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).

The effect of expectancy versus actual gluten intake on gastrointestinal and extra-intestinal symptoms in non-coeliac gluten sensitivity: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals without coeliac disease or wheat allergy reduce their gluten intake because they believe that gluten causes their gastrointestinal symptoms. Symptoms could be affected by negative expectancy. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the effects of expectancy versus actual gluten intake on symptoms in people with non-coeliac gluten sensitivity (NCGS). METHODS: This randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international, multicentre study was done at the University of Leeds (Leeds, UK), Maastricht University (Maastricht, the Netherlands), and Wageningen University and Research (Wageningen, the Netherlands). People aged 18-70 years with self-reported NCGS (ie, gastrointestinal symptoms within 8 h of gluten consumption) without coeliac disease and wheat allergy were recruited. Participants had to follow a gluten-free or gluten-restricted diet for at least 1 week before (and throughout) study participation and had to be asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic (overall gastrointestinal symptom score ≤30 mm on the Visual Analogue Scale [VAS]) while on the diet. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1; blocks of eight; stratified by site and gender) to one of four groups based on the expectation to consume gluten-containing (E+) or gluten-free (E-) oat bread for breakfast and lunch (two slices each) and actual intake of gluten-containing (G+) or gluten-free (G-) oat bread. Participants, investigators, and those assessing outcomes were masked to the actual gluten assignment, and participants were also masked to the expectancy part of the study. The primary outcome was overall gastrointestinal symptom score on the VAS, which was measured at and corrected for baseline (before breakfast) and hourly for 8 h, with lunch served after 4 h, and analysed per-protocol. Safety analysis included all participants incorporated in the per-protocol analysis. The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05779358, and has ended. FINDINGS: Between Oct 19, 2018, and Feb 14, 2022, 165 people were screened and 84 were randomly assigned to E+G+ (n=21), E+G- (n=21), E-G+ (n=20), or E-G- (n=22). One person in the E+G+ group was excluded due to not following test day instructions, leaving 83 participants in the per-protocol analysis. Median age was 27·0 years (IQR 21·0-45·0), 71 (86%) of 83 people were women, and 12 (14%) were men. Mean overall gastrointestinal symptom score was significantly higher for E+G+ (16·6 mm [95% CI 13·1 to 20·0]) than for E-G+ (6·9 mm [3·5 to 10·4]; difference 9·6 mm [95% CI 3·0 to 16·2], p=0·0010) and E-G- (7·4 mm [4·2 to 10·7]; difference 9·1 mm [2·7 to 15·6], p=0·0016), but not for E+G- (11·7 mm [8·3 to 15·1]; difference 4·9 mm [-1·7 to 11·5], p=0·28). There was no difference between E+G- and E-G+ (difference 4·7 mm [-1·8 to 11·3], p=0·33), E+G- and E-G- (difference 4·2 mm [-2·2 to 10·7], p=0·47), and E-G+ and E-G- (difference -0·5 mm [-7·0 to 5·9], p=1·0). Adverse events were reported by two participants in the E+G- group (itching jaw [n=1]; feeling lightheaded and stomach rumbling [n=1]) and one participant in the E-G+ group (vomiting). INTERPRETATION: The combination of expectancy and actual gluten intake had the largest effect on gastrointestinal symptoms, reflecting a nocebo effect, although an additional effect of gluten cannot be ruled out. Our results necessitate further research into the possible involvement of the gut-brain interaction in NCGS. FUNDING: Government of the Netherlands Topsector Agri & Food Top Consortium for Knowledge and Innovation, AB Mauri Global Bakery Ingredients, Baking Industry Research Trust, Borgesius-Albert Heijn, CSM Innovation Centre, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), DSM Food Specialties, Fazer, Healthgrain Forum, the International Association for Cereal Science and Technology, the International Wheat Gluten Association, Lantmännen, Mondelez International, Nederlands Bakkerij Centrum, Nutrition & Santé, Puratos, Rademaker, Sonneveld Group, and Zeelandia HJ Doeleman.

Adverse Reactions to Wheat or Wheat Components.

Wheat is an important staple food globally, providing a significant contribution to daily energy, fiber, and micronutrient intake. Observational evidence for health impacts of consuming more whole grains, among which wheat is a major contributor, points to significant risk reduction for diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and colon cancer. However, specific wheat components may also elicit adverse physical reactions in susceptible individuals such as celiac disease (CD) and wheat allergy (WA). Recently, broad coverage in the popular and social media has suggested that wheat consumption leads to a wide range of adverse health effects. This has motivated many consumers to avoid or reduce their consumption of foods that contain wheat/gluten, despite the absence of diagnosed CD or WA, raising questions about underlying mechanisms and possible nocebo effects. However, recent studies did show that some individuals may suffer from adverse reactions in absence of CD and WA. This condition is called non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) or non-celiac wheat sensitivity (NCWS). In addition to gluten, wheat and derived products contain many other components which may trigger symptoms, including inhibitors of α-amylase and trypsin (ATIs), lectins, and rapidly fermentable carbohydrates (FODMAPs). Furthermore, the way in which foods are being processed, such as the use of yeast or sourdough fermentation, fermentation time and baking conditions, may also affect the presence and bioactivity of these components. The present review systematically describes the characteristics of wheat-related intolerances, including their etiology, prevalence, the components responsible, diagnosis, and strategies to reduce adverse reactions.