Search

Background: Inflammatory bowel diseases (IBDs) have a peak incidence between the second and fourth decades of life and can affect women’s reproductive life. Objectives: Our study aimed to assess the impact of IBD on the reproductive life of female patients with this condition. Design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: Women with IBD followed at our IBD Unit and a group of healthy controls were enrolled. Data on reproductive life were collected using a dedicated questionnaire. Results: The study included 457 women, of whom 228 had IBD, and 229 age-matched healthy controls. No differences were found in the use of contraceptives, infertility, and endometriosis. The risk of spontaneous and voluntary abortions was significantly higher in IBD patients than in healthy controls [odds ratio (OR) 2 and 3.62, respectively]. The risk of obstetrical complications in the IBD population was more than six times higher in patients who experienced disease reactivations during pregnancy than in those with persistent remission [OR 6.9, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.51–31.28]. Finally, we found that the chances of breastfeeding were 66% lower in patients with IBD than in controls (OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.22–0.91). Conclusion: Our study underlines the negative impact of IBD on women’s reproductive life, supporting the need for proactive preconception counseling.

Background. Data on resilience, the ability to recover from adversity, in coeliac disease (CeD) are lacking. Aim. To assess the degree of resilience in patients with CeD on a gluten-free diet (GFD), and its association with clinical features, sociodemographic factors, psychological morbidity, and quality of life (QOL). Methods. A cross-sectional multicentre Italian study was conducted on adult CeD patients between May 2022 and April 2023. Connor–Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC), the Coeliac Disease-specific Quality of Life Scale (CD-QOL), the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory scale (STAI-Y), and the Beck Depression Inventory scale (BDI) were used to evaluate resilience, QOL, anxiety, and depression, respectively. A multivariate analysis was conducted to identify factors independently associated with the degree of resilience. Results. A total of 305 patients (221 F, mean age at CeD diagnosis 36 ± 16 years) on a long-term GFD (median 8 years, IQR 3–17) were enrolled. A total of 298/305 patients (98%) had a high level of resilience (CD-RISC ≥ 35). At univariate analysis, resilience was statistically associated with male gender (p = 0.03), age at enrolment (p = 0.02), marital status (p = 0.03), QOL (p < 0.001), anxiety (p < 0.001), and depression (p < 0.001). On multivariate regression analysis, trait anxiety (STAI-Y2, p < 0.001) and depression (BDI, p = 0.02) were independent predictors of lower levels of resilience. Conclusions. Higher trait anxiety predicts lower levels of resilience. Targeted interventions in this subgroup of patients may be helpful for their management and follow-up.

The gastrointestinal tract is home to trillions of diverse microorganisms collectively known as the gut microbiota, which play a pivotal role in breaking down undigested foods, such as dietary fibers. Through the fermentation of these food components, short-chain fatty acids (SCFAs) such as acetate, propionate, and butyrate are produced, offering numerous health benefits to the host. The production and absorption of these SCFAs occur through various mechanisms within the human intestine, contingent upon the types of dietary fibers reaching the gut and the specific microorganisms engaged in fermentation. Medical literature extensively documents the supplementation of SCFAs, particularly butyrate, in the treatment of gastrointestinal, metabolic, cardiovascular, and gut-brain-related disorders. This review seeks to provide an overview of the dynamics involved in the production and absorption of acetate, propionate, and butyrate within the human gut. Additionally, it will focus on the pivotal roles these SCFAs play in promoting gastrointestinal and metabolic health, as well as their current therapeutic implications.

Celiac disease (CeD) is a chronic autoimmune disorder triggered by the ingestion of gluten, affecting around 1% of the global population. It is a multifactorial disease involving both genetics and environmental factors. Nowadays, the only available treatment for CeD is a life-long gluten-free diet (GFD), which can cause a significant burden for patients, since symptoms and mucosal injury can persist despite apparent compliance with a GFD. This could also lead to psychological consequences and affect the quality of life of these patients. Thankfully, recent advances in understanding the pathogenesis of CeD and the availability of various targets have made it feasible to explore pharmaceutical treatments specific to CeD. Recently, the FDA has highlighted the unmet needs of adult patients on a GFD who experience ongoing symptoms attributed to CeD and also show persistent duodenal villous atrophy. This review will outline the limitations of a GFD, describe the targets of potential novel treatment of CeD and provide an overview of the primary clinical trials involving oral and injectable agents for a non-dietary treatment of CeD.

Most adverse reactions to food are patient self-reported and not based on validated tests but nevertheless lead to dietary restrictions, with patients believing that these restrictions will improve their symptoms and quality of life. We aimed to clarify the myths and reality of common food intolerances, giving clinicians a guide on diagnosing and treating these cases. We performed a narrative review of the latest evidence on the widespread food intolerances reported by our patients, giving indications on the clinical presentations, possible tests, and dietary suggestions, and underlining the myths and reality. While lactose intolerance and hereditary fructose intolerance are based on well-defined mechanisms and have validated diagnostic tests, non-coeliac gluten sensitivity and fermentable oligosaccharide, disaccharide, monosaccharide, and polyol (FODMAP) intolerance are mainly based on patients’ reports. Others, like non-hereditary fructose, sorbitol, and histamine intolerance, still need more evidence and often cause unnecessary dietary restrictions. Finally, the main outcome of the present review is that the medical community should work to reduce the spread of unvalidated tests, the leading cause of the problematic management of our patients.

Eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) is a chronic esophageal disease that needs lifelong management and follow-up. The diagnosis requires an upper endoscopy with at least one esophageal biopsy demonstrating >15 eosinophils/high-power field, and often occurs with a diagnostic delay of up to ten years, partly due to the absence of valid non-invasive screening tools. In addition, serial upper endoscopies with esophageal biopsies are mandatory to assess the efficacy of any ongoing treatment in patients with EoE. These procedures are invasive, costly, and, when performed without sedation, are often poorly tolerated by patients. Therefore, there is the clinical need to identify reliable non-invasive or minimally invasive biomarkers that could be used to assess disease activity in clinical practice as a surrogate of peak eosinophil counts on esophageal biopsies. This review summarizes evidence on investigational non-invasive or minimally invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis and follow-up of EoE to report on the state of the art in the field and support future research. We discussed eosinophil-derived mediators including eosinophil cationic protein (ECP), eosinophil-derived neurotoxin (EDN, also known as eosinophil protein X), eosinophil peroxidase (EPO), and major basic protein (MBP) as well as other promising non-eosinophil-derived biomarkers. Although several studies have shown the utility of most biomarkers collected from the serum, esophageal luminal secretions, and feces of EoE patients, numerous limitations currently hamper the integration of such biomarkers in clinical practice. Future studies should aim at validating the utility of non-invasive and minimally invasive biomarkers using rigorous protocols and updated consensus criteria for EoE.

The gluten-free diet [GFD] has been linked to an increased risk of weight gain and the development of metabolic disorders. Most of the studies have focused on the effect of GFD on the Body Mass Index [BMI]. We aimed to evaluate the nutritional status using specific nutritional parameters in patients with celiac disease [CeD] at diagnosis and on a GFD compared to healthy controls. We recruited subjects at our outpatient clinic at the University of Padua. We collected demographic and clinical data and values obtained with bioelectrical impedance analysis. A total of 24 CeD patients and 28 healthy controls were enrolled. CeD patients at diagnosis had a lower body cell mass index [BCMI, p = 0.006], fat-free mass index [FFMI, p = 0.02], appendicular skeletal muscle index [ASMI, p = 0.02], and phase angle [PA] [p < 0.001] compared to controls. Their percentage of extracellular water [ECW] was also higher [p < 0.001]. Considering CeD patients after GFD, nutritional status significantly improved after 6 months of GFD. We did not observe differences in BMI among groups [p = ns]. CeD patients at diagnosis were found to have a poorer nutritional status than healthy controls, with a positive effect of the GFD on their nutritional status, underlining the inefficacy of evaluating this aspect through only BMI evaluation.

During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, immunomodulatory therapies and hospital admission were suspected to increase the risk of infection. Nevertheless, patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) treated with intravenous (i.v.) biologics had to move to hospitals for drug infusion. We investigated the impact of hospitalisation in patients with IBD. We conducted a survey including consecutive IBD patients initially in clinical and biochemical remission treated with biologics at the end of the first lockdown period. Patients underwent the normally scheduled clinical visits, performed at hospital for i.v.-treated patients or at home for patients treated with s.c. drugs. We administered to all patients the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire and other 12 questions, specifically related to COVID-19 and its implications. A total of 189 IBD patients were recruited, 112 (59.3%) treated with i.v. drugs and 77 (40.7%) with s.c. ones. No relapses were recorded in either group (hospitalized vs. non-hospitalized, p = ns), as well as which, COVID-19 infections were not demonstrated in patients in contact with people with suspected symptoms or directly experiencing them. The total HADS score obtained by the sum of all items was also almost identical between groups (37.1 ± 2.8 vs. 37.2 ± 2.8; p = 0.98). In patients treated with i.v. drugs receiving a televisit (n = 17), the rate of satisfaction with telemedicine (58.8%) was significantly lower compared with those treated with s.c. drugs (94.8%; p < 0.0005). Our results suggest that hospitalisation during the COVID-19 outbreak does not increase the risk of COVID-19 infection as well as the risk of IBD relapse; moreover, the similar levels of anxiety in both groups could confirm that there is no need to convert patients from i.v. to s.c. therapy.

Eosinophilic gastrointestinal diseases (EGIDs) are chronic gastrointestinal conditions requiring corticosteroid and immunosuppressive therapy for disease control. Patients with EGIDs usually report impaired quality of life. We aimed to report the clinical and psychological impact of COVID-19 infection in EGID patients. In this prospective web-based study we invited all consecutive EGID patients attending the University Hospital of Salerno (Campania) and Padua (Veneto) to fill an ad hoc COVID-19 survey. Moreover, a telemedicine service for direct consultation was organized. Data regarding the occurrence and perception of COVID-19 infection as well as clinical information were recorded. The study population included 102 EGID patients (mean age 36.6 years, 34 females), of whom 89 had eosinophilic esophagitis, nine had gastroenteritis, and four had colitis. No patient was diagnosed with COVID-19 or had recurrence of his/her primary disease. All of them were adherent to therapy and preventive measures adoption. Most patients were worried because of COVID-19 and social preventing measures but did not consider themselves at major risk or susceptible to COVID-19 or other infections due to their chronic condition or therapy. Female gender and low education level were associated to a higher psychological perception of COVID-19 compared to lockdown status or other demographic and clinical factors (p < 0.05). Overall, COVID-19 had a limited clinical impact on patients with EGIDs. The degree of education and sex, but not the fact of living in a lockdown area, influenced the perception of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

Background and aim: Nutritional deficiencies are frequent in coeliac disease (CeD), mostly because of the nutritional deficits in gluten-free foods and because of wrong behaviors. We aimed to investigate the level of nutritional knowledge in a cohort of CeD patients in comparison with patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and healthy subjects. Materials and methods: We consecutively recruited CeD patients and matched-sex and -age IBD patients between April and December 2019 at the University Hospital of Padua outpatient clinic. Healthy subjects were also recruited from family and friends of the hospital staff. The CeD patients were asymptomatic on a gluten-free diet, whereas the IBD patients were in remission. All of the subjects completed the Moynihan validated questionnaire to measure their nutritional knowledge. Results: We included 96 CeD patients, 96 IBD patients, and 65 healthy controls. We found that CeD patients were less aware of nutritional recommendations compared with healthy subjects (HS), and were less able to identify nutrient sources compared with IBD patients and to choose healthy food compared with both groups. The Moynihan questionnaire mean total score was not significantly different between CeD and IBD groups (mean 22.5 ± 2.3 for CeD, 22.0 ± 2.2 for IBD), while it was statistically significantly worse in CeD compared with healthy subjects (mean 21.2 ± 2.3 for HS, p = 0.001). Conclusions: CeD patients tend to focus their diet on gluten avoidance, while IBD patients tend to follow a healthier diet, probably because they believe that diet plays a major role in regulating inflammation and, therefore, their symptoms. A dietitian consultation at CeD diagnosis is recommended.