Value of endoscopic markers in celiac disease

Duodenoscopy in celiac disease has identified several markers of the disease. Our aim was to evaluate, in a prospective study, the usefulness of the different endoscopic features in 100 consecutive cases referred to endoscopy for intestinal biopsy. Histological examination of duodenal samples showed severe villous atrophy (grade III/IV) in 36 patients. Of these patients, 34 had endoscopic markers suggestive of celiac disease. These were reduction in number or loss of Kerkring's folds (in 27), mosaic pattern (14), scalloped folds (12), and visibility of the underlying blood vessels (5). Endoscopic visualization of these markers had a sensitivity of 94%, a specificity of 92%, and a positive predictive value of 84%. Reduction in number, or loss of, Kerkring's folds was the most sensitive (76%) and specific (98%) single endoscopic change indicating celiac disease. Duodenoscopy permitted diagnosis in three of four asymptomatic patients in a group of 24 first-degree relatives of celiac disease patients. We conclude that endoscopy of distal duodenum is a sensitive and specific indicator of celiac disease.     

Reevaluation of duodenal endoscopic markers in the diagnosis of celiac disease

BACKGROUND: Loss or reduction of duodenal folds, scalloping of Kerkring folds and a micronodular or mosaic duodenal mucosal pattern have been described in celiac disease (CD), endoscopic findings that are considered reliable in the diagnosis of this disorder. However, most data have been obtained in patients with suspected or certain disease. We assessed the accuracy of the above markers in diagnosing CD in patients with nonulcer dyspepsia. METHODS: In this prospective study, in 705 consecutive dyspeptic patients (284 men, 421 women, mean age 51 +/- SD 15.8 years) duodenal biopsies were obtained only in the presence of typical endoscopic markers, whereas in another 517 (207 men, 310 women, mean age 49.9 +/- SD 16 years) duodenal biopsies were done irrespective of macroscopic findings. CD was diagnosed histologically and on the basis of positive antiendomysium antibody. RESULTS: Endoscopic markers were found in 4 patients of the first group but CD was ruled out. In the second group 5 patients had an endoscopic pattern that was consistent and CD was diagnosed in 3, whereas 3 others with normal endoscopic findings were eventually diagnosed as having CD. Endoscopic markers had a sensitivity of 50% and a specificity of 99.6% (95% CI [11.8, 88.2 and 98.6, 99.9], respectively) with positive and negative predictive values of 60% and 99.4%, respectively. CONCLUSION: The accuracy of endoscopic markers in the diagnosis of CD must be reevaluated in relation to the characteristics of the population studied.     

Endoscopic markers for celiac disease

Celiac disease is common and can present with nonspecific upper gastrointestinal symptoms. Patients may therefore undergo esophagogastroduodenoscopy as their initial investigation. Markers of villous atrophy, which can be seen in the duodenum during endoscopy, are well described. They have limited sensitivity for patients with mild enteropathy and duodenal biopsies should be performed if there is strong suspicion of celiac disease irrespective of endoscopic appearance. Endoscopic markers do, however, allow the selection of patients with nonspecific symptoms for duodenal biopsy, and these markers should, therefore, be looked for routinely during esophagogastroduodenoscopy.     

Prevalence of celiac disease and its endoscopic markers among patients having routine upper gastrointestinal endoscopy

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of duodenal villous atrophy (VA) among patients undergoing routine upper gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and the value of endoscopic markers for VA in selecting patients for duodenal biopsy. METHODS: One hundred and fifty adult patients with upper GI symptoms or iron-deficiency anemia had inspection and biopsy of the second part of the duodenum during endoscopy. Endoscopic markers for VA sought were mosaic or nodular mucosa, scalloping of duodenal folds, and reduction in number or absence of duodenal folds. RESULTS: Endoscopic markers were seen in seven patients (5%): scalloped folds with mosaic pattern mucosa (three patients), scalloped folds, reduced in number with mosaic pattern mucosa (three patients), and nodular mucosa with reduction in fold numbers (one patient). All seven patients had partial, subtotal, or total VA. One of 143 patients with no endoscopic abnormality had patchy VA. The prevalence of VA was thus 1:19 (8 of 150). Endoscopic markers had a sensitivity of 87.5% (7 of 8), specificity of 100% (142 of 142), positive predictive value of 100% (7 of 7), and negative predictive value of 99% (142 of 143). Of the eight patients with VA, the indications for endoscopy were upper GI symptoms in seven patients (two with anemia) and anemia without GI symptoms in one. After 6 months of dietary gluten exclusion, improvement by at least one criterion was documented in all eight patients. CONCLUSIONS: Careful inspection of the duodenum during routine upper GI endoscopy allows accurate selection of patients for biopsy but may not detect patchy VA or milder enteropathy. Celiac disease should be considered as a cause of dyspeptic and reflux symptoms, as well as of iron-deficiency anemia.     

The endoscopic appearance of duodenal folds is predictive of untreated adult celiac disease.

The loss of duodenal folds visible endoscopically has recently been reported as being a marker for celiac disease. We have investigated the sensitivity and specificity of this finding with a prospective study in 75 patients with symptoms or results of investigations compatible with celiac disease. Reported duodenal fold appearance was compared with histological findings, disaccharidase levels, and clinical diagnosis. Fifteen patients were found to have celiac disease and 11 had reduced or absent duodenal folds compared with only 2 of 60 patients who did not have celiac disease (p less than 0.0001). This finding has a sensitivity of 73%, specificity of 97%, and positive predictive value of 85%. Duodenal folds were not reported as being abnormal in seven patients with hypolactasia or two with giardiasis and did not appear to be influenced by age. A reduction in the number or height of duodenal folds as seen endoscopically in the second part of the duodenum is a specific and sensitive sign of celiac disease. Endoscopists should biopsy the duodenum for celiac disease whenever the duodenal folds appear to be reduced or absent.     

Disappointing sensitivity of endoscopic markers for villous atrophy in a high-risk population: implications for celiac disease diagnosis during routine endoscopy

OBJECTIVE: Endoscopic markers of duodenal villous atrophy (VA) can facilitate diagnosis of celiac disease during routine upper GI endoscopy. We studied their sensitivity for VA in a large series of patients undergoing GI endoscopy specifically for duodenal biopsy. Poor sensitivity in this setting would have significant and adverse implications for their performance during routine endoscopy. METHODS: All patients with VA on duodenal biopsy performed for positive serum endomysial antibody (EmA) and/or clinical features suggestive of celiac disease were included. The second part of duodenum was inspected carefully for endoscopic markers using videogastroscopes. RESULTS: Of 129 patients studied, 99 (77%) had at least one endoscopic markers. The most commonly seen marker were a mosaic pattern mucosa (68 patients, 53%) and scalloping of duodenal folds (74 patients, 57%). The prevalence of markers was significantly lower for partial VA (15 of 26 patients, 58%) than for subtotal or total VA (84 of 103 patients, 82%) (p < 0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Endoscopic markers have disappointing sensitivity even in a population at high risk of celiac disease, particularly for partial VA. Their performance may be even poorer in an unselected dyspeptic population. Although they may help improve diagnosis rates among patients with nonspecific dyspeptic symptoms, many patients, particularly those with milder enteropathy, will be missed. As celiac disease is an important cause of dyspepsia, consideration should be given to serological screening to further improve diagnosis rates, as few centers will have the resources to routinely biopsy all patients.     

乳糜泻研究进展

乳糜泻是一种在遗传敏感的人群中由于麸质的摄入而激发的免疫介导的肠病.过去一致认为其发病少见,但新的流行病学研究表明该疾病很常见,所以我们有必要了解乳糜泻的最新进展.     

The liver in celiac disease

Celiac disease is a common (1% prevalence) chronic immune-mediated disorder of the small intestine induced by dietary wheat, barley, and rye. Several hepatic disorders have been described in association with celiac disease. Isolated hypertransaminasemia with nonspecific histologic changes in a liver biopsy is the commonest hepatic presentation of celiac disease. A gluten-free diet normalizes liver enzymes and histologic changes in most patients. Moreover, celiac disease can coexist with autoimmune liver disorders such as autoimmune hepatitis, primary biliary cirrhosis, and primary sclerosing cholangitis. Celiac disease has increasingly been reported with a variety of other liver diseases. Thus, the hepatologist needs to consider celiac disease in the differential of abnormal liver blood tests and to be aware of the clinical implications of this frequent disease in patients with liver disorders. The possible mechanisms of liver injury and those common factors that explain the association of celiac disease with liver disorders are discussed. The aims of this article are (1) to review the spectrum and pathogenesis of liver injury related to celiac disease and (2) to provide direction to those caring for patients with chronic liver diseases regarding the detection and effective treatment of celiac disease.     

Levels of serologic markers of celiac disease in patients with reflux esophagitis

INTRODUCTION Celiac disease (CD) is a chronic inflammatory disorder characterized by damage of the mucosa of the small intestine[1,2]. CD is induced in sensitive individuals by the ingestion of gluten and may range from overt malabsorption to few or no sy…     

The management of complicated celiac disease

Refractory celiac disease (RCD) is being defined as persisting or recurring villous atrophy with crypt hyperplasia and increased intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) in spite of a strict gluten-free diet (GFD) for >12 months or when severe persisting symptoms necessitate intervention independent of the duration of the GFD. RCD may not respond primarily or secondarily to GFD. All other causes of malabsorption must be excluded and additional features supporting the diagnosis of CD must be looked for, including the presence of antibodies in the untreated state and the presence of celiac-related HLA-DQ markers. In contrast to patients with a high percentage of aberrant T-cells, patients with RCD I seem to profit from an immunosuppressive treatment. RCD II is usually resistant to medical therapies. Response to corticosteroid treatment does not exclude underlying enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma. Cladribine seems to have a role, although it is less than optimal in the treatment of these patients. It may be considered, however, as the only treatment thus far studied that showed significant reduction of aberrant T cells, seems to be well tolerated, and may have beneficial long-term effects in a subgroup of patients showing significant reduction of the aberrant T-cell population. Autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) seems promising in those patients with persisting high percentages of aberrant T cells. The first group of patients treated with ASCT showed improvement in the small intestinal histology, together with an impressive clinical improvement. However, it remains to be proven if this therapy delays or prevents lymphoma development.