4.3 Article

Inadequate Nutrient Intake in Patients with Celiac Disease: Results from a German Dietary Survey

Journal

DIGESTION
Volume 87, Issue 4, Pages 240-246

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000348850

Keywords

Celiac disease; Gluten-free diet; Dietary survey; Micronutrients; Macronutrients

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Currently, the only treatment for celiac disease (CD) is a lifelong gluten-free diet (GFD). Research has been carried out in various countries into the nutritional adequacy of the GFD in terms of macro- and micronutrients, mostly presenting conflicting results. However, no data for Germany are available to date. Aim: To elucidate the nutritional composition of a GFD and to compare it with non-GFD in a representative German non-CD population. Methods and Patients: A total of 1,000 patients who were members of the German Celiac Society (DZG) were invited to fill out a prospective 7-day food diary and a questionnaire. Data from 88 patients aged 14-80 years were analyzed and compared to the DACH reference values and to data from the German National Diet and Nutrition Survey (NVS ID. Results: No significant difference was observed for the intake of energy and macronutrients in male celiac patients compared to the NVS II. Only the fiber intake of male patients was significantly lower than that of the general population. Female patients, however, showed a significantly higher fat intake, but lower carbohydrate consumption. The average daily micronutrient intake of male and female patients, specifically of vitamin B1, B2, B6, folic acid, magnesium and iron, was significantly lower in celiac patients compared to the NVS II. Conclusion: This study reveals inadequate nutrient intake by male and female celiac patients in Germany. Based on our findings, regular (laboratory) monitoring of celiac patients should be recommended. Copyright (C) 2013 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available