Journal of clinical gastroenterology · 2018
Celiac Disease is Misdiagnosed Based on Serology Only in a Substantial Proportion of Patients.
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.
Vavricka Stephan R, Stelzer Teresa, Lattmann Jaqueline, Stotz Matthias, Lehmann Romina, Zeitz Jonas, Scharl Michael, Misselwitz Benjamin, Pohl Daniel, Fried Michael, Tutuian Radu, Fasano Alessio, Schoepfer Alain M, Rogler Gerhard, Biedermann Luc, Greuter Thomas
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Although the diagnostic process in celiac disease (CeD) has been addressed in several international guidelines, little is known about the actual proceeding in current clinical practice. This study investigated the initial presentation, the diagnostic process, follow-up evaluations, and adherence to a gluten-free diet in CeD patients in a real-life setting in Switzerland from a patient's perspective.
METHODS: We performed a large patient survey among unselected CeD patients in Switzerland.
RESULTS: A total of 1689 patients were analyzed. The vast majority complained of both gastrointestinal and nonspecific symptoms (71.5%), whereas 1.8% reported an asymptomatic disease course. A total of 35.8% CeD patients were diagnosed by a nongastroenterologist. The diagnostic process differed between nongastroenterologists and gastroenterologists, with the latter more often using duodenal biopsy alone or in combination with serology (94.7% vs. 63.0%) and nongastroenterologists more frequently establishing the diagnosis without endoscopy (37.0% vs. 5.3%, P<0.001). Follow-up serology after 6 months was performed only in half of all patients (49.4%), whereas 69.9% had at least 1 follow-up serology within the first year after diet initiation. About 39.7% had a follow-up endoscopy with duodenal biopsies (after a median of 12 mo; range, 1 to 600 mo). The likelihood of receiving any follow-up examination was higher in patients initially diagnosed by a gastroenterologist.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of CeD patients are diagnosed by nongastroenterologists. Under the diagnostic lead of the latter, more than a third of the patients receive their diagnosis on the basis of a positive serology and/or genetics only, in evident violation of current diagnostic guidelines, which may lead to an overdiagnosis of this entity.
METHODS: We performed a large patient survey among unselected CeD patients in Switzerland.
RESULTS: A total of 1689 patients were analyzed. The vast majority complained of both gastrointestinal and nonspecific symptoms (71.5%), whereas 1.8% reported an asymptomatic disease course. A total of 35.8% CeD patients were diagnosed by a nongastroenterologist. The diagnostic process differed between nongastroenterologists and gastroenterologists, with the latter more often using duodenal biopsy alone or in combination with serology (94.7% vs. 63.0%) and nongastroenterologists more frequently establishing the diagnosis without endoscopy (37.0% vs. 5.3%, P<0.001). Follow-up serology after 6 months was performed only in half of all patients (49.4%), whereas 69.9% had at least 1 follow-up serology within the first year after diet initiation. About 39.7% had a follow-up endoscopy with duodenal biopsies (after a median of 12 mo; range, 1 to 600 mo). The likelihood of receiving any follow-up examination was higher in patients initially diagnosed by a gastroenterologist.
CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of CeD patients are diagnosed by nongastroenterologists. Under the diagnostic lead of the latter, more than a third of the patients receive their diagnosis on the basis of a positive serology and/or genetics only, in evident violation of current diagnostic guidelines, which may lead to an overdiagnosis of this entity.