Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) is a clinical entity characterized by the absence of celiac disease and wheat allergy in patients that trigger reproducible symptomatic responses to gluten-containing foods consumption. Due to the lack of sensitive and reproducible biomarkers for NCGS diagnosis, placebo-controlled gluten challenges must be carried out for its diagnosis. The gluten challenges can be either double- or single-blind, for research or clinical practice purposes, respectively. For improving our understanding about the magnitude and relevance of NCGS in different populations, epidemiological studies based on self-report have been carried out. However, the gluten challenge-based prevalence of NCGS remains to be estimated. Since NCGS was recently recognized as a clinical entity, more studies are needed to delve into NCGS pathogenesis, for instance, the molecular interactions between the suspected cereal grain components that trigger NCGS, such as fermentable oligo-, di-, monosaccharides, and polyols (FODMAPs) and amylase and trypsin inhibitors, and the immune system remains to be elucidated. Although still under debate, NCGS patients can be susceptible to only one or more than one of the NCGS triggers. The treatment of NCGS involves the dietary restriction of the suspected triggers of the disease, but there is controversial data about the effectiveness of different dietary interventions such as the gluten-free diet and low-FODMAP diet. Certainly, our understanding of NCGS is improving quickly due to the constant availability of new scientific information on this topic. Thus, the aim of the present narrative review is to present an up-to-date overview on NCGS from epidemiology to current therapy.

The prevalence of food allergy (FA) has not been estimated at a population level in Central American countries and, consequently, the magnitude and relevance of the problem in the Central American region remains unknown. Thus, our aim was to evaluate the parent-reported prevalence of FA in a population of schoolchildren from the Central American country El Salvador. A Spanish version of a structured questionnaire was utilized. Five hundred and eight (508) parents returned the questionnaire with valid responses (response rate, 32%). The estimated prevalence rates (95% CI) were: adverse food reactions 15.9 (13.0–19.3), “perceived FA, ever” 11.6 (9.1–14.6), “physician-diagnosed FA, ever” 5.7% (4.0–8.0), “immediate-type FA, ever” 8.8% (6.6–11.6), “immediate-type FA, current” 5.3% (3.6–7.6), and anaphylaxis 2.5% (1.5–4.3). The most common food allergens were milk (1.7%), shrimp (1.3), chili (0.7%), chocolate (0.7%), and nuts (0.3%). Most of the “food-dependent anaphylaxis” cases (60.5%) sought medical attention, but only one case reported the prescription of an epinephrine autoinjector. Mild and severe FA cases are not uncommon among Salvadoran schoolchildren and both the prescription of epinephrine autoinjectors by healthcare personnel and the use of the autoinjectors by anaphylactic individuals should be encouraged.

Background: A Spanish version of a questionnaire intended to estimate, at the population level, the prevalence rates of self-reported gluten-related disorders and adherence to gluten-free diets has been applied in four Latin American countries. However, idiom issues have hampered the questionnaire application in the Brazilian population. Thus, the aim of the present study was to carry out a translation, cultural adaptation, and evaluation of a Brazilian Portuguese questionnaire to estimate the self-reported prevalence of gluten-related disorders and adherence to gluten-free diets in a Brazilian population. Materials and Methods: Two bilingual Portuguese–Spanish health professionals carried out the translation of the original Spanish version of the questionnaire to Brazilian-Portuguese. Matching between the two translations was evaluated using the WCopyFind.4.1.5 software. Words in conflict were conciliated, and the conciliated version of the Brazilian Portuguese instrument was evaluated to determine its clarity, comprehension, and consistency. A pilot study was carried out using an online platform. Results: The two questionnaires translated into Brazilian Portuguese were highly matched (81.8%–84.1%). The questions of the conciliated questionnaire were clear and comprehensible with a high agreement among the evaluators (n = 64) (average Kendall’s W score was 0.875). The participants did not suggest re-wording of questions. The answers to the questions were consistent after two applications of the questionnaire (Cohen’s k = 0.869). The pilot online survey yielded low response rates (9.0%) highlighting the need for face-to-face interviews. Conclusions: The translation and evaluation of a Brazilian Portuguese questionnaire to estimate the self-reported prevalence rates of gluten-related disorders and adherence to gluten-free diets was carried out. The instrument is clear, comprehensible, and generates reproducible results in the target population. Further survey studies involving face-to-face interviews are warranted.

Background: The prevalence of gluten-related disorders (GRD) and adherence to a gluten-free diet (GFD) remains unknown in Brazilian population and there is no published information on the scientific literature about the proportion of Brazilians that were diagnosed with a gluten-related disorder. Thus, the aim of this work was to estimate the prevalence of GRDs and adherence to a GFD by self-report in adult Brazilian population. Materials and Methods: A questionnaire-based cross-sectional study was conducted in two Brazilian cities. Results: The response rate was 93.2% (1630/1749). The self-reported prevalence rates were (95% CI): adverse reactions to gluten 10.06% (8.64–11.62); gluten sensitivity 2.33% (1.65–3.18); physician-diagnosed celiac disease 0.3% (0.09–0.71); non-celiac gluten sensitivity 1.71% (1.14–2.47); wheat allergy 0.79% (0.42–1.36); adherence to gluten-free diet 7.48% (6.25–8.87); gluten avoiders 15.21% (13.5–17.05). Among those who were following a GFD (n = 122), 65.6% (n = 80) of them reported that they did not develop symptoms after wheat/gluten ingestion and 50% (n = 61) were following the diet without medical/dietitian advice. The main motivation for following a GFD in the self-reported and non-self-reported gluten sensitivity groups were the symptoms triggered after wheat/gluten ingestion (86.8%) and weight control (57.1%), respectively. Conclusions: Implementation of programs to increase awareness about GRDs among healthcare professionals and giving scientifically sound information to the general population about the risks and benefits for following a GFD are desirable actions in Brazil. The results also add to the growing body of evidence for highlighting the under-diagnosis of GRD and the trend for following a GFD in Latin America.