A new potential drug for celiac disease?

Zizzle · Post by **Zizzle** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 2:41 pm

This sounds somewhat promising. I'm confused about whether "reducing gluten digestion" will have an impact on MC. Don't the cells in our intestinal walls react before we even digest??

http://www.news-medical.net/news/201202 ... sease.aspx

The findings indicate that BL-7010 (previously called P(HEMA-co-SS)) reduces digestion of wheat gluten, thereby decreasing its toxicity. In addition, BL-7010 attenuates the immune response to gluten in rodents and prevents gluten-induced pathological damage to the small intestine. BL-7010 was not absorbed systemically, indicating its safety as a gluten-neutralizing substance. These data demonstrate that BL-7010 has the potential to be an effective adjunctive therapy to the gluten-free diet, to prevent or reduce gluten-induced disorders in humans.

kristinef · Post by **kristinef** » Mon Apr 23, 2012 9:10 pm

Do you think the intent is to be able to eat all the gluten you want and not suffer effects? Or is it to protect against accidental exposure?

Zizzle · Post by **Zizzle** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 8:14 pm

kristinef wrote:Do you think the intent is to be able to eat all the gluten you want and not suffer effects? Or is it to protect against accidental exposure?

They specifically said it would be in addition to the GF diet, so I guess it's to minimize damage from accidental or low-level exposure.

Deanna in CO · Post by **Deanna in CO** » Tue Apr 24, 2012 10:20 pm

I wonder how they're going to test this? It would be unethical to intentionally expose a celiac to gluten to see whether the drug works.

Post by **tex** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 8:26 am

Deanna wrote:It would be unethical to intentionally expose a celiac to gluten to see whether the drug works.

I agree, but that is exactly how Dr. Fasano and his crew are testing their anti-zonulin drug, and it's the method by which they determined so-called safe gluten-tolerance levels for food labeling, and many other projects over the years.

It's certainly no more iatrogenic than a doctor insisting that a patient who doesn't have a diagnosis, but who has achieved remission by following a GF diet, must eat gluten for 6 or 8 weeks, in order to qualify for testing, for a diagnosis of celiac disease. IMO, that practice, (requiring a gluten challenge), should be illegal. This just goes to illustrate how archaic the diagnostic procedures are for celiac disease - the medical community is still practicing in the dark ages, when it comes to celiac disease and gluten-sensitivity.

Tex

Deanna in CO · Post by **Deanna in CO** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 2:06 pm

Tex, I agree 100%! Seriously, what are these people thinking?

I have a friend whose young teen daughter had celiac disease, but wasn't convinced she needed to stay gluten-free. Her doctor suggested a gluten challenge, which they did, and after several weeks it became obvious she was showing the effects of it. Her mom told me, "If I knew then what I know now, I'd never have allowed the challenge. She has recovered, but she never came all the way back." This friend told me, when she knew I was improving being GF, "If you get better being GF, don't ever go back on it again."

How is that we ordinary people can figure this stuff out via ordinary common sense, but the doctors don't get it (except for the handful who deal with it themselves or know someone who does?) I mean, really, no one would test a peanut allergy vaccine that way . . . Or would they?