Gluten is known to be the main triggering factor for celiac disease (CeD), an immune-mediated disorder. CeD is therefore managed using a strict and lifelong gluten-free diet (GFD), the only effective treatment available currently. However, the GFD is restrictive. Hence, efforts are being made to explore alternative therapies. Based on their mechanisms of action on various molecular targets involved in the pathogenesis of CeD, these therapies may be classified into one of the following five broad approaches. The first approach focuses on decreasing the immunogenic content of gluten, using strategies like genetically modified wheat, intra-intestinal gluten digestion using glutenases, microwave thermal treatment of hydrated wheat kernels, and gluten pretreatment with either bacterial/ fungal derived endopeptidases or microbial transglutaminase. The second approach involves sequestering gluten in the gut lumen before it is digested into immunogenic peptides and absorbed, using binder drugs like polymer p(HEMA-co-SS), single chain fragment variable (scFv), and anti- gluten antibody AGY. The third approach aims to prevent uptake of digested gluten through intestinal epithelial tight junctions, using a zonulin antagonist. The fourth approach involves tissue transglutaminase (tTG) inhibitors to prevent the enhancement of immunogenicity of digested gluten by the intestinal tTG enzyme. The fifth approach seeks to prevent downstream immune activation after uptake of gluten immunogenic peptides through the intestinal mucosal epithelial layer. Examples include HLA-DQ2 blockers that prevent presentation of gluten derived- antigens by dendritic cells to T cells, immune- tolerizing therapies like the vaccine Nexvax2 and TIMP-Glia, cathepsin inhibitors, immunosuppressants like corticosteroids, azathioprine etc., and anti-cytokine agents targeting TNF-α and interleukin-15. Apart from these approaches, research is being done to evaluate the effectiveness of probiotics/prebiotics, helminth therapy using Necator americanus , low FODMAP diet, and pancreatic enzyme supplementation in CeD symptom control; however, the mechanisms by which they play a beneficial role in CeD are yet to be clearly established. Overall, although many therapies being explored are still in the pre-clinical phase, some like the zonulin antagonist, immune tolerizing therapies and glutenases have reached phase II/III clinical trials. While these potential options appear exciting, currently they may at best be used to supplement rather than supplant the GFD.

Background: Seronegative coeliac disease is poorly defined. Aims:To study clinical phenotypes and long-term outcomes of seronegative coeliac disease in a multicentre cohort over 20 years.Methods: Seronegative coeliac disease was diagnosed in HLA-DQ2/DQ8-positive patients with villous atrophy (VA), negative IgA endomysial (EmA), tissue transglutaminase (tTG) and deamidated-gliadin antibodies (DGP), clinical and histological response to a gluten-free diet (GFD), and no alternative causes for VA. In patients with IgA deficiency, coeliac disease was diagnosed through VA, positive IgG EmA/tTG/ DGP and clinical/histological response to a GFD (coeliac disease+IgAd). Patients with seropositive coeliac disease served as controls.Results: Of 227 patients previously diagnosed with seronegative coeliac disease, true seronegative coeliac disease was confirmed in 84, coeliac disease+IgAd in 48, and excluded in 55. Lack of follow-up duodenal biopsy precluded diagnosing seronegative coeliac disease in 40 patients. 2084 patients with seropositive coeliac disease served as controls. True seronegative coeliac disease had more severe symptoms at diagnosis and a higher risk of complications (HR 10.87,, P < 0.001) and mortality (HR 2.18, 95% CI 1.12-4.26, P < 0.01) than seropositive coeliac disease.There were no differences between true seronegative coeliac disease and coeliac disease+IgAd. On multivariate analysis, age at diagnosis, lack of clinical response to a GFD, true seronegative coeliac disease, coeliac disease+IgAd, and classical presentation predicted complications. Age at diagnosis, complications and absence of clinical response to a GFD predicted mortality. Conclusions:Seronegative coeliac disease has a more aggressive disease phenotype than seropositive coeliac disease. These data argue against over-reliance on serology for the diagnosis of coeliac disease and support a strict clinical and histologic followup in seronegative coeliac disease.

INTRODUCTION: A subset of patients with celiac disease (CeD) has liver involvement in the form of hypertransaminasemia, liver cirrhosis, and autoimmune hepatitis. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analyses to determine the pooled prevalence of CeD in patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis, all-cause cirrhosis, cryptogenic hypertransaminasemia, and all-cause hypertransaminasemia. METHODS:We searched PubMed and EMBASE up to January 2022. Cross-sectional, case-control, and prospective cohort studies performing serological tests and/or intestinal biopsy for CeD on patients with cryptogenic cirrhosis, all-cause cirrhosis, cryptogenic hypertransaminasemia, and all-cause hypertransaminasemia were included to calculate pooled estimates of seroprevalence and the prevalence of biopsy-confirmed CeD in these 4 groups. RESULTS:Of 6,871 articles screened, 20 articles were included finally in 3 meta-analyses for cryptogenic cirrhosis, all-cause cirrhosis, and cryptogenic hypertransaminasemia. For the all-cause hypertransaminasemia group, a qualitative review of 4 studies was conducted instead of a metaanalysis due to significant differences in studies. The pooled prevalence (95% confidence interval) of biopsy-confirmed CeD in cryptogenic cirrhosis was 4.6% (2.2%-7.5%) while the pooled prevalence of biopsy-confirmed CeD in all-cause cirrhosis was 0.8% (0%-3.4%). The pooled prevalence of biopsyconfirmed CeD in cryptogenic hypertransaminasemia was 5.7% (3.2%-8.8%).DISCUSSION:Nearly 1 in 20 patients each with cryptogenic cirrhosis and cryptogenic hypertransaminasemia have CeD; hence, they should both be considered high-risk groups for CeD. While the prevalence of CeD in those with all-cause cirrhosis is similar to that in general population, it may be worth screening them for CeD because liver pathology has the potential for reversal in them.