Objective The literature suggests a lack of consensus on the use of terms related to coeliac disease (CD) and gluten. Design A multidisciplinary task force of 16 physicians from seven countries used the electronic database PubMed to review the literature for CD-related terms up to January 2011. Teams of physicians then suggested a definition for each term, followed by feedback of these definitions through a web survey on definitions, discussions during a meeting in Oslo and phone conferences. In addition to ‘CD’, the following descriptors of CD were evaluated (in alphabetical order): asymptomatic, atypical, classical, latent, non-classical, overt, paediatric classical, potential, refractory, silent, subclinical, symptomatic, typical, CD serology, CD autoimmunity, genetically at risk of CD, dermatitis herpetiformis, gluten, gluten ataxia, gluten intolerance, gluten sensitivity and gliadin-specific antibodies. Results CD was defined as ‘a chronic small intestinal immune-mediated enteropathy precipitated by exposure to dietary gluten in genetically predisposed individuals’. Classical CD was defined as ‘CD presenting with signs and symptoms of malabsorption. Diarrhoea, steatorrhoea, weight loss or growth failure is required.’ ‘Gluten-related disorders’ is the suggested umbrella term for all diseases triggered by gluten and the term gluten intolerance should not to be used. Other definitions are presented in the paper. Conclusion This paper presents the Oslo definitions for CD-related terms.

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.

Background: Treatment of celiac disease (CD) is based on the avoidance of gluten-containing food. However, it is not known whether trace amounts of gluten are harmful to treated patients. Objective: The objective was to establish the safety threshold of prolonged exposure to trace amounts of gluten (ie, contaminating gluten). Design: This was a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial in 49 adults with biopsy-proven CD who were being treated with a gluten-free diet (GFD) for ≥2 y. The background daily gluten intake was maintained at <5 mg. After a baseline evaluation (t₀), patients were assigned to ingest daily for 90 d a capsule containing 0, 10, or 50 mg gluten. Clinical, serologic, and histologic evaluations of the small intestine were performed at t₀ and after the gluten microchallenge (t₁). Results: At t₀, the median villous height/crypt depth (Vh/Cd) in the small-intestinal mucosa was significantly lower and the intraepithelial lymphocyte (IEL) count (× 100 enterocytes) significantly higher in the CD patients (Vh/Cd: 2.20; 95% CI: 2.11, 2.89; IEL: 27; 95% CI: 23, 34) than in 20 non-CD control subjects (Vh/Cd: 2.87; 95% CI: 2.50, 3.09; IEL: 22; 95% CI: 18, 24). One patient (challenged with 10 mg gluten) developed a clinical relapse. At t₁, the percentage change in Vh/Cd was 9% (95% CI: 3%, 15%) in the placebo group (n = 13), −1% (−18%, 68%) in the 10-mg group (n = 13), and −20% (−22%, −13%) in the 50-mg group (n = 13). No significant differences in the IEL count were found between the 3 groups. Conclusions: The ingestion of contaminating gluten should be kept lower than 50 mg/d in the treatment of CD.

A dietary interview performed by expert personnel is the best method to check whether patients with coeliac disease follow a strict gluten-free diet (GFD). We previously developed a score based on four fast and simple questions that can be administered even by non-expert personnel. The aim of the present study is to verify the reliability of our questionnaire in a new cohort of patients. The questionnaire has a five-level score. From March 2008 to January 2011, the questionnaire was administered to 141 coeliac patients on a GFD, who were undergoing re-evaluation. The score obtained was compared with persistence of both villous atrophy and endomysial antibodies (EMA). The rate of lower scores was higher among the patients with persistence of either villous atrophy (Fisher's exact, P < 0·001; test for trend, P < 0·001) or positive EMA (Fisher's exact, P = 0·001; test for trend, P = 0·018). Given that the coeliac patients have been well instructed on what a GFD means and on how to follow it, our questionnaire is a reliable and simple method to verify compliance to a GFD.