Two randomized crossover multicenter studies investigating gastrointestinal symptoms after bread consumption in individuals with noncoeliac wheat sensitivity: do wheat species and fermentation type matter?

BACKGROUND: Many individuals reduce their bread intake because they believe wheat causes their gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms. Different wheat species and processing methods may affect these responses. OBJECTIVES: We investigated the effects of 6 different bread types (prepared from 3 wheat species and 2 fermentation conditions) on GI symptoms in individuals with self-reported noncoeliac wheat sensitivity (NCWS). METHODS: Two parallel, randomized, double-blind, crossover, multicenter studies were conducted. NCWS individuals, in whom coeliac disease and wheat allergy were ruled out, received 5 slices of yeast fermented (YF) (study A, n = 20) or sourdough fermented (SF) (study B, n = 20) bread made of bread wheat, spelt, or emmer in a randomized order on 3 separate test days. Each test day was preceded by a run-in period of 3 d of a symptom-free diet and separated by a wash-out period of ≥7 d. GI symptoms were evaluated by change in symptom score (test day minus average of the 3-d run-in period) on a 0-100 mm visual analogue scale (ΔVAS), comparing medians using the Friedman test. Responders were defined as an increase in ΔVAS of ≥15 mm for overall GI symptoms, abdominal discomfort, abdominal pain, bloating, and/or flatulence. RESULTS: GI symptoms did not differ significantly between breads of different grains [YF bread wheat median ΔVAS 10.4 mm (IQR 0.0-17.8 mm), spelt 4.9 mm (-7.6 to 9.4 mm), emmer 11.0 mm (0.0-21.3 mm), P = 0.267; SF bread wheat 10.5 mm (-3.1 to 31.5 mm), spelt 11.3 mm (0.0-15.3 mm), emmer 4.0 mm (-2.9 to 9.3 mm), P = 0.144]. The number of responders was also comparable for both YF (6 to wheat, 5 to spelt, and 7 to emmer, P = 0.761) and SF breads (9 to wheat, 7 to spelt, and 8 to emmer, P = 0.761). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of NCWS individuals experienced some GI symptoms for ≥1 of the breads, but on a group level, no differences were found between different grains for either YF or SF breads. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY: clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04084470 (https://classic. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/ct2/show/NCT04084470).

Using naso- and oro-intestinal catheters in physiological research for intestinal delivery and sampling in vivo: practical and technical aspects to be considered.

Intestinal catheters have been used for decades in human nutrition, physiology, pharmacokinetics, and gut microbiome research, facilitating the delivery of compounds directly into the intestinal lumen or the aspiration of intestinal fluids in human subjects. Such research provides insights about (local) dynamic metabolic and other intestinal luminal processes, but working with catheters might pose challenges to biomedical researchers and clinicians. Here, we provide an overview of practical and technical aspects of applying naso- and oro-intestinal catheters for delivery of compounds and sampling luminal fluids from the jejunum, ileum, and colon in vivo. The recent literature was extensively reviewed, and combined with experiences and insights we gained through our own clinical trials. We included 60 studies that involved a total of 720 healthy subjects and 42 patients. Most of the studies investigated multiple intestinal regions (24 studies), followed by studies investigating only the jejunum (21 studies), ileum (13 studies), or colon (2 studies). The ileum and colon used to be relatively inaccessible regions in vivo. Custom-made state-of-the-art catheters are available with numerous options for the design, such as multiple lumina, side holes, and inflatable balloons for catheter progression or isolation of intestinal segments. These allow for multiple controlled sampling and compound delivery options in different intestinal regions. Intestinal catheters were often used for delivery (23 studies), sampling (10 studies), or both (27 studies). Sampling speed decreased with increasing distance from the sampling syringe to the specific intestinal segment (i.e., speed highest in duodenum, lowest in ileum/colon). No serious adverse events were reported in the literature, and a dropout rate of around 10% was found for these types of studies. This review is highly relevant for researchers who are active in various research areas and want to expand their research with the use of intestinal catheters in humans in vivo.

Extracolonic cancer risk in Dutch patients with APC (adenomatous polyposis coli)-associated polyposis.

BACKGROUND: Screening of patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) have led to a substantial reduction in mortality due to colorectal cancer (CRC). Recent guidelines suggest that surveillance of non-intestinal malignancies should also be considered in those patients. However, the value of these surveillance programmes is unknown. The aims of this study were (1) to assess the occurrence of extracolonic malignancies in a large series of adenomatous polyposis coli (APC) mutation carriers and (2) to evaluate the causes of death. METHODS: All APC mutation carriers were selected from the Dutch polyposis registry. Data on causes of death were collected. Pathology reports were retrieved from the Dutch Pathology Registry. RESULTS: A total of 85 extracolonic malignancies were diagnosed in 74 of 582 APC mutation carriers. Duodenal and skin cancers were the most prevalent cancers. Thyroid cancer was observed in only 1.5% of the cases. The main cause of death was cancer (59% of all deaths), with 42% due to CRC and 21% due to duodenal cancer. One patient died from thyroid cancer. The second and third most common causes of death were cardiovascular disease (13% of all deaths) and desmoid tumours (11% of all deaths), respectively. CONCLUSION: Extending surveillance programmes to other cancers will not contribute significantly to the survival of patients with FAP.

Probiotic prophylaxis in predicted severe acute pancreatitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Infectious complications and associated mortality are a major concern in acute pancreatitis. Enteral administration of probiotics could prevent infectious complications, but convincing evidence is scarce. Our aim was to assess the effects of probiotic prophylaxis in patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, 298 patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation [APACHE II] score > or =8, Imrie score > or =3, or C-reactive protein >150 mg/L) were randomly assigned within 72 h of onset of symptoms to receive a multispecies probiotic preparation (n=153) or placebo (n=145), administered enterally twice daily for 28 days. The primary endpoint was the composite of infectious complications--ie, infected pancreatic necrosis, bacteraemia, pneumonia, urosepsis, or infected ascites--during admission and 90-day follow-up. Analyses were by intention to treat. This study is registered, number ISRCTN38327949. FINDINGS: One person in each group was excluded from analyses because of incorrect diagnoses of pancreatitis; thus, 152 individuals in the probiotics group and 144 in the placebo group were analysed. Groups were much the same at baseline in terms of patients' characteristics and disease severity. Infectious complications occurred in 46 (30%) patients in the probiotics group and 41 (28%) of those in the placebo group (relative risk 1.06, 95% CI 0.75-1.51). 24 (16%) patients in the probiotics group died, compared with nine (6%) in the placebo group (relative risk 2.53, 95% CI 1.22-5.25). Nine patients in the probiotics group developed bowel ischaemia (eight with fatal outcome), compared with none in the placebo group (p=0.004). INTERPRETATION: In patients with predicted severe acute pancreatitis, probiotic prophylaxis with this combination of probiotic strains did not reduce the risk of infectious complications and was associated with an increased risk of mortality. Probiotic prophylaxis should therefore not be administered in this category of patients.