Cereal crops and cereal consumption have had a vital role in Mankind's history. In the recent years gluten ingestion has been linked with a range of clinical disorders. Gluten-related disorders have gradually emerged as an epidemiologically relevant phenomenon with an estimated global prevalence around 5%. Celiac disease, wheat allergy and non-celiac gluten sensitivity represent different gluten-related disorders. Similar clinical manifestations can be observed in these disorders, yet there are peculiar pathogenetic pathways involved in their development. Celiac disease and wheat allergy have been extensively studied, while non-celiac gluten sensitivity is a relatively novel clinical entity, believed to be closely related to other gastrointestinal functional syndromes. The diagnosis of celiac disease and wheat allergy is based on a combination of findings from the patient's clinical history and specific tests, including serology and duodenal biopsies in case of celiac disease, or laboratory and functional assays for wheat allergy. On the other hand, non-celiac gluten sensitivity is still mainly a diagnosis of exclusion, in the absence of clear-cut diagnostic criteria. A multimodal pragmatic approach combining findings from the clinical history, symptoms, serological and histological tests is required in order to reach an accurate diagnosis. A thorough knowledge of the differences and overlap in clinical presentation among gluten-related disorders, and between them and other gastrointestinal disorders, will help clinicians in the process of differential diagnosis.

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is characterized by the onset of symptoms after eating gluten-containing food. We aimed to single out NCGS subjects among subjects with functional gastrointestinal symptoms. Patients were enrolled in a multicenter double-blind placebo-controlled trial with crossover. Symptoms and quality of life were evaluated by means of 10-cm VAS and SF36. Iron parameters, transaminases and C reactive protein (CRP) were evaluated. After a three-week-long gluten-free diet (GFD), responsive patients were randomly assigned to gluten intake (5.6 g/day) or placebo for seven days, followed by crossover. The primary endpoint was the worsening of symptoms (VAS increase ≥3 cm) during gluten ingestion compared to placebo. One hundred and forty patients were enrolled and 134 (17 males, mean age 39.1 ± 11.7 years, BMI 22.4 ± 3.8) completed the first period. A total of 101 subjects (10 males, mean age 39.3 ± 11.0 years, BMI 22.3 ± 4.0) reported a symptomatic improvement (VAS score 2.3 ± 1.2 vs. 6.5 ± 2.2 before and after GFD, p = 0.001). 98 patients underwent the gluten challenge and 28 (all females, mean age 38.9 ± 12.7 years, BMI 22.0 ± 2.9) reported a symptomatic relapse and deterioration of quality of life. No parameters were found to be statistically associated with positivity to the challenge. However, 14 patients responded to the placebo ingestion. Taking into account this finding, about 14% of patients responding to gluten withdrawal showed a symptomatic relapse during the gluten challenge. This group is suspected to have NCGS.

The gluten-free diet is the only effective treatment available for celiac disease. However, it is difficult to adhere to and a closer look on the diet’s implementation and indications reveals several ambiguities: Not only is there controversy on the threshold of gluten that can be tolerated in the frame of a strict gluten-free diet, but it is also unclear whether the gluten-free diet is an appropriate treatment in patient subgroups with asymptomatic or potential celiac disease. Reports from a number of research groups suggest that a certain proportion of patients may effectively develop tolerance to gluten and thus become suitable for gluten reintroduction over time. In this review, we set out to create an overview about the current state of research as regards the definition of a strict gluten-free diet in terms of the gluten thresholds considered tolerable and the indication for a gluten-free diet in the absence of histological abnormalities or symptoms. Furthermore, we discuss the concept that a gluten-free diet must be followed for life by all patients.

Gluten-related disorders include distinct disease entities, namely celiac disease, wheat-associated allergy and non-celiac gluten/wheat sensitivity. Despite having in common the contact of the gastrointestinal mucosa with components of wheat and other cereals as a causative factor, these clinical entities have distinct pathophysiological pathways. In celiac disease, a T-cell mediate immune reaction triggered by gluten ingestion is central in the pathogenesis of the enteropathy, while wheat allergy develops as a rapid immunoglobulin E- or non-immunoglobulin E-mediated immune response. In non-celiac wheat sensitivity, classical adaptive immune responses are not involved. Instead, recent research has revealed that an innate immune response to a yet-to-be-defined antigen, as well as the gut microbiota, are pivotal in the development in this disorder. Although impairment of the epithelial barrier has been described in all three clinical conditions, its role as a potential pathogenetic co-factor, specifically in celiac disease and non-celiac wheat sensitivity, is still a matter of investigation. This article gives a short overview of the mucosal barrier of the small intestine, summarizes the aspects of barrier dysfunction observed in all three gluten-related disorders and reviews literature data in favor of a primary involvement of the epithelial barrier in the development of celiac disease and non-celiac wheat sensitivity.

Background: A recently developed haemostatic peptide gel for endoscopic application has been introduced to improve the management of gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, efficacy and indication profiles of PuraStat in a clinical setting. Methods: In this prospective observational multicentre pilot study, patients with acute non-variceal gastrointestinal bleeding (upper and lower) were included. Primary and secondary application of PuraStat was evaluated. Haemoglobin, prothrombin time, platelets and transfusion behaviour were documented before and after haemostasis. The efficacy of PuraStat was assessed during the procedure, at 3 days and 1 week after application. Results: 111 patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding were recruited into the study. 70 percent (78/111) of the patients had upper gastrointestinal bleeding and 30% (33/111) had lower gastrointestinal bleeding. After primary application of PuraStat, initial haemostatic success was achieved in 94% of patients (74/79, 95% CI 88–99%), and in 75% of the patients when used as a secondary haemostatic product, following failure of established techniques (24/32, 95% CI 59–91%). The therapeutic success rates (absence of rebleeding) after 3 and 7 days were 91% and 87% after primary use, and 87% and 81% in all study patients. Overall rebleeding rate at 30 day follow-up was 16% (18/111). In the 5 patients who finally required surgery (4.5%), PuraStat allowed temporary haemostasis and stabilisation. Conclusions: PuraStat expanded the therapeutic toolbox available for an effective treatment of gastrointestinal bleeding sources. It could be safely applied and administered without complications as a primary or secondary therapy. PuraStat may additionally serve as a bridge to surgery in order to achieve temporary haemostasis in case of refractory severe bleeding, possibly playing a role in preventing immediate emergency surgery.