Literature DB >> 24477366

Prediction of celiac disease at endoscopy.

Kassem Barada1, Robert H Habib1, Ahmad Malli1, Jana G Hashash1, Houssam Halawi1, Karim Maasri1, Ayman Tawil2, Fadi Mourad1, Ala I Sharara1, Assaad Soweid1, Ismail Sukkarieh1, Zaher Chakhachiro2, Mark Jabbour2, Alessio Fasano3, Debbie Santora3, Carolina Arguelles4, Joseph A Murray5, Peter H Green4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Celiac disease is increasingly recognized worldwide, but guidelines on how to detect the condition and diagnose patients are unclear. In this study the prevalence and predictors of celiac disease were prospectively determined in a cross-sectional sample of Lebanese patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Consecutive consenting patients (n = 999) undergoing EGD answered a questionnaire and had blood taken for serologic testing. Endoscopic markers for celiac disease were documented and duodenal biopsies were obtained. The diagnosis of celiac disease was based on abnormal duodenal histology and positive serology. Risk factors were used to classify patients to either high or low risk for celiac disease. Independent predictors of celiac disease were derived via multivariate logistic regression.
RESULTS: Villous atrophy (Marsh 3) and celiac disease were present in 1.8 % and 1.5 % of patients, respectively. Most were missed on clinical and endoscopic grounds. The sensitivity of tissue transglutaminase (tTG) testing for the diagnosis of villous atrophy and celiac disease was 72.2 % and 86.7 %, respectively. The positive predictive value of the deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) test was 34.2 % and that of a strongly positive tTG was 80 %. While the strongest predictor of celiac disease was a positive tTG (odds ratio [OR] 131.7, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 29.0 - 598.6), endoscopic features of villous atrophy (OR 64.8, 95 %CI 10.7 - 391.3), history of eczema (OR 4.6, 95 %CI 0.8 - 28.8), anemia (OR 6.7, 95 %CI 1.2 - 38.4), and being Shiite (OR 5.4, 95 %CI 1.1 - 26.6) significantly predicted celiac disease. A strategy of biopsying the duodenum based on independent predictors had a sensitivity of 93 % - 100 % for the diagnosis of celiac disease, with an acceptable (22 % - 26 %) rate of performing unnecessary biopsies. A strategy that excluded pre-EGD serology produced a sensitivity of 93 % - 94 % and an unnecessary biopsy rate of 52 %.
CONCLUSION: An approach based solely on standard clinical suspicion and endoscopic findings is associated with a significant miss rate for celiac disease. A strategy to biopsy based on the derived celiac disease prediction models using easily obtained information prior to or during endoscopy, maximized the diagnosis while minimizing unnecessary biopsies. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24477366     DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1359200

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  14 in total

1.  The Role of Endoscopy in the Diagnosis of Celiac Disease.

Authors:  Peter H R Green
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2014-08

Review 2.  Measuring Change In Small Intestinal Histology In Patients With Celiac Disease.

Authors:  Daniel C Adelman; Joseph Murray; Tsung-Teh Wu; Markku Mäki; Peter H Green; Ciarán P Kelly
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2018-02-20       Impact factor: 10.864

3.  Diagnostic Yield of Isolated Deamidated Gliadin Peptide Antibody Elevation for Celiac Disease.

Authors:  Nicholas A Hoerter; Sarah E Shannahan; Jorge Suarez; Suzanne K Lewis; Peter H R Green; Daniel A Leffler; Benjamin Lebwohl
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2017-02-04       Impact factor: 3.199

Review 4.  [Diagnostic approach to iron deficiency anemia].

Authors:  Kristine Jimenez; Michaela Lang
Journal:  Wien Med Wochenschr       Date:  2016-08-26

5.  Management of Iron Deficiency Anemia.

Authors:  Kristine Jimenez; Stefanie Kulnigg-Dabsch; Christoph Gasche
Journal:  Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y)       Date:  2015-04

6.  Estimating the Impact of Verification Bias on Celiac Disease Testing.

Authors:  Isabel A Hujoel; Claire L Jansson-Knodell; Philippe P Hujoel; Margaux L A Hujoel; Rok Seon Choung; Joseph A Murray; Alberto Rubio-Tapia
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-04-01       Impact factor: 3.174

7.  Expression Pattern of Fatty Acid Binding Proteins in Celiac Disease Enteropathy.

Authors:  Natalia M Bottasso Arias; Marina García; Constanza Bondar; Luciana Guzman; Agustina Redondo; Nestor Chopita; Betina Córsico; Fernando G Chirdo
Journal:  Mediators Inflamm       Date:  2015-08-05       Impact factor: 4.711

8.  High definition i-SCAN endoscopy with water immersion technique accurately reflects histological severity of celiac disease.

Authors:  Marietta Iacucci; Tiffany Poon; X Sean Gui; Ghosh Subrata
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-05-10

9.  Endoscopic evaluation of celiac disease.

Authors:  Giovanni Cammarota; Gianluca Ianiro
Journal:  Endosc Int Open       Date:  2016-04-15

10.  Diagnostic yield of endoscopic markers for celiac disease.

Authors:  D V Balaban; A Popp; F Vasilescu; D Haidautu; R M Purcarea; M Jinga
Journal:  J Med Life       Date:  2015 Oct-Dec
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.