OBJECTIVES: Clinical response is typically observed in most adults with celiac disease (CD) after treatment with a gluten-free diet (GFD). The rate of mucosal recovery is less certain. The aims of this study were (1) to estimate the rate of mucosal recovery after GFD in a cohort of adults with CD, and (2) to assess the clinical implications of persistent mucosal damage after GFD. METHODS: The study group included adults with biopsy-proven CD evaluated at the Mayo Clinic who had duodenal biopsies at diagnosis and at least one follow-up intestinal biopsy to assess mucosal recovery after starting a GFD. The primary outcomes of interest were mucosal recovery and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 381 adults with biopsy-proven CD, 241 (73% women) had both a diagnostic and follow-up biopsy available for re-review. Among these 241, the Kaplan-Meier rate of confirmed mucosal recovery at 2 years following diagnosis was 34% (95% confidence interval (CI): 27-40%), and at 5 years was 66% (95% CI: 58-74%). Most patients (82%) had some clinical response to GFD, but it was not a reliable marker of mucosal recovery (P=0.7). Serological response was associated with confirmed mucosal recovery (P=0.01). Poor compliance to GFD (P<0.01), severe CD defined by diarrhea and weight loss (P<0.001), and total villous atrophy at diagnosis (P<0.001) were strongly associated with persistent mucosal damage. There was a trend toward an association between achievement of mucosal recovery and a reduced rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio=0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-1.06, P=0.06), adjusted for gender and age. CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal recovery was absent in a substantial portion of adults with CD after treatment with a GFD. There was a borderline significant association between confirmed mucosal recovery (vs. persistent damage) and reduced mortality independent of age and gender. Systematic follow-up with intestinal biopsies may be advisable in patients diagnosed with CD as adults.
OBJECTIVES: Clinical response is typically observed in most adults with celiac disease (CD) after treatment with a gluten-free diet (GFD). The rate of mucosal recovery is less certain. The aims of this study were (1) to estimate the rate of mucosal recovery after GFD in a cohort of adults with CD, and (2) to assess the clinical implications of persistent mucosal damage after GFD. METHODS: The study group included adults with biopsy-proven CD evaluated at the Mayo Clinic who had duodenal biopsies at diagnosis and at least one follow-up intestinal biopsy to assess mucosal recovery after starting a GFD. The primary outcomes of interest were mucosal recovery and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of 381 adults with biopsy-proven CD, 241 (73% women) had both a diagnostic and follow-up biopsy available for re-review. Among these 241, the Kaplan-Meier rate of confirmed mucosal recovery at 2 years following diagnosis was 34% (95% confidence interval (CI): 27-40%), and at 5 years was 66% (95% CI: 58-74%). Most patients (82%) had some clinical response to GFD, but it was not a reliable marker of mucosal recovery (P=0.7). Serological response was associated with confirmed mucosal recovery (P=0.01). Poor compliance to GFD (P<0.01), severe CD defined by diarrhea and weight loss (P<0.001), and total villous atrophy at diagnosis (P<0.001) were strongly associated with persistent mucosal damage. There was a trend toward an association between achievement of mucosal recovery and a reduced rate of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio=0.13, 95% CI: 0.02-1.06, P=0.06), adjusted for gender and age. CONCLUSIONS: Mucosal recovery was absent in a substantial portion of adults with CD after treatment with a GFD. There was a borderline significant association between confirmed mucosal recovery (vs. persistent damage) and reduced mortality independent of age and gender. Systematic follow-up with intestinal biopsies may be advisable in patients diagnosed with CD as adults.
Authors: Carlo Catassi; Elisabetta Fabiani; Giovanni Corrao; Maria Barbato; Amalia De Renzo; Angelo M Carella; Armando Gabrielli; Pietro Leoni; Antonio Carroccio; Mariella Baldassarre; Paolo Bertolani; Paola Caramaschi; Michele Sozzi; Graziella Guariso; Umberto Volta; Gino R Corazza Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-03-20 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: C Cellier; E Delabesse; C Helmer; N Patey; C Matuchansky; B Jabri; E Macintyre; N Cerf-Bensussan; N Brousse Journal: Lancet Date: 2000-07-15 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Markku Mäki; Kirsi Mustalahti; Jorma Kokkonen; Petri Kulmala; Mila Haapalahti; Tuomo Karttunen; Jorma Ilonen; Kaija Laurila; Ingrid Dahlbom; Tony Hansson; Peter Höpfl; Mikael Knip Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-06-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kouroche Vahedi; Françoise Mascart; Jean Yves Mary; Jean Eric Laberenne; Yoram Bouhnik; Marie Christine Morin; Annick Ocmant; Christine Velly; Jean Frédéric Colombel; Claude Matuchansky Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2003-05 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Alberto Rubio-Tapia; Margot L Herman; Jonas F Ludvigsson; Darlene G Kelly; Thomas F Mangan; Tsung-Teh Wu; Joseph A Murray Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-06-22 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: David S Atlas; Alberto Rubio-Tapia; Carol T Van Dyke; Brian D Lahr; Joseph A Murray Journal: Gastrointest Endosc Date: 2011-08-11 Impact factor: 9.427
Authors: Matthew Siegel; Mitchell E Garber; Andrew G Spencer; Wendy Botwick; Pawan Kumar; Robert N Williams; Kenji Kozuka; Revati Shreeniwas; Vijaya Pratha; Daniel C Adelman Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2011-09-23 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Benjamin Lebwohl; Karl Michaëlsson; Peter H R Green; Jonas F Ludvigsson Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2014-01-16 Impact factor: 5.958