Literature DB >> 28153477

At-Risk Screened Children with Celiac Disease are Comparable in Disease Severity and Dietary Adherence to Those Found because of Clinical Suspicion: A Large Cohort Study.

Laura Kivelä1, Katri Kaukinen2, Heini Huhtala3, Marja-Leena Lähdeaho1, Markku Mäki1, Kalle Kurppa4.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether children at risk for celiac disease should be screened systematically by comparing their baseline and follow-up characteristics to patients detected because of clinical suspicion. STUDY
DESIGN: Five hundred four children with celiac disease were divided into screen-detected (n = 145) and clinically detected cohorts (n = 359). The groups were compared for clinical, serologic, and histologic characteristics and laboratory values. Follow-up data regarding adherence and response to gluten-free diet were compared. Subgroup analyses were made between asymptomatic and symptomatic screen-detected patients.
RESULTS: Of screen-detected patients, 51.8% had symptoms at diagnosis, although these were milder than in clinically detected children (P < .001). Anemia (7.1% vs 22.9%, P < .001) and poor growth (15.7% vs 36.9%, P < .001) were more common, and hemoglobin (126 g/l vs 124 g/l, P = .008) and albumin (41.0 g/l vs 38.0 g/l, P = .016) were lower in clinically detected patients. There were no differences in serology or histology between the groups. Screen-detected children had better dietary adherence (91.2% vs 83.2%, P = .047). The groups showed equal clinical response (97.5% vs 96.2%, P = .766) to the gluten-free diet. In subgroup analysis among screen-detected children, asymptomatic patients were older than symptomatic (9.0  vs 5.8 years of age, P = .007), but the groups were comparable in other variables.
CONCLUSIONS: More than one-half of the screen-detected patients with celiac disease had symptoms unrecognized at diagnosis. The severity of histologic damage, antibody levels, dietary adherence, and response to treatment in screen-detected cases is comparable with those detected on a clinical basis. The results support active screening for celiac disease among at-risk children.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  celiac antibodies; clinical presentation; follow-up; gluten-free diet; screening; symptoms; villous atrophy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28153477     DOI: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.12.077

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pediatr        ISSN: 0022-3476            Impact factor:   4.406


  11 in total

1.  Machine Learning in Detection of Undiagnosed Celiac Disease.

Authors:  Isabel A Hujoel; Dennis H Murphree; Carol T Van Dyke; Rok Seon Choung; Ayush Sharma; Joseph A Murray; Alberto Rubio-Tapia
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2017-12-16       Impact factor: 11.382

2.  An Evaluation of Nutritional Status and Problems with Dietary Compliance in Polish Patients with Celiac Disease.

Authors:  Malgorzata Kostecka; Joanna Kostecka-Jarecka; Katarzyna Iłowiecka; Julianna Kostecka
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2022-06-22       Impact factor: 6.706

3.  Long-term health and treatment outcomes in adult coeliac disease patients diagnosed by screening in childhood.

Authors:  Laura Kivelä; Alina Popp; Taina Arvola; Heini Huhtala; Katri Kaukinen; Kalle Kurppa
Journal:  United European Gastroenterol J       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 4.623

4.  Mass Screening for Celiac Disease: The Autoimmunity Screening for Kids Study.

Authors:  Marisa G Stahl; Cristy Geno Rasmussen; Fran Dong; Kathleen Waugh; Jill M Norris; Judith Baxter; Liping Yu; Andrea K Steck; Brigitte I Frohnert; Edwin Liu; Marian J Rewers
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-01-01       Impact factor: 12.045

Review 5.  Extraintestinal Manifestations of Celiac Disease: Early Detection for Better Long-Term Outcomes.

Authors:  Pilvi Laurikka; Samuli Nurminen; Laura Kivelä; Kalle Kurppa
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 5.717

6.  Is mass screening for coeliac disease a wise use of resources? A health economic evaluation.

Authors:  Fredrik Norström; Anna Myléus; Katrina Nordyke; Annelie Carlsson; Lotta Högberg; Olof Sandström; Lars Stenhammar; Anneli Ivarsson; Lars Lindholm
Journal:  BMC Gastroenterol       Date:  2021-04-09       Impact factor: 3.067

7.  Dietary Compliance and Quality of Life in Celiac Disease: A Long-Term Follow-Up of Primary School Screening-Detected Patients.

Authors:  Donatella Iorfida; Francesco Valitutti; Annarita Vestri; Arianna Di Rocco; Salvatore Cucchiara; Riccardo Lubrano; Monica Montuori
Journal:  Front Pediatr       Date:  2021-12-21       Impact factor: 3.418

8.  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

9.  The DMT1 IVS4+44C>A polymorphism and the risk of iron deficiency anemia in children with celiac disease.

Authors:  Carlo Tolone; Giulia Bellini; Francesca Punzo; Alfonso Papparella; Erasmo Miele; Alessandra Vitale; Bruno Nobili; Caterina Strisciuglio; Francesca Rossi
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-10-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Non-Biopsy Serology-Based Diagnosis of Celiac Disease in Adults Is Accurate with Different Commercial Kits and Pre-Test Probabilities.

Authors:  Venla Ylönen; Katri Lindfors; Marleena Repo; Heini Huhtala; Valma Fuchs; Päivi Saavalainen; Alex Musikka; Kaija Laurila; Katri Kaukinen; Kalle Kurppa
Journal:  Nutrients       Date:  2020-09-08       Impact factor: 5.717

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.