A19 THE IMPACT OF FOOD INSECURITY ON ADHERENCE TO A GLUTEN-FREE DIET IN THE ADULT CELIAC DISEASE POPULATION ATTENDING A DEDICATED CELIAC CLINIC

R. Leong, S. Tandon, M. Khaouli, J. Blom, R. Daca, Eduardo Verdu, D. Armstrong, M. Pinto-Sanchez
{"title":"A19 THE IMPACT OF FOOD INSECURITY ON ADHERENCE TO A GLUTEN-FREE DIET IN THE ADULT CELIAC DISEASE POPULATION ATTENDING A DEDICATED CELIAC CLINIC","authors":"R. Leong, S. Tandon, M. Khaouli, J. Blom, R. Daca, Eduardo Verdu, D. Armstrong, M. Pinto-Sanchez","doi":"10.1093/jcag/gwad061.019","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Background A strict gluten-free diet (GFD) is currently the only treatment for celiac disease (CeD), but a GFD can be inconvenient and expensive. CeD patients who are food insecure (FI) face threats to GFD adherence, overall health, and quality of life. Aims To evaluate the prevalence of FI in patients with CeD attending a dedicated Adult Celiac Disease Clinic (ACDC) at an academic hospital and to examine the relationship between FI and GFD adherence, quality of life and various gastrointestinal symptoms. Methods Patients were invited to participate in the CeD registry when they attended the ACDC; those who agreed to participate then provided verbal and signed consent. Patients had the option to complete the CeD registry forms in the clinic on an iPad or at home using a card with a QR code and a unique ID to access the online CeD registry. The CeD registry uses REDCap (v. 11.1, 2021, US) and includes six validated questionnaires (Celiac Diet Adherence Test (CDAT), Celiac Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (CD QoL), Celiac Symptom Index (CSI), Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM)). Continuous data are expressed as mean (SD), and categorical data as proportions of patients. The chi-squared test with Fisher correction and t-test were used to assess differences between groups. Results A total of 653 patients attended the ACDC from November 2, 2022, to September 20, 2023, and 411 patients were invited to participate in this study. Of them, 204 completed the CeD registry. Food insecurity was identified in 16% of CeD patients, of whom 11 (5%) were marginally FI, 16 (8%) were moderately FI, and 7 (3%) were severely FI. Compared to CeD patients who are food secure, a greater proportion of FI CeD patients reported nonadherence to GFD (26/34 vs 70/170; p<0.001), reduced QoL (32/34 vs 98/170; p<0.001), greater anxiety (27/34 vs 84/170; p=0.001) and greater depression (13/34 vs 26/170; p=0.004) compared with normal values. CeD patients with FI also reported lower QoL [61.0(14.9) vs 49.6(16.7); p=0.001] and increased gastrointestinal symptoms [GSRS 37.7(14.7) vs 29.0(12.8); p=0.001] compared with food secure CeD patients. Conclusions Food insecurity is common in patients with CeD and is associated with significantly worse adherence to treatment, symptom control, and quality of life. There is an important need for programs and societal measures to abolish food insecurity and ensure adequate access to treatment for patients with CeD. Funding Agencies TRIANGLE Summer Studentship","PeriodicalId":508018,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology","volume":"55 6","pages":"10 - 11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jcag/gwad061.019","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Background A strict gluten-free diet (GFD) is currently the only treatment for celiac disease (CeD), but a GFD can be inconvenient and expensive. CeD patients who are food insecure (FI) face threats to GFD adherence, overall health, and quality of life. Aims To evaluate the prevalence of FI in patients with CeD attending a dedicated Adult Celiac Disease Clinic (ACDC) at an academic hospital and to examine the relationship between FI and GFD adherence, quality of life and various gastrointestinal symptoms. Methods Patients were invited to participate in the CeD registry when they attended the ACDC; those who agreed to participate then provided verbal and signed consent. Patients had the option to complete the CeD registry forms in the clinic on an iPad or at home using a card with a QR code and a unique ID to access the online CeD registry. The CeD registry uses REDCap (v. 11.1, 2021, US) and includes six validated questionnaires (Celiac Diet Adherence Test (CDAT), Celiac Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (CD QoL), Celiac Symptom Index (CSI), Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Household Food Security Survey Module (HFSSM)). Continuous data are expressed as mean (SD), and categorical data as proportions of patients. The chi-squared test with Fisher correction and t-test were used to assess differences between groups. Results A total of 653 patients attended the ACDC from November 2, 2022, to September 20, 2023, and 411 patients were invited to participate in this study. Of them, 204 completed the CeD registry. Food insecurity was identified in 16% of CeD patients, of whom 11 (5%) were marginally FI, 16 (8%) were moderately FI, and 7 (3%) were severely FI. Compared to CeD patients who are food secure, a greater proportion of FI CeD patients reported nonadherence to GFD (26/34 vs 70/170; p<0.001), reduced QoL (32/34 vs 98/170; p<0.001), greater anxiety (27/34 vs 84/170; p=0.001) and greater depression (13/34 vs 26/170; p=0.004) compared with normal values. CeD patients with FI also reported lower QoL [61.0(14.9) vs 49.6(16.7); p=0.001] and increased gastrointestinal symptoms [GSRS 37.7(14.7) vs 29.0(12.8); p=0.001] compared with food secure CeD patients. Conclusions Food insecurity is common in patients with CeD and is associated with significantly worse adherence to treatment, symptom control, and quality of life. There is an important need for programs and societal measures to abolish food insecurity and ensure adequate access to treatment for patients with CeD. Funding Agencies TRIANGLE Summer Studentship
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A19 在乳糜泻专科门诊就诊的成年乳糜泻患者中,食物不安全对坚持无麸质饮食的影响
摘要 背景 严格的无麸质饮食(GFD)是目前治疗乳糜泻(CeD)的唯一方法,但无麸质饮食既不方便又昂贵。食物无保障(FI)的乳糜泻患者在坚持无麸质饮食、整体健康和生活质量方面面临威胁。目的 评估在一家学术医院专门开设的成人乳糜泻门诊(ACDC)就诊的乳糜泻患者中食物不安全的发生率,并研究食物不安全与坚持 GFD、生活质量和各种胃肠道症状之间的关系。方法 患者在ACDC就诊时被邀请参加CeD登记;同意参加的患者随后提供口头和签字同意书。患者可选择在诊所的 iPad 上填写 CeD 登记表,或在家中使用带有二维码和唯一 ID 的卡片访问在线 CeD 登记表。CeD登记表使用REDCap(版本11.1,2021年,美国),包括六份经过验证的问卷(乳糜泻饮食依从性测试(CDAT)、乳糜泻生活质量问卷(CD QoL)、乳糜泻症状指数(CSI)、胃肠道症状评分量表(GSRS)、医院焦虑抑郁量表(HADS)和家庭食品安全调查模块(HFSSM))。连续数据以均值(标清)表示,分类数据以患者比例表示。采用带费雪校正的卡方检验和 t 检验来评估组间差异。结果 2022年11月2日至2023年9月20日期间,共有653名患者参加了ACDC,411名患者受邀参加了本研究。其中 204 人完成了 CeD 登记。在 16% 的 CeD 患者中发现了食物不安全问题,其中 11 人(5%)为轻度 FI,16 人(8%)为中度 FI,7 人(3%)为重度 FI。与有食物保障的 CeD 患者相比,与正常值相比,有食物保障的 CeD 患者中有更大比例的人报告不坚持全食物饮食(26/34 vs 70/170; p<0.001)、生活质量下降(32/34 vs 98/170; p<0.001)、焦虑加重(27/34 vs 84/170; p=0.001)和抑郁加重(13/34 vs 26/170; p=0.004)。与有食物保障的 CeD 患者相比,有 FI 的 CeD 患者的 QoL 也更低 [61.0(14.9) vs 49.6(16.7); p=0.001],胃肠道症状更多 [GSRS 37.7(14.7) vs 29.0(12.8); p=0.001]。结论 食物无保障在 CeD 患者中很常见,而且与治疗依从性、症状控制和生活质量明显降低有关。因此,亟需制定计划和社会措施,以消除食物无保障现象,并确保 CeD 患者能够获得充分的治疗。资助机构 TRIANGLE暑期学生奖学金
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Contemporary epidemiology of hepatocellular carcinoma: understanding risk factors and surveillance strategies Identification and prioritization of patient-centred strategies to enhance IBD-related care for older adults: a modified Delphi approach Rectal varices treated by retrograde transvenous obliteration Canadian colorectal cancer screening programs: How do they measure up using the International Agency for Research on Cancer criteria for organized screening? A78 VALIDITY EVIDENCE FOR OBSERVATIONAL EUS COMPETENCY ASSESSMENT: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1