Diabetic medicine : a journal of the British Diabetic Association · 2013
Serological testing for coeliac disease in Type 1 diabetes mellitus: is immunoglobulin A level measurement necessary?
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Kurien M, Leeds J S, Hopper A D, Wild G, Egner W, Tesfaye S, Hadjivassiliou M, Sanders D S
Аннотация
AIMS: Immunoglobulin A (IgA) measurement is advocated when case finding for coeliac disease in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Currently, there is a paucity of contemporary studies assessing IgA deficiency in Type 1 diabetes. This study evaluates the prevalence of IgA deficiency in individuals with Type 1 diabetes, compared with patients with coeliac disease and control subjects. In addition, we evaluate whether routine IgA measurement is justifiable when case finding for coeliac disease in patients with Type 1 diabetes.
METHODS: All patients were assessed using IgA endomysial antibodies, IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies and total IgA levels. Altogether, 2434 individuals were tested: 1000 patients with Type 1 diabetes, 234 patients with coeliac disease and 1200 population control subjects. Definitive IgA deficiency was defined as total IgA levels < 0.07 g/l.
RESULTS: The prevalence of IgA deficiency was significantly more common in patients with Type 1 diabetes (0.9%, n = 9/1000; P = 0.036) and coeliac disease (1.29%, n = 3/234; P = 0.041) when compared with population control subjects (prevalence of 0.17%, 2/1200). No statistical difference between Type 1 diabetes and coeliac disease for IgA deficiency was identified (P = 0.87). Of patients in the group with Type 1 diabetes, 3.3% (33/1000) had coeliac disease, and of those only one patient had IgA deficiency leading to an antibody-negative presentation. Both IgA-deficient individuals within the population control subjects had normal duodenal biopsies and no relevant symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: IgA deficiency is more common in Type 1 diabetes compared with population control subjects. Despite this, very few individuals with Type 1 diabetes and IgA deficiency appear to have villous atrophy on biopsy. These outcomes question the practice of routine IgA measurement when case finding for coeliac disease in patients with Type 1 diabetes.
METHODS: All patients were assessed using IgA endomysial antibodies, IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies and total IgA levels. Altogether, 2434 individuals were tested: 1000 patients with Type 1 diabetes, 234 patients with coeliac disease and 1200 population control subjects. Definitive IgA deficiency was defined as total IgA levels < 0.07 g/l.
RESULTS: The prevalence of IgA deficiency was significantly more common in patients with Type 1 diabetes (0.9%, n = 9/1000; P = 0.036) and coeliac disease (1.29%, n = 3/234; P = 0.041) when compared with population control subjects (prevalence of 0.17%, 2/1200). No statistical difference between Type 1 diabetes and coeliac disease for IgA deficiency was identified (P = 0.87). Of patients in the group with Type 1 diabetes, 3.3% (33/1000) had coeliac disease, and of those only one patient had IgA deficiency leading to an antibody-negative presentation. Both IgA-deficient individuals within the population control subjects had normal duodenal biopsies and no relevant symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: IgA deficiency is more common in Type 1 diabetes compared with population control subjects. Despite this, very few individuals with Type 1 diabetes and IgA deficiency appear to have villous atrophy on biopsy. These outcomes question the practice of routine IgA measurement when case finding for coeliac disease in patients with Type 1 diabetes.