Allergen labeling law does not apply to prescription drugs the way it applies to food, so a medication can contain a wheat-derived excipient without saying so plainly. In practice gluten in medication is rare and the amounts are small, but rare is not the same as verifiable from the box.
This is the category where the honest answer is most often "ask the manufacturer," and where scanners that give a confident verdict are least defensible.

The practical consequence is about starch. "Pregelatinized starch" on a food label is corn unless wheat is declared, because wheat would have to be declared. On a drug label that inference does not hold, because there is no declaration requirement backing it.
The reassuring part: gluten-containing excipients in medication are uncommon, and where they exist the quantities are typically far below what would matter. Published surveys of the question consistently find that medication is a minor contributor to gluten exposure compared with food.
The unsatisfying part: none of that lets you resolve a specific pill from its packaging. The reliable routes are asking the pharmacist to check with the manufacturer, or contacting the manufacturer directly with the specific formulation and lot. Generic formulations differ between manufacturers, so an answer about one generic does not transfer to another.
Supplements sit in between. They are regulated as food, so FALCPA applies and wheat must be declared. But barley-derived ingredients such as malt or grass powders need not name their source, and "wheatgrass" and "barley grass" products are their own question.
Point CiCi at the barcode and get this same reasoning in about two seconds, plus the carbs and whether it has been recalled. 360,000+ packaged foods are already read and waiting.
Sorted by what the answer actually is, rather than alphabetically — because the useful question in a shop is “which pile is this in.”
FALCPA does not apply. Bare "starch" cannot be assumed to be corn.
Same regime as prescription drugs for allergen declaration.
Regulated as food, so wheat is declared, but barley sources need not be named.
The grass itself is gluten free; seed contamination during harvest is the issue, and it is common.
On a supplement label wheat would be declared, so unqualified starch is usually corn.
The growth medium is not always disclosed.
Excipient starches are a solid-dosage-form issue.
Rarely, and usually in trace quantities. Wheat starch has historically been used as an excipient in some formulations. The complication is verifiability. Allergen declaration law does not cover prescription drugs, so the label cannot answer the question and the manufacturer has to.
On a food label, unqualified starch is corn because wheat would have to be declared. On a drug label that reasoning does not apply, since the declaration requirement does not extend to prescription drugs. It is usually corn, but it cannot be established from the packaging.
The grass leaf contains no gluten, because gluten is in the seed. But wheatgrass is harvested close to the ground, and seed contamination is common enough that products without a gluten-free claim and testing behind them are not reliable.
This site answers the question you knew to ask. The app answers the one you didn't: the barley malt in a rice cereal, the wheat starch in a gummy. Scan the barcode, or photograph the panel when the barcode isn't in any database, and CiCi shows which words on the label produced the answer.
14 days free, then $29.99 a year. Cheaper than Fig, and it does what three separate apps do. This website stays free forever either way: every answer on it, permanently, with no account.