A gluten-free diet (GFD) is the safest treatment modality in patient with coeliac disease (CD) and other gluten-related disorders. Contamination and diet compliance are important factors behind persistent symptoms in patients with gluten related-disorders, in particular CD. How much gluten can be tolerated, how safe are the current gluten-free (GF) products, what are the benefits and side effects of GFD? Recent studies published in Nutrients on gluten-free products’ quality, availability, safety, as well as challenges related to a GFD are discussed.

Gluten elimination may represent an effective treatment strategy for mood disorders in individuals with gluten-related disorders. However, the directionality of the relationship remains unclear. We performed a systematic review of prospective studies for effects of gluten on mood symptoms in patients with or without gluten-related disorders. Six electronic databases (CINAHL, PsycINFO, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library) were searched, from inception to 8 August 2018, for prospective studies published in English. Meta-analyses with random-effects were performed. Three randomised-controlled trials and 10 longitudinal studies comprising 1139 participants fit the inclusion criteria. A gluten-free diet (GFD) significantly improved pooled depressive symptom scores in GFD-treated patients (Standardised Mean Difference (SMD) −0.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) −0.55 to −0.20; p < 0.0001), with no difference in mean scores between patients and healthy controls after one year (SMD 0.01, 95% CI −0.18 to 0.20, p = 0.94). There was a tendency towards worsening symptoms for non-coeliac gluten sensitive patients during a blinded gluten challenge vs. placebo (SMD 0.21, 95% CI −0.58 to 0.15; p = 0.25). Our review supports the association between mood disorders and gluten intake in susceptible individuals. The effects of a GFD on mood in subjects without gluten-related disorders should be considered in future research.

Aim: Young people with psychosis have higher rates of obesity, premature cardiovascular disease, and death compared to non-psychotic peers in the general population due to changes in metabolic regulation linked to antipsychotic medication and adverse health risk behaviors. The aim of this paper is to outline the development, implementation, and evaluation of a combined 12-week exercise and health behavior intervention delivered as part of an Early Intervention in Psychosis (EIP) routine service, within the UK. Methods: Participants (n = 27) completed a 12-week combined intervention program, engaging in weekly, 90-min sessions comprising a healthy behavior education session (45 min), followed by a facilitated exercise session (45 min). Anthropometric data from participants (n = 26) were collected at baseline, 12 weeks, and 12 months postintervention. Health behaviors and clinical measurements were assessed at baseline and 12 months. Results: Mean baseline data suggests participants were at an increased health risk on entry to the program, with elevated values in mean body mass index (BMI; 70% overweight/obese), waist circumference, resting heart rate, and triglycerides. Fifty percent reported smoking daily, 64% ate < 5 fruits/vegetables per day, and 52% of participants were prescribed highly obesogenic antipsychotic medications (i.e., Olanzapine). At 12 weeks and 12 months, no changes were observed in mean BMI, waist circumference or any other clinical variable (p > 0.05). At 12 months, participants reported a positive impact on health behaviors including improved diet, increased physical activity levels, and cessation of substance use (n = 2), alcohol use (n = 2), and smoking (n = 4). Focus groups captured participant experiences, engagement with and satisfaction with the program, including challenges/barriers to program adherence. Conclusions: The 12-week exercise and health behaviors program supported participants to attenuate their physical health risk which was sustained at 12-month

The aim of this review was to assess the effects of a gluten free diet (GFD) in the management of epilepsy in people with coeliac disease (CD) or gluten sensitivity (GS). A systematic approach was used to undertake a literature review. Five electronic databases (PubMed; Scopus; Google Scholar; Cochrane Epilepsy Group specialised register; Cochrane Register of Controlled Trails (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Register of Online Trials) were searched using predetermined relevant search terms. In total, 668 articles were identified. Duplicates were removed and predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, and a PRISMA flow chart was produced. Data was extracted using Covidence software. Twelve studies on Epilepsy and CD involving a total of 70 participants were selected for analysis; narrative synthesis was used owing to the small sample sizes in the selected studies. None of the 12 studies meeting inclusion criteria investigated gluten sensitivity and epilepsy. All the included studies support a link between epilepsy and CD. GFD was effective in 44 out of 70 participants across the studies in terms of a reduction of seizures, reduction of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs) or normalisation of EEG pattern. A total of 44 participants showed a reduction in seizures (across eight studies) and complete cessation of seizures was reported in 22 participants. In general, the earlier the GFD is implemented after the onset of seizures, the better the likelihood of the GFD being successful in supporting control of seizures. Mechanisms linking gluten with epilepsy are not fully understood; possible hypotheses include gluten mediated toxicity, immune-induced cortical damage and malabsorption. Evidence suggests the effectiveness of a GFD in supporting the management of epilepsy in patients with CD, although the quality of evidence is low. There appears to be a growing number of neurologists who are prepared to advocate the use of a GFD. A multidisciplinary approaches and further research are recommended. It could be argued that when balancing potential treatments such as AEDs or surgery, a GFD has a low likelihood of harm.