Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2017
Coeliac patients detected during type 1 diabetes surveillance had similar issues to those diagnosed on a clinical basis.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Laitinen Anna U, Agardh Daniel, Kivelä Laura, Huhtala Heini, Lähdeaho Marja-Leena, Kaukinen Katri, Kurppa Kalle
Аннотация
AIM: Screening children with type 1 diabetes for coeliac disease is controversial, because they often appear asymptomatic. Our aim was to establish whether active screening should be recommended.
METHODS: This study focused on 22 children whose coeliac disease was detected by serological screening during diabetes surveillance and 498 children diagnosed because of a clinical suspicion. We compared the clinical and histological data at diagnosis and the children's adherence and responses to a gluten-free diet.
RESULTS: The serological screening group suffered less from decreased growth (p = 0.016) and clinical symptoms (p < 0.001) at diagnosis than the clinical group. The groups did not differ in terms of age at diagnosis (p = 0.903), gender (p = 0.353), anaemia (p = 0.886), endomysial antibody titres (p = 0.789) and the severity of small-bowel mucosal atrophy (p = 0.104). They also showed equal adherence (p = 0.086) and clinical responses (p = 0.542) to a gluten-free diet after a median follow-up of 13 months.
CONCLUSION: Coeliac patients detected during diabetes surveillance had signs of malabsorption and advanced mucosal damage that was similar to those diagnosed on a clinical basis. They often suffered from unrecognised gluten-dependent symptoms and showed excellent adherence and responses to a gluten-free diet. Our findings support active screening for coeliac disease in patients with type 1 diabetes.
METHODS: This study focused on 22 children whose coeliac disease was detected by serological screening during diabetes surveillance and 498 children diagnosed because of a clinical suspicion. We compared the clinical and histological data at diagnosis and the children's adherence and responses to a gluten-free diet.
RESULTS: The serological screening group suffered less from decreased growth (p = 0.016) and clinical symptoms (p < 0.001) at diagnosis than the clinical group. The groups did not differ in terms of age at diagnosis (p = 0.903), gender (p = 0.353), anaemia (p = 0.886), endomysial antibody titres (p = 0.789) and the severity of small-bowel mucosal atrophy (p = 0.104). They also showed equal adherence (p = 0.086) and clinical responses (p = 0.542) to a gluten-free diet after a median follow-up of 13 months.
CONCLUSION: Coeliac patients detected during diabetes surveillance had signs of malabsorption and advanced mucosal damage that was similar to those diagnosed on a clinical basis. They often suffered from unrecognised gluten-dependent symptoms and showed excellent adherence and responses to a gluten-free diet. Our findings support active screening for coeliac disease in patients with type 1 diabetes.