The usefulness of endoscopy in diagnosing celiac disease in Greece

Defining a proper setting for endoscopy in coeliac disease

OBJECTIVE

As it has been demonstrated that a careful duodenal inspection during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy may be useful in predicting coeliac disease, we tried to define the usefulness of endoscopy in detecting unsuspected coeliac patients.

DESIGN AND METHODS

We considered all the first diagnoses of coeliac disease from 1992 to 2001, i.e. 110 patients with a biopsy-proven diagnosis of coeliac disease. From 1992 to 1997, neither of the endoscopists paid careful attention to the endoscopic features of coeliac disease in the course of the examinations performed for indications other than coeliac disease. From 1998 to 2001, the same endoscopists looked very carefully at these endoscopic features, regardless of the indication for the procedure.

RESULTS

Over the first period, 22/16,081 patients endoscoped for the first time had a histological diagnosis of coeliac disease, with a prevalence of 1/731. In all 22 patients the indication for the examination was the suspicion of coeliac disease. The endoscopic appearance of the duodenum was indicative in 16/22 (72.7%) patients. Over the second period, the diagnosis of coeliac disease was made in 88/10,410 patients endoscoped for the first time. The prevalence of the disease was 1/118 examinations performed. The endoscopic appearance of the duodenum was indicative in 70/88 (79.5%) patients. In 13/88 patients, the diagnosis of coeliac disease was presumed because of the macroscopic appearance of duodenum, lacking a past history suggestive of coeliac disease.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a still open controversy on the accuracy of endoscopic markers in the diagnosis of coeliac disease, we have found that in subjects not suspected for coeliac disease and undergoing an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for other reasons, attention to the endoscopic pattern could facilitate the identification of a relevant number of cases.

Primary biliary cirrhosis and autoimmune cholangitis are not associated with coeliac disease in Crete

BACKGROUND

An increased prevalence of coeliac disease in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis has been recently reported. However, in other studies the association has not been confirmed. There have been no formal attempts to systematically evaluate patients with autoimmune cholangitis for coeliac disease.

METHODS

Sera from 62 patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, 17 with autoimmune cholangitis and 100 blood donors were screened for anti-gliadin, anti-endomysial, anti-reticulin, and IgA class antibodies to guinea pig liver-derived tissue transglutaminase. Eighteen untreated coeliacs served as methodological controls. Analyses were performed by using the chi2 and Fischer's exact tests.

RESULTS

Anti-gliadin antibodies were detected in 21% of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis, 35% of patients with autoimmune cholangitis, and 3% of controls (p < 0.001). IgA class gliadin antibodies positivity was more pronounced in patients with Scheuer's stage III-IV disease (p < 0.05). Anti-transglutaminase antibodies were detected in 10% and in 18% of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and autoimmune cholangitis respectively (p < 0.001). Anti-reticulin and anti-endomysial antibodies were negative in all patients. Duodenal biopsies were performed in 59% and 71% of patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and autoimmune cholangitis respectively, tested positive for at least one antibody class. No histological features of coeliac disease were found.

CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to demonstrate an increased risk of coeliac disease in patients with primary biliary cirrhosis and autoimmune cholangitis. Our results confirm the previously reported high prevalence of false-positive anti-gliadin and guinea pig liver-derived anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies in patients with chronic liver disease.

Endoscopic markers in adult coeliac disease

BACKGROUND

Various endoscopic markers have been described in coeliac disease, particularly in the second part of the duodenum, with minor attention generally being paid to the duodenal bulb.

AIMS

To evaluate, prospectively, the presence of all endoscopic markers in the bulb and the second part of the duodenum on a large series of patients submitted to endoscopy for duodenal biopsy. PATIENTS AND METHODS. A total of 367 consecutive patients, submitted to endoscopy with duodenal biopsy for various indications, were considered. Biopsies were graded as normal, with partial villous atrophy (mild, moderate, severe) or with subtotal villous atrophy. Endoscopic markers and corresponding locations evaluated were: micronodular pattern [bulb and descending duodenum], mosaic appearance (bulb and descending duodenum), scalloped folds (descending duodenum), reduced or absent folds (descending duodenum).

RESULTS

In 78 patients, a diagnosis of untreated coeliac disease was made. Endoscopic markers were seen in 73/78 patients, with only a single sign present (bulb or descending duodenum) in 12 patients. In the remaining 289 patients, normal histology and normal endoscopic findings were observed, except in two patients with reduced folds. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values and diagnostic accuracy regarding all endoscopic markers were 93.6%, 99.3%, 97.3%, 98.3% and 98.1%, respectively

CONCLUSIONS

This study confirms the usefulness of endoscopic markers in detecting coeliac disease, underlining the importance of evaluating also abnormalities in the bulb and endoscopic single signs; although endoscopy may not detect all cases of coeliac disease, the recognition of endoscopic markers allows the selection for biopsy of unsuspected patients submitted to endoscopy for non-specific symptoms.