BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adherence to a gluten-free diet is the only effective treatment for celiac disease. It has been recommended that patients be followed up, make regular visits to the clinic, and undergo serologic analysis for markers of celiac disease, although a follow-up procedure has not been standardized. We determined how many patients with celiac disease are actually followed up. METHODS: We collected data on 122 patients with biopsy-proven celiac disease, diagnosed between 1996 and 2006 in Olmsted County, Minnesota (70% women; median age, 42 y), for whom complete medical records and verification of residency were available. We determined the frequency at which patients received follow-up examinations, from 6 months to 5 years after diagnosis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate event rates at 1 and 5 years. Patients were classified according to categories of follow-up procedures recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). RESULTS: We estimated that by 1 and 5 years after diagnosis with celiac disease, 41.0% and 88.7% of the patients had follow-up visits, 33.6% and 79.8% were assessed for compliance with a gluten-free diet, 3.3% and 15.8% met with a registered dietitian, 2.5% and 18.1% had an additional intestinal biopsy, and 22.1% and 65.6% received serologic testing for markers of celiac disease, respectively. Among 113 patients (93%) who were followed up for more than 4 years, only 35% received follow-up analyses that were consistent with AGA recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with celiac disease are not followed up consistently. Follow-up examinations often are inadequate and do not follow AGA recommendations. Improving follow-up strategies for patients with celiac disease could improve management of this disease.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Adherence to a gluten-free diet is the only effective treatment for celiac disease. It has been recommended that patients be followed up, make regular visits to the clinic, and undergo serologic analysis for markers of celiac disease, although a follow-up procedure has not been standardized. We determined how many patients with celiac disease are actually followed up. METHODS: We collected data on 122 patients with biopsy-proven celiac disease, diagnosed between 1996 and 2006 in Olmsted County, Minnesota (70% women; median age, 42 y), for whom complete medical records and verification of residency were available. We determined the frequency at which patients received follow-up examinations, from 6 months to 5 years after diagnosis. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to estimate event rates at 1 and 5 years. Patients were classified according to categories of follow-up procedures recommended by the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA). RESULTS: We estimated that by 1 and 5 years after diagnosis with celiac disease, 41.0% and 88.7% of the patients had follow-up visits, 33.6% and 79.8% were assessed for compliance with a gluten-free diet, 3.3% and 15.8% met with a registered dietitian, 2.5% and 18.1% had an additional intestinal biopsy, and 22.1% and 65.6% received serologic testing for markers of celiac disease, respectively. Among 113 patients (93%) who were followed up for more than 4 years, only 35% received follow-up analyses that were consistent with AGA recommendations. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with celiac disease are not followed up consistently. Follow-up examinations often are inadequate and do not follow AGA recommendations. Improving follow-up strategies for patients with celiac disease could improve management of this disease.
Authors: G Corrao; G R Corazza; V Bagnardi; G Brusco; C Ciacci; M Cottone; C Sategna Guidetti; P Usai; P Cesari; M A Pelli; S Loperfido; U Volta; A Calabró; M Certo Journal: Lancet Date: 2001-08-04 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Jennifer L St Sauver; Brandon R Grossardt; Cynthia L Leibson; Barbara P Yawn; L Joseph Melton; Walter A Rocca Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 2012-02 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: D A Leffler; J B Edwards George; M Dennis; E F Cook; D Schuppan; C P Kelly Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2007-11-01 Impact factor: 8.171
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: T B Koerner; C Cléroux; C Poirier; I Cantin; A Alimkulov; H Elamparo Journal: Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess Date: 2011-06
Authors: Jacalyn A See; Katri Kaukinen; Govind K Makharia; Peter R Gibson; Joseph A Murray Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2015-09-22 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Allie B Cichewicz; Elizabeth S Mearns; Aliki Taylor; Talia Boulanger; Michele Gerber; Daniel A Leffler; Jennifer Drahos; David S Sanders; Kelly J Thomas Craig; Benjamin Lebwohl Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2019-03-01 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Govind K Makharia; Prashant Singh; Carlo Catassi; David S Sanders; Daniel Leffler; Raja Affendi Raja Ali; Julio C Bai Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2022-01-03 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Jocelyn A Silvester; Isabel Comino; Lisa N Rigaux; Veronica Segura; Kathy H Green; Angel Cebolla; Dayna Weiten; Remedios Dominguez; Daniel A Leffler; Francisco Leon; Charles N Bernstein; Lesley A Graff; Ciaran P Kelly; Carolina Sousa; Donald R Duerksen Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2020-09-27 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Alberto Rubio-Tapia; Ivor D Hill; Ciarán P Kelly; Audrey H Calderwood; Joseph A Murray Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2013-04-23 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Jonas F Ludvigsson; Julio C Bai; Federico Biagi; Timothy R Card; Carolina Ciacci; Paul J Ciclitira; Peter H R Green; Marios Hadjivassiliou; Anne Holdoway; David A van Heel; Katri Kaukinen; Daniel A Leffler; Jonathan N Leonard; Knut E A Lundin; Norma McGough; Mike Davidson; Joseph A Murray; Gillian L Swift; Marjorie M Walker; Fabiana Zingone; David S Sanders Journal: Gut Date: 2014-06-10 Impact factor: 23.059