Coeliac disease and type 2 diabetes risk: a nationwide matched cohort and Mendelian randomisation study.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: While the association between coeliac disease and type 1 diabetes is well documented, the association of coeliac disease with type 2 diabetes risk remains undetermined. We conducted a nationwide cohort and Mendelian randomisation analysis to investigate this link. METHODS: This nationwide matched cohort used data from the Swedish ESPRESSO cohort including 46,150 individuals with coeliac disease and 219,763 matched individuals in the comparator group selected from the general population, followed up from 1969 to 2021. Data from 9053 individuals with coeliac disease who underwent a second biopsy were used to examine the association between persistent villous atrophy and type 2 diabetes. Multivariable Cox regression was employed to estimate the associations. In Mendelian randomisation analysis, 37 independent genetic variants associated with clinically diagnosed coeliac disease at p<5×10-8 were used to proxy genetic liability to coeliac disease. Summary-level data for type 2 diabetes were obtained from the DIAGRAM consortium (80,154 cases) and the FinnGen study (42,593 cases). RESULTS: Over a median 15.7 years' follow-up, there were 6132 (13.3%) and 30,138 (13.7%) incident cases of type 2 diabetes in people with coeliac disease and comparator individuals, respectively. Those with coeliac disease were not at increased risk of incident type 2 diabetes with an HR of 1.00 (95% CI 0.97, 1.03) compared with comparator individuals. Persistent villous atrophy was not associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes compared with mucosal healing among participants with coeliac disease (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.90, 1.16). Genetic liability to coeliac disease was not associated with type 2 diabetes in DIAGRAM (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99, 1.03) or in FinnGen (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.99-1.04). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Coeliac disease was not associated with type 2 diabetes risk.

Attitudes to mesalamine questionnaire: a novel tool to predict mesalamine nonadherence in patients with IBD.

OBJECTIVES: Poor adherence to mesalamine is common and driven by a combination of lifestyle and behavioral factors, as well as health beliefs. We sought to develop a valid tool to identify barriers to patient adherence and predict those at risk for future nonadherence. METHODS: A 10-item survey was developed from patient-reported barriers to adherence. The survey was administered to 106 patients with ulcerative colitis who were prescribed mesalamine, and correlated with prospectively collected 12-month pharmacy refills (medication possession ratio (MPR)), urine levels of salicylates, and self-reported adherence (Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS)-8). RESULTS: From the initial 10-item survey, 8 items correlated highly with the MMAS-8 score at enrollment. Computer-generated randomization produced a derivation cohort of 60 subjects and a validation cohort of 46 subjects to assess the survey items in their ability to predict future adherence. Two items from the patient survey correlated with objective measures of long-term adherence: their belief in the importance of maintenance mesalamine even when in remission and their concerns about side effects. The additive score based on these two items correlated with 12-month MPR in both the derivation and validation cohorts (P<0.05). Scores on these two items were associated with a higher risk of being nonadherent over the subsequent 12 months (relative risk (RR) =2.2, 95% confidence interval=1.5-3.5, P=0.04). The area under the curve for the performance of this 2-item tool was greater than that of the 10-item MMAS-8 score for predicting MPR scores over 12 months (area under the curve 0.7 vs. 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' beliefs about the need for maintenance mesalamine and their concerns about side effects influence their adherence to mesalamine over time. These concerns could easily be raised in practice to identify patients at risk of nonadherence (Clinical Trial number NCT01349504).

Diagnosis of Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity (NCGS): The Salerno Experts' Criteria.

Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity (NCGS) is a syndrome characterized by intestinal and extra-intestinal symptoms related to the ingestion of gluten-containing food, in subjects that are not affected by either celiac disease or wheat allergy. Given the lack of a NCGS biomarker, there is the need for standardizing the procedure leading to the diagnosis confirmation. In this paper we report experts' recommendations on how the diagnostic protocol should be performed for the confirmation of NCGS. A full diagnostic procedure should assess the clinical response to the gluten-free diet (GFD) and measure the effect of a gluten challenge after a period of treatment with the GFD. The clinical evaluation is performed using a self-administered instrument incorporating a modified version of the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale. The patient identifies one to three main symptoms that are quantitatively assessed using a Numerical Rating Scale with a score ranging from 1 to 10. The double-blind placebo-controlled gluten challenge (8 g/day) includes a one-week challenge followed by a one-week washout of strict GFD and by the crossover to the second one-week challenge. The vehicle should contain cooked, homogeneously distributed gluten. At least a variation of 30% of one to three main symptoms between the gluten and the placebo challenge should be detected to discriminate a positive from a negative result. The guidelines provided in this paper will help the clinician to reach a firm and positive diagnosis of NCGS and facilitate the comparisons of different studies, if adopted internationally.