergy must be performed before making the diagnosis of WIS. A recently proposed diagnostic process for making this diagnosis includes adherence to a strict GFD for a period of at least 4 weeks with reintroduction of a controlled form of either gluten or placebo for a 1-week period, followed by a 1-week washout period, and then a 1-week crossover period (83). In clinical practice most patients self-reporting “gluten intolerance” are, however, already on a GFD and unwilling to abandon it; in this case, we suggest a process outlined in the algorithm presented in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

FIGURE 2

Confocal laser endomicroscopy (CLE) may be a promising tool for the future of WIS. A work by Fritscher-Ravens et al in 2015 (84) studied the impact of targeted food administration to the mucosa of the intestinal tract to assess for signs of inflammation using CLE in patients suspected of having a food intolerance leading to GI complaints. They were able to directly observe changes in the IELs, size of the intervillous space, and number of epithelial breaks after the administration of single food agents (milk, wheat, soy, or yeast) and subsequent improvements in symptoms after targeted removal of the offending food. Potentially, this may be an exciting tool for the future to better discern which patients truly do or do not have a WIS. As it stands, WIS is still an exclusion diagnosis and the only rational approach to diagnose WIS, besides a double-blind placebo-controlled trial—ideal but difficult if not impossible to achieve in clinical practice—is to eliminate the possibilities of CeD and of wheat allergy.

Back to Top | Article Outline

Treatment

A trial of a low FODMAP diet is recommended for any patient diagnosed with WIS who is felt to have a FODMAP sensitivity (77), see Table 3. Otherwise, eliminating all wheat-containing products is the only option. It should be noted here that eliminating the other sources of gluten (ie, rye and barley), while anecdotally beneficial to some patients with WIS, has not been adequately proven to be necessary.

Back to Top | Article Outline

CONCLUSIONS

The spectrum of “gluten”-related disorders now encompasses celiac disease, wheat allergy, and the newcomer wheat intolerance syndrome (WIS).

CeD, far from being the static, well-known entity we thought it was 20 or 30 years ago, is now evolving into an exciting field of constant flux: role of genetics being better elucidated, environmental factors (prominent among them the microbiota) being unraveled, a fast increasing prevalence to be dealt with, changing clinical features and evolving diagnostic approaches, alternative treatments and even the prospect of a cure looming at the horizon.

Interest on WIS in the meantime is exploding, with a plethora of reviews, editorials, expert opinions flourishing (though unfortunately only a small number of well-designed clinical trials so far), and an unprecedented media interest causing a worldwide wave of followers of the GFD. Although the existence of this complex entity is undeniable, much more work remains to tease out its various components and begin to understand the many possible pathogenetic mechanisms involved, their real clinical impact and objective parameters for diagnosis.

In essence, exciting times and much, much more to come!

Back to Top | Article Outline

REFERENCES

1. Hausch F, Shan L, Santiago NA, et al Intestinal digestive resistance of immunodominant gliadin peptides. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol 2002; 283:G996–G1003.
2. Shan L, Molberg O, Parrot I, et al Structural basis for gluten intolerance in celiac sprue. Science 2002; 297:2275–2279.
3. Abadie V, Sollid LM, Barreiro LB, et al Integration of genetic and immunological insights into a model of celiac disease pathogenesis. Annu Rev Immunol 2011; 29:493–525.
4. Roma E, Panayiotou J, Karantana H, et al Changing pattern in the clinical presentation of pediatric celiac disease: a 30-year study. Digestion 2009; 80:185–191.
5. McGowan KE, Castiglione DA, Butzner JD. The changing face of childhood celiac disease in north america: impact of serological testing. Pediatrics 2009; 124:1572–1578.
6. Ravikumara M, Tuthill DP, Jenkins HR. The changing clinical presentation of coeliac disease. Arch Dis Child 2006; 91:969–971.
7. Maki M, Kallonen K, Lahdeaho ML, et al Changing pattern of childhood coeliac disease in Finland. Acta Paediatr Scand 1988; 77:408–412.
8. Dydensborg S, Toftedal P, Biaggi M, et al Increasing prevalence of coeliac disease in Denmark: a linkage study combining national registries. Acta Paediatr 2012; 101:179–184.
9. Vilppula A, Kaukinen K, Luostarinen L, et al Increasing prevalence and high incidence of celiac disease in elderly people: a population-based study. BMC Gastroenterol 2009; 9:49.
10. Lohi S, Mustalahti K, Kaukinen K, et al Increasing prevalence of coeliac disease over time. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2007; 26:1217–1225.
11. Mustalahti K, Catassi C, Reunanen A, et al The prevalence of celiac disease in Europe: results of a centralized, international mass screening project. Ann Med 2010; 42:587–595.
12. Catassi C, Kryszak D, Bhatti B, et al Natural history of celiac disease autoimmunity in a USA cohort followed since 1974. Ann Med 2010; 42:530–538.
13. Ludvigsson JF, Rubio-Tapia A, van Dyke CT, et al Increasing incidence of celiac disease in a North American population. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108:818–824.
14. Kasarda DD. Can an increase in celiac disease be attributed to an increase in the gluten content of wheat as a consequence of wheat breeding? J Agric Food Chem 2013; 61:1155–1159.
15. Vocke G. Wheat's role in the U.S. diet has changed over the decades. ERS/USDA Briefing Room. http://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/crops/wheat/wheats-role-in-the-us-diet.aspx. 2009. Accessed June 1, 2016.
16. Decker E, Hornef M, Stockinger S. Cesarean delivery is associated with celiac disease but not inflammatory bowel disease in children. Gut microbes 2011; 2:91–98.
17. Marild K, Stephansson O, Montgomery S, et al Pregnancy outcome and risk of celiac disease in offspring: a nationwide case-control study. Gastroenterology 2012; 142:39–45. e33.
18. Myleus A, Hernell O, Gothefors L, et al Early infections are associated with increased risk for celiac disease: an incident case-referent study. BMC Pediatr 2012; 12:194.
19. Marild K, Kahrs CR, Tapia G, et al Infections and risk of celiac disease in childhood: a prospective nationwide cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 2015; 110:1475–1484.
20. Marild K, Ludvigsson J, Sanz Y, et al Antibiotic exposure in pregnancy and risk of coeliac disease in offspring: a cohort study. BMC Gastroenterol 2014; 14:75.
21. Lionetti E, Castellaneta S, Francavilla R, et al Introduction of gluten, HLA status, and the risk of celiac disease in children. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:1295–1303.
22. Vriezinga SL, Auricchio R, Bravi E, et al Randomized feeding intervention in infants at high risk for celiac disease. N Engl J Med 2014; 371:1304–1315.
23. Capriati T, Francavilla R, Castellaneta S, et al Impact of the birth's season on the development of celiac disease in Italy. Eur J Pediatr 2015; 174:1657–1663.
24. Myleus A, Ivarsson A, Webb C, et al Celiac disease revealed in 3% of Swedish 12-year-olds born during an epidemic. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2009; 49:170–176.
25. Whyte LA, Kotecha S, Watkins WJ, et al Coeliac disease is more common in children with high socio-economic status. Acta Paediatr 2014; 103:289–294.
26. Silano M, Agostoni C, Sanz Y, et al Infant feeding and risk of developing celiac disease: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e009163.
27. Marasco G, Di Biase AR, Schiumerini R, et al Gut microbiota and celiac disease. Dig Dis Sci 2016; 61:1461–1472.
28. Ottman N, Smidt H, de Vos WM, et al The function of our microbiota: who is out there and what do they do? Front Cell Infect Microbiol 2012; 2:104.
29. Sanz Y, De Pama G, Laparra M. Unraveling the ties between celiac disease and intestinal microbiota. Int Rev Immunol 2011; 30:207–218.
30. Galipeau HJ, McCarville JL, Huebener S, et al Intestinal microbiota modulates gluten-induced immunopathology in humanized mice. Am J Pathol 2015; 185:2969–2982.
31. Hill ID, Dirks MH, Liptak GS, et al Guideline for the diagnosis and treatment of celiac disease in children: recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2005; 40:1–19.
32. Rubio-Tapia A, Hill ID, Kelly CP, et al ACG clinical guidelines: diagnosis and management of celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2013; 108:656–676.
33. Giersiepen K, Lelgemann M, Stuhldreher N, et al Accuracy of diagnostic antibody tests for coeliac disease in children: summary of an evidence report. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2012; 54:229–241.
34. Chow MA, Lebwohl B, Reilly NR, et al Immunoglobulin A deficiency in celiac disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 2012; 46:850–854.
35. Dahlbom I, Olsson M, Forooz NK, et al Immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies used as markers for IgA-deficient celiac disease patients. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2005; 12:254–258.
36. Korponay-Szabo IR, Dahlbom I, Laurila K, et al Elevation of IgG antibodies against tissue transglutaminase as a diagnostic tool for coeliac disease in selective IgA deficiency. Gut 2003; 52:1567–1571.
37. Villalta D, Alessio MG, Tampoia M, et al Testing for IgG class antibodies in celiac disease patients with selective IgA deficiency. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 9 IgG anti-tissue transglutaminase, 1 IgG anti-gliadin and 1 IgG anti-deaminated gliadin peptide antibody assays. Clin Chim Acta 2007; 382:95–99.
38. Villalta D, Tonutti E, Prause C, et al IgG antibodies against deamidated gliadin peptides for diagnosis of celiac disease in patients with IgA deficiency. Clin Chem 2010; 56:464–468.
39. Husby S, Koletzko S, Korponay-Szabo IR, et al European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition guidelines for the diagnosis of coeliac disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2012; 54:136–160.
40. Guandalini SNC. Can we really skip the biopsy in diagnosing symptomatic children with celiac disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2013; 57:e24–e25.
41. Welstead L. The gluten-free diet in the 3rd millenium: rules, risks and opportunities. Diseases 2015; 3:136–149.
42. Dickey W, Kearney N. Overweight in celiac disease: prevalence, clinical characteristics, and effect of a gluten-free diet. Am J Gastroenterol 2006; 101:2356–2359.
43. Pinier M, Verdu EF, Nasser-Eddine M, et al Polymeric binders suppress gliadin-induced toxicity in the intestinal epithelium. Gastroenterology 2009; 136:288–298.
44. Gopalakrishnan S, Tripathi A, Tamiz AP, et al Larazotide acetate promotes tight junction assembly in epithelial cells. Peptides 2012; 35:95–101.
45. Rauhavirta T, Oittinen M, Kivisto R, et al Are transglutaminase 2 inhibitors able to reduce gliadin-induced toxicity related to celiac disease? A proof-of-concept study. J Clin Immunol 2013; 33:134–142.
46. Kapoerchan VV, Wiesner M, Overhand M, et al Design of azidoproline containing gluten peptides to suppress CD4+ T-cell responses associated with celiac disease. Bioorg Med Chem 2008; 16:2053–2062.
47. Waldmann TA, Conlon KC, Stewart DM, et al Phase 1 trial of IL-15 trans presentation blockade using humanized Mikbeta1 mAb in patients with T-cell large granular lymphocytic leukemia. Blood 2013; 121:476–484.
48. Tye-Din JA, Stewart JA, Dromey JA, et al Comprehensive, quantitative mapping of T cell epitopes in gluten in celiac disease. Sci Transl Med 2010; 2:41ra51.
49. Lahdeaho ML, Kaukinen K, Laurila K, et al Glutenase ALV003 attenuates gluten-induced mucosal injury in patients with celiac disease. Gastroenterology 2014; 146:1649–1658.
50. Janssen G, Christis C, Kooy-Winkelaar Y, et al Ineffective degradation of immunogenic gluten epitopes by currently available digestive enzyme supplements. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0128065.
51. Leffler DA, Kelly CP, Green PH, et al Larazotide acetate for persistent symptoms of celiac disease despite a gluten-free diet: a randomized controlled trial. Gastroenterology 2015; 148:1311–1319. e6.
52. McCarville JL, Nisemblat Y, Galipeau HJ, et al BL-7010 demonstrates specific binding to gliadin and reduces gluten-associated pathology in a chronic mouse model of gliadin sensitivity. PLoS One 2014; 9:e109972.
53. De Angelis M, Rizzello CG, Fasano A, et al VSL#3 probiotic preparation has the capacity to hydrolyze gliadin polypeptides responsible for Celiac Sprue. Biochim Biophys Acta 2006; 1762:80–93.
54. Lindfors K, Blomqvist T, Juuti-Uusitalo K, et al Live probiotic Bifidobacterium lactis bacteria inhibit the toxic effects induced by wheat gliadin in epithelial cell culture. Clin Exp Immunol 2008; 152:552–558.
55. Smecuol E, Hwang HJ, Sugai E, et al Exploratory, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study on the effects of Bifidobacterium infantis natren life start strain super strain in active celiac disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 2013; 47:139–147.
56. Nazareth SLBVJ, Green PH. Widespread contamination of probiotics with gluten, detected by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Gastroenterology 2015; 148:S28.
57. Helmby H. Human helminth therapy to treat inflammatory disorders—where do we stand? BMC Immunol 2015; 16:12.
58. Croese J, Giacomin P, Navarro S, et al Experimental hookworm infection and gluten microchallenge promote tolerance in celiac disease. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2015; 135:508–516.
59. Giacomin P, Zakrzewski M, Croese J, et al Experimental hookworm infection and escalating gluten challenges are associated with increased microbial richness in celiac subjects. Sci Rep 2015; 5:13797.
60. Branchi F, Tomba C, Ferretti F, et al Celiac disease and drug-based therapies: inquiry into patients demands. Digestion 2016; 93:160–166.
61. McCarville JL, Caminero A, Verdu EF. Pharmacological approaches in celiac disease. Curr Opin Pharmacol 2015; 25:7–12.
62. Sicherer SH, Sampson HA. Food allergy. J allergy Clin Immunol 2010; 125 (2 suppl 2):S116–S125.
63. Kotaniemi-Syrjanen A, Palosuo K, Jartti T, et al The prognosis of wheat hypersensitivity in children. Pediatr Allergy Immunol 2010; 21 (2 pt 2):e421–e428.
64. Keet CA, Matsui EC, Dhillon G, et al The natural history of wheat allergy. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 2009; 102:410–415.
65. Ludvigsson JF, Leffler DA, Bai JC, et al The Oslo definitions for coeliac disease and related terms. Gut 2013; 62:43–52.
66. Biesiekierski JR, Newnham ED, Irving PM, et al Gluten causes gastrointestinal symptoms in subjects without celiac disease: a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol 2011; 106:508–514.
67. Volta U, Cassani F, De Franchis R, et al Antibodies to gliadin in adult coeliac disease and dermatitis herpetiformis. Digestion 1984; 30:263–270.
68. Ellis A, Linaker BD. Non-coeliac gluten sensitivity? Lancet 1978; 1:1358–1359.
69. Vazquez-Roque MI, Camilleri M, Smyrk T, et al A controlled trial of gluten-free diet in patients with irritable bowel syndrome-diarrhea: effects on bowel frequency and intestinal function. Gastroenterology 2013; 144:903–911. e3.
70. Hollon J, Puppa EL, Greenwald B, et al Effect of gliadin on permeability of intestinal biopsy explants from celiac disease patients and patients with non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Nutrients 2015; 7:1565–1576.
71. Catassi C, Bai JC, Bonaz B, et al Non-celiac gluten sensitivity: the new frontier of gluten related disorders. Nutrients 2013; 5:3839–3853.
72. Francavilla R, Cristofori F, Castellaneta S, et al Clinical, serologic, and histologic features of gluten sensitivity in children. J Pediatr 2014; 164:463–467. e1.
73. Volta U, Tovoli F, Cicola R, et al Serological tests in gluten sensitivity (nonceliac gluten intolerance). J Clin Gastroenterol 2012; 46:680–685.
74. Sapone A, Lammers KM, Casolaro V, et al Divergence of gut permeability and mucosal immune gene expression in two gluten-associated conditions: celiac disease and gluten sensitivity. BMC Med 2011; 9:23.
75. Junker Y, Zeissig S, Kim SJ, et al Wheat amylase trypsin inhibitors drive intestinal inflammation via activation of toll-like receptor 4. J Exp Med 2012; 209:2395–2408.
76. Biesiekierski JR, Peters SL, Newnham ED, et al No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of fermentable, poorly absorbed, short-chain carbohydrates. Gastroenterology 2013; 145:320–328. e321–e323.
77. Biesiekierski JR, Rosella O, Rose R, et al Quantification of fructans, galacto-oligosacharides and other short-chain carbohydrates in processed grains and cereals. J Hum Nutr Diet 2011; 24:154–176.
78. Biesiekierski JR, Muir JG, Gibson PR. Is gluten a cause of gastrointestinal symptoms in people without celiac disease? Curr Allergy Asthma Rep 2013; 13:631–638.
79. Vanga R, Leffler DA. Gluten sensitivity: not celiac and not certain. Gastroenterology 2013; 145:276–279.
80. Aziz I, Lewis NR, Hadjivassiliou M, et al A UK study assessing the population prevalence of self-reported gluten sensitivity and referral characteristics to secondary care. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2014; 26:33–39.
81. Golley S, Corsini N, Topping D, et al Motivations for avoiding wheat consumption in Australia: results from a population survey. Public Health Nutr 2015; 18:490–499.
82. Rubio-Tapia A, Ludvigsson JF, Brantner TL, et al The prevalence of celiac disease in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 2012; 107:1538–1544.
83. Catassi C, Elli L, Bonaz B, et al Diagnosis of non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS): The Salerno Experts’ Criteria. Nutrients 2015; 7:4966–4977.
84. Fritscher-Ravens A, Schuppan D, Ellrichmann M, et al Confocal endomicroscopy shows food-associated changes in the intestinal mucosa of patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Gastroenterology 2014; 147:1012–1020. e4.
Keywords:

adults; allergy; gluten; nonceliac gluten sensitivity; pediatrics

© 2017 by European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition and North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology,