Risk perception and knowledge of COVID-19 in patients with celiac disease.

BACKGROUND: We recently demonstrated that the odds of contracting coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with celiac disease (CeD) is similar to that of the general population. However, how patients with CeD perceive their COVID-19 risk may differ from their actual risk. AIM: To investigate risk perceptions of contracting COVID-19 in patients with CeD and determine the factors that may influence their perception. METHODS: We distributed a survey throughout 10 countries between March and June 2020 and collected data on demographics, diet, COVID-19 testing, and risk perceptions of COVID-19 in patients with CeD. Participants were recruited through various celiac associations, clinic visits, and social media. Risk perception was assessed by asking individuals whether they believe patients with CeD are at an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 when compared to the general population. Logistic regression was used to determine the influencing factors associated with COVID-19 risk perception, such as age, sex, adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD), and comorbidities such as cardiac conditions, respiratory conditions, and diabetes. Data was presented as adjusted odds ratios (aORs). RESULTS: A total of 10737 participants with CeD completed the survey. From them, 6019 (56.1%) patients with CeD perceived they were at a higher risk or were unsure if they were at a higher risk of contracting COVID-19 compared to the non-CeD population. A greater proportion of patients with CeD perceived an increased risk of contracting COVID-19 when compared to infections in general due to their CeD (56.1% vs 26.7%, P < 0.0001). Consequently, 34.8% reported taking extra COVID-19 precautions as a result of their CeD. Members of celiac associations were less likely to perceive an increased risk of COVID-19 when compared to non-members (49.5% vs 57.4%, P < 0.0001). Older age (aOR: 0.99; 95%CI: 0.99 to 0.99, P < 0.001), male sex (aOR: 0.84; 95%CI: 0.76 to 0.93, P = 0.001), and strict adherence to a GFD (aOR: 0.89; 95%CI: 0.82 to 0.96, P = 0.007) were associated with a lower perception of COVID-19 risk and the presence of comorbidities was associated with a higher perception of COVID-19 risk (aOR: 1.38; 95%CI: 1.22 to 1.54, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Overall, high levels of risk perceptions, such as those found in patients with CeD, may increase an individual's pandemic-related stress and contribute to negative mental health consequences. Therefore, it is encouraged that public health officials maintain consistent communication with the public and healthcare providers with the celiac community. Future studies specifically evaluating mental health in CeD could help determine the consequences of increased risk perceptions in this population.

Probiotics for Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

INTRODUCTION: Many patients with celiac disease (CD) experience persistent symptoms despite adhering to the gluten-free diet. Different studies have assessed the use of probiotics as an adjuvant treatment for CD. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of probiotics in improving gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in patients with CD. METHODS: We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and DARE databases up to February 2019 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating probiotics compared with placebo for treating CD. We collected data on GI symptoms, QOL, adverse events, serum tumor necrosis factor-α, intestinal permeability, and microbiota composition. RESULTS: We screened 2,831 records and found that 7 articles describing 6 RCTs (n = 279 participants) were eligible for quantitative analysis. Probiotics improved GI symptoms when assessed by the GI Symptoms Rating Scale (mean difference symptom reduction: -28.7%; 95% confidence interval [CI] -43.96 to -13.52; P = 0.0002). There was no difference in GI symptoms after probiotics when different questionnaires were pooled. The levels of Bifidobacteria increased after probiotics (mean difference: 0.85 log colony-forming units (CFU) per gram; 95% CI 0.38-1.32 log CFU per gram; P = 0.0003). There were insufficient data on tumor necrosis factor-a levels or QOL for probiotics compared with placebo. No difference in adverse events was observed between probiotics and placebo. The overall certainty of the evidence ranged from very low to low. DISCUSSION: Probiotics may improve GI symptoms in patients with CD. High-quality clinical trials are needed to improve the certainty in the evidence (see Visual abstract, Supplementary Digital Content 2, http://links.lww.com/AJG/B595).

Association Between Inflammatory Bowel Diseases and Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: There is controversy over the association between celiac disease (CeD) and inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess evidence for an association between CeD and IBD. METHODS: We searched databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science, CINAHL, DARE, and SIGLE through June 25, 2019 for studies assessing the risk of CeD in patients with IBD, and IBD in patients with CeD, compared with controls of any type. We used the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale to evaluate the risk of bias and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. RESULTS: We identified 9791 studies and included 65 studies in our analysis. Moderate certainty evidence found an increased risk of CeD in patients with IBD vs controls (risk ratio [RR] 3.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.23-7.02) and increased risk of IBD in patients with CeD vs controls (RR 9.88; 95% CI 4.03-24.21). There was low-certainty evidence for the risk of anti-Saccharomyces antibodies, a serologic marker of IBD, in patients with CeD vs controls (RR 6.22; 95% CI 2.44-15.84). There was low-certainty evidence for no difference in risk of HLA-DQ2 or DQ8 in patients with IBD vs controls (RR 1.04; 95% CI 0.42-2.56), and very low-certainty evidence for an increased risk of anti-tissue transglutaminase in patients with IBD vs controls (RR 1.52; 95% CI 0.52-4.40). Patients with IBD had a slight decrease in risk of anti-endomysial antibodies vs controls (RR 0.70; 95% CI 0.18-2.74), but these results are uncertain. CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found an increased risk of IBD in patients with CeD and increased risk of CeD in patients with IBD, compared with other patient populations. High-quality prospective cohort studies are needed to assess the risk of CeD-specific and IBD-specific biomarkers in patients with IBD and CeD.