Literature DB >> 15844721

Serologic testing for celiac disease in young adults--a cost-effect analysis.

Yael Yagil1, Ilan Goldenberg, Ronen Arnon, Vered Ezra, Isaac Ashkenazi.   

Abstract

In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the diagnostic workups for celiac disease among military personnel, thereby significantly increasing overall laboratory testing expenditures and burden. We evaluated the serologic testing procedure in symptomatic young adults, using a "cost-effect" approach. We evaluated the serologic screening policy for celiac disease among serologically tested military personnel. The study population was divided into subgroups according to the clinical presentation prior to screening: isolated (low-risk) and combined complaints (high-risk). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of serologic markers for celiac disease were evaluated. Cost analyses were based on diagnostic expenditures. Cost-effect ratio is expressed as cost per newly diagnosed patients, and cost minimization as cost per screened individuals. Five hundred thirty-eight military personnel were serologically tested for celiac disease. Eight new cases of celiac were diagnosed, all of whom belonged to the high-risk subgroup and tested positive for at least two positive serologic tests (tTG + EMA or tTG + AGA IgG + EMA). EMA Ab measured the highest sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Average screening expenditure was U.S. $287 per patient. The lowest cost-effect and cost minimization ratios were achieved by implementing a two-step single-marker screening protocol for high-risk subjects and one-step follow-up for low-risk subjects. Among patient population of young adults, selective diagnostic workup could result in cost-minimization without risking quality of diagnosis. From a cost-effect perspective, implemented screening procedures need to be dependent on subgroup: low-risk, clinical follow-up; and high-risk, serological testing for EMA and, only if positive, possibly a small-bowel biopsy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15844721     DOI: 10.1007/s10620-005-2576-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dig Dis Sci        ISSN: 0163-2116            Impact factor:   3.199


  13 in total

1.  Sensitivity of antiendomysium and antigliadin antibodies in untreated celiac disease: disappointing in clinical practice.

Authors:  K Rostami; J Kerckhaert; R Tiemessen; B M von Blomberg; J W Meijer; C J Mulder
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 2.  Celiac sprue.

Authors:  Richard J Farrell; Ciarán P Kelly
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2002-01-17       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Positive tissue transglutaminase antibodies with negative endomysial antibodies: low rate of celiac disease.

Authors:  Batia Weiss; Yoram Bujanover; Benjamin Avidan; Akiva Fradkin; Ilana Weintraub; Bracha Shainberg
Journal:  Isr Med Assoc J       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 0.892

Review 4.  Celiac disease--the villain unmasked?

Authors:  Ross McManus; Dermot Kelleher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-06-19       Impact factor: 91.245

5.  Antitissue transglutaminase antibodies outside celiac disease.

Authors:  Maria Grazia Clemente; Maria Paola Musu; Fulvia Frau; Cicotto Lucia; Stefano De Virgiliis
Journal:  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 2.839

6.  The use of a single serological marker underestimates the prevalence of celiac disease in Israel: a study of blood donors.

Authors:  Raanan Shamir; Aaron Lerner; Eilat Shinar; Nitza Lahat; Esther Sobel; Rina Bar-or; Hedviga Kerner; Rami Eliakim
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 10.864

7.  Value of a screening algorithm for celiac disease using tissue transglutaminase antibodies as first level in a population-based study.

Authors:  Juan C Gomez; Gisella Selvaggio; Bibiana Pizarro; Martin J Viola; Graciela La Motta; Edgardo Smecuol; Roberto Castelletto; Raúl Echeverria; Horacio Vazquez; Roberto Mazure; Adriana Crivelli; Emilia Sugai; Eduardo Mauriño; Julio C Bai
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 10.864

Review 8.  Current approaches to diagnosis and treatment of celiac disease: an evolving spectrum.

Authors:  A Fasano; C Catassi
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 22.682

9.  Coeliac disease detected by screening is not silent--simply unrecognized.

Authors:  S D Johnston; R G Watson; S A McMillan; J Sloan; A H Love
Journal:  QJM       Date:  1998-12

10.  Endomysial antibody: is it the best screening test for coeliac disease?

Authors:  M Ferreira; S L Davies; M Butler; D Scott; M Clark; P Kumar
Journal:  Gut       Date:  1992-12       Impact factor: 23.059

View more
  6 in total

1.  Screening for celiac disease in average-risk and high-risk populations.

Authors:  Saurabh Aggarwal; Benjamin Lebwohl; Peter H R Green
Journal:  Therap Adv Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 4.409

Review 2.  Testing for gluten-related disorders in clinical practice: the role of serology in managing the spectrum of gluten sensitivity.

Authors:  David Armstrong; Andrew C Don-Wauchope; Elena F Verdu
Journal:  Can J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 3.522

Review 3.  Practical guide to the management of chronic pancreatitis.

Authors:  Mustafa Jalal; Jennifer A Campbell; Andrew D Hopper
Journal:  Frontline Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-09-07

4.  The economics of coeliac disease: a population-based study.

Authors:  K H Long; A Rubio-Tapia; A E Wagie; L J Melton; B D Lahr; C T Van Dyke; J A Murray
Journal:  Aliment Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2010-04-08       Impact factor: 8.171

5.  Resource use and costs associated with coeliac disease before and after diagnosis in 3,646 cases: results of a UK primary care database analysis.

Authors:  Mara Violato; Alastair Gray; Irini Papanicolas; Melissa Ouellet
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-07-17       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Clinical utility of serologic testing for celiac disease in ontario: an evidence-based analysis.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ont Health Technol Assess Ser       Date:  2010-12-01
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.