UNLABELLED: SPECIFIC AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS: Andreas Vécsei, MD, and Ulrike Graf wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to study design, data collection and analysis, and approved the final draft for submission. The corresponding author declares that the manuscript is submitted on behalf of all authors. BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The best mode of follow-up in celiac disease has not yet been established. The intention of this study was to clarify which noninvasive follow-up investigation - serological tests or intestinal permeability test (IPT) - correlates best with histology and whether the interval between diagnosis and follow-up affects the accuracy of these tests. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from adult patients with celiac disease (diagnosed between December 1989 and July 2006) followed up with biopsy, IPT, and serological tests [IgG anti-gliadin antibodies (AGA-IgG), AGA-IgA, and endomysial antibodies (EMA)] were retrieved from a computerized database. Results of noninvasive tests were compared with the persistence of villous atrophy on biopsy. Patients were divided into groups A, which comprised patients followed up within 2 years after diagnosis, and B, comprising patients followed up later than 2 years. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were evaluable. The lactulose/mannitol (L/M) ratio had a sensitivity of 85 % and a specificity of 46.2 % for mucosal atrophy, whereas saccharose excretion showed a sensitivity of 60 % and a specificity of 52.6 %. The sensitivities of AGA-IgA and AGA-IgG were 15 % and 20 %, respectively, while specificity was 100 % for both. Validity of AGA was limited due to low number of positive results. EMA assay was 50 % sensitive and 77.8 % specific. In group A (n = 23) L/M ratio performed best in terms of sensitivity (88.9 %), whereas EMA achieved a higher specificity (71.4 %). In group B, the sensitivity of the L/M ratio decreased to 85.7 %, while the specificity of EMA increased to 91.7 %. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, none of the noninvasive tests was an accurate substitute for follow-up biopsy in detecting severe mucosal damage.
UNLABELLED: SPECIFIC AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS: Andreas Vécsei, MD, and Ulrike Graf wrote the manuscript. All authors contributed to study design, data collection and analysis, and approved the final draft for submission. The corresponding author declares that the manuscript is submitted on behalf of all authors. BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: The best mode of follow-up in celiac disease has not yet been established. The intention of this study was to clarify which noninvasive follow-up investigation - serological tests or intestinal permeability test (IPT) - correlates best with histology and whether the interval between diagnosis and follow-up affects the accuracy of these tests. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data from adult patients with celiac disease (diagnosed between December 1989 and July 2006) followed up with biopsy, IPT, and serological tests [IgG anti-gliadin antibodies (AGA-IgG), AGA-IgA, and endomysial antibodies (EMA)] were retrieved from a computerized database. Results of noninvasive tests were compared with the persistence of villous atrophy on biopsy. Patients were divided into groups A, which comprised patients followed up within 2 years after diagnosis, and B, comprising patients followed up later than 2 years. RESULTS: Forty-seven patients were evaluable. The lactulose/mannitol (L/M) ratio had a sensitivity of 85 % and a specificity of 46.2 % for mucosal atrophy, whereas saccharose excretion showed a sensitivity of 60 % and a specificity of 52.6 %. The sensitivities of AGA-IgA and AGA-IgG were 15 % and 20 %, respectively, while specificity was 100 % for both. Validity of AGA was limited due to low number of positive results. EMA assay was 50 % sensitive and 77.8 % specific. In group A (n = 23) L/M ratio performed best in terms of sensitivity (88.9 %), whereas EMA achieved a higher specificity (71.4 %). In group B, the sensitivity of the L/M ratio decreased to 85.7 %, while the specificity of EMA increased to 91.7 %. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, none of the noninvasive tests was an accurate substitute for follow-up biopsy in detecting severe mucosal damage.
Authors: Daniel Leffler; Detlef Schuppan; Kumar Pallav; Robert Najarian; Jeffery D Goldsmith; Joshua Hansen; Toufic Kabbani; Melinda Dennis; Ciarán P Kelly Journal: Gut Date: 2012-05-22 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Jocelyn A Silvester; Satya Kurada; Andrea Szwajcer; Ciarán P Kelly; Daniel A Leffler; Donald R Duerksen Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2017-05-22 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Zsolt Szakács; Péter Mátrai; Péter Hegyi; Imre Szabó; Áron Vincze; Márta Balaskó; Bernadett Mosdósi; Patrícia Sarlós; Mária Simon; Katalin Márta; Alexandra Mikó; Dániel Pécsi; Alexandra Demcsák; Judit Bajor Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-11-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Edith Vécsei; Stephanie Steinwendner; Hubert Kogler; Albina Innerhofer; Karin Hammer; Oskar A Haas; Gabriele Amann; Andreas Chott; Harald Vogelsang; Regine Schoenlechner; Wolfgang Huf; Andreas Vécsei Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2014-02-13 Impact factor: 3.067