Literature DB >> 16709658

Spectrum of gluten-sensitive enteropathy in first-degree relatives of patients with coeliac disease: clinical relevance of lymphocytic enteritis.

M Esteve1, M Rosinach, F Fernández-Bañares, C Farré, A Salas, M Alsina, P Vilar, A Abad-Lacruz, M Forné, M Mariné, R Santaolalla, J C Espinós, J M Viver.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Limited data on a short series of patients suggest that lymphocytic enteritis (classically considered as latent coeliac disease) may produce symptoms of malabsorption, although the true prevalence of this situation is unknown. Serological markers of coeliac disease are of little diagnostic value in identifying these patients. AIMS: To evaluate the usefulness of human leucocyte antigen-DQ2 genotyping followed by duodenal biopsy for the detection of gluten-sensitive enteropathy in first-degree relatives of patients with coeliac disease and to assess the clinical relevance of lymphocytic enteritis diagnosed with this screening strategy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: 221 first-degree relatives of 82 DQ2+ patients with coeliac disease were consecutively included. Duodenal biopsy (for histological examination and tissue transglutaminase antibody assay in culture supernatant) was carried out on all DQ2+ relatives. Clinical features, biochemical parameters and bone mineral density were recorded.
RESULTS: 130 relatives (58.8%) were DQ2+, showing the following histological stages: 64 (49.2%) Marsh 0; 32 (24.6%) Marsh I; 1 (0.8%) Marsh II; 13 (10.0%) Marsh III; 15.4% refused the biopsy. 49 relatives showed gluten sensitive enteropathy, 46 with histological abnormalities and 3 with Marsh 0 but positive tissue transglutaminase antibody in culture supernatant. Only 17 of 221 relatives had positive serological markers. Differences in the diagnostic yield between the proposed strategy and serology were significant (22.2% v 7.2%, p<0.001). Relatives with Marsh I and Marsh II-III were more often symptomatic (56.3% and 53.8%, respectively) than relatives with normal mucosa (21.1%; p = 0.002). Marsh I relatives had more severe abdominal pain (p = 0.006), severe distension (p = 0.047) and anaemia (p = 0.038) than those with Marsh 0. The prevalence of abnormal bone mineral density was similar in relatives with Marsh I (37%) and Marsh III (44.4%).
CONCLUSIONS: The high number of symptomatic patients with lymphocytic enteritis (Marsh I) supports the need for a strategy based on human leucocyte antigen-DQ2 genotyping followed by duodenal biopsy in relatives of patients with coeliac disease and modifies the current concept that villous atrophy is required to prescribe a gluten-free diet.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16709658      PMCID: PMC1856469          DOI: 10.1136/gut.2006.095299

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gut        ISSN: 0017-5749            Impact factor:   23.059


  34 in total

1.  Serological markers and HLA-DQ2 haplotype among first-degree relatives of celiac patients. Catalonian Coeliac Disease Study Group.

Authors:  C Farré; P Humbert; P Vilar; V Varea; X Aldeguer; J Carnicer; M Carballo; M A Gassull
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 3.199

2.  Forty-eight hours of biopsy culture improve the sensitivity of the in vitro gliadin challenge in the diagnosis of celiac disease.

Authors:  A Picarelli; L Sabbatella; M Di Tola; S Vetrano; C Maffia; C Picchi; A Mastracchio; P Paoluzi; M C Anania
Journal:  Clin Chem       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 8.327

Review 3.  AGA technical review on Celiac Sprue. American Gastroenterological Association.

Authors:  P J Ciclitira; A L King; J S Fraser
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 22.682

4.  Should relatives of coeliacs with mild clinical complaints undergo a small-bowel biopsy despite negative serology?

Authors:  K Rostami; C J Mulder; F M van Overbeek; J Kerckhaert; J W Meijer; M B von Blomberg; H S Heymans
Journal:  Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.566

Review 5.  Case-finding in coeliac disease should be intensified.

Authors:  Chris J J Mulder; Joep F W M Bartelsman
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.043

6.  Celiac disease: from inflammation to atrophy: a long-term follow-up study.

Authors:  Marja-Leena Lähdeaho; Katri Kaukinen; Pekka Collin; Tarja Ruuska; Jukka Partanen; Anna-Maija Haapala; Markku Mäki
Journal:  J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 2.839

7.  Celiac disease-like abnormalities in a subgroup of patients with irritable bowel syndrome.

Authors:  U Wahnschaffe; R Ullrich; E O Riecken; J D Schulzke
Journal:  Gastroenterology       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 22.682

Review 8.  Coeliac disease: changing views.

Authors:  C J J Mulder; C Cellier
Journal:  Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 3.043

9.  Disappearance of endomysial antibodies in treated celiac disease does not indicate histological recovery.

Authors:  W Dickey; D F Hughes; S A McMillan
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 10.864

10.  Celiac disease without villous atrophy: revision of criteria called for.

Authors:  K Kaukinen; M Mäki; J Partanen; H Sievänen; P Collin
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 3.199

View more
  31 in total

Review 1.  Age-related differences in celiac disease: Specific characteristics of adult presentation.

Authors:  Santiago Vivas; Luis Vaquero; Laura Rodríguez-Martín; Alberto Caminero
Journal:  World J Gastrointest Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2015-11-06

2.  Latent coeliac disease or coeliac disease beyond villous atrophy?

Authors:  Katri Kaukinen; Pekka Collin; Markku Mäki
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 3.  Adult coeliac disease.

Authors:  Andrew D Hopper; Marios Hadjivassiliou; Sohail Butt; David S Sanders
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2007-09-15

4.  Impact of mass screening for gluten-sensitive enteropathy in working population.

Authors:  Meritxell Mariné; Fernando Fernández-Bañares; Montserrat Alsina; Carme Farré; Montserrat Cortijo; Rebeca Santaolalla; Antonio Salas; Margarita Tomàs; Elias Abugattas; Carme Loras; Ingrid Ordás; Josep-M Viver; Maria Esteve
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-03-21       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Recent advances in celiac disease.

Authors:  Hugh James Freeman; Angeli Chopra; Michael Tom Clandinin; Alan Br Thomson
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-05-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Screening for celiac disease in the general population and in high-risk groups.

Authors:  Jonas F Ludvigsson; Timothy R Card; Katri Kaukinen; Julio Bai; Fabiana Zingone; David S Sanders; Joseph A Murray
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 4.623

7.  HLA genotyping in pediatric celiac disease patients.

Authors:  Biljana Stanković; Nedeljko Radlović; Zoran Leković; Dragana Ristić; Vladimir Radlović; Gordana Nikčević; Nikola Kotur; Ksenija Vučićević; Tatjana Kostić; Sonja Pavlović; Branka Zukic
Journal:  Bosn J Basic Med Sci       Date:  2014-08-16       Impact factor: 3.363

Review 8.  Bone in celiac disease.

Authors:  M-L Bianchi; M T Bardella
Journal:  Osteoporos Int       Date:  2008-04-17       Impact factor: 4.507

9.  Duodenal biopsy may be avoided when high transglutaminase antibody titers are present.

Authors:  Santiago Vivas; Jose G Ruiz de Morales; Sabino Riestra; Laura Arias; Dolores Fuentes; Noemi Alvarez; Sara Calleja; Mercedes Hernando; Blanca Herrero; Javier Casqueiro; Luis Rodrigo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 10.  Risk of Celiac Disease in the First- and Second-Degree Relatives of Patients With Celiac Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Prashant Singh; Shubhangi Arora; Suman Lal; Tor A Strand; Govind K Makharia
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2015-09-29       Impact factor: 10.864

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.