Impact of mass screening for gluten-sensitive enteropathy in working population

AIM: TO assess: (1) frequency and clinical relevance of gluten sensitive enteropathy (GSE) detected by serology in a mass screening program; (2) sensitivity of antitransglutaminase (tTGA) and antiendomysium antibodies (EmA); and (3) adherence to gluten-free diet (GFD) and follow-up. METHODS: One tho...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inWorld journal of gastroenterology : WJG Vol. 15; no. 11; pp. 1331 - 1338
Main Authors Mariné, Meritxell, Fernández-Bañares, Fernando, Alsina, Montserrat, Farré, Carme, Cortijo, Montserrat, Santaolalla, Rebeca, Salas, Antonio, Tomàs, Margarita, Abugattas, Elias, Loras, Carme, Ordás, Ingrid, Viver, Josep M, Esteve, Maria
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published United States Department of Gastroenterology,University Hospital of Mútua de Terrassa,Research Foundation Mútua de Terrassa,University of Barcelona,08221 Terrassa,Catalonia,Spain%Department of Immunology (Catlab),University Hospital of Mútua de Terrassa,Research Foundation Mútua de Terrassa,University of Barcelona,08221 Terrassa,Catalonia,Spain%Department of Biochemistry,Sant Joan de Déu Hospital,Esplugues,08950 Catalonia,Spain%Occupational Health Department,Egarsat (Prevention Society),Sant Cugat del Vallès,08173 Catalonia,Spain%Department of Pathology,University Hospital of Mútua de Terrassa,Research Foundation Mútua de Terrassa,University of Barcelona,08221 Terrassa,Catalonia,Spain 21.03.2009
The WJG Press and Baishideng
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:AIM: TO assess: (1) frequency and clinical relevance of gluten sensitive enteropathy (GSE) detected by serology in a mass screening program; (2) sensitivity of antitransglutaminase (tTGA) and antiendomysium antibodies (EmA); and (3) adherence to gluten-free diet (GFD) and follow-up. METHODS: One thousand, eight hundred and sixty-eight subjects recruited from an occupational health department underwent analysis for tTGA and EmA and, if positive, duodenal biopsy, DQ2/DQ8 genotyping, clinical feature recording, blood tests, and densitometry were performed. Since 〉 98% of individuals had tTGA 〈 2 U/mL, this value was established as the cut-off limit of normality and was considered positive when confirmed twice in the same sample. Adherence to a GFD and follow up were registered. RESULTS: Twenty-six (1.39%) subjects had positive tTGA and/or EmA, and 21 underwent biopsy: six Marsh Ⅲ (one Ⅲa, four Ⅲb, one Ⅲc), nine Marsh Ⅰ and six Marsh 0 (frequency of GSE 1:125). The sensitivity of EmA for GSE was 46.6% (11.1% for Marsh Ⅰ, 100% for Marsh Ⅲ), while for tTGA, it was 93.3% (88.8% for Marsh Ⅰ, 100% for Marsh Ⅲ). All 15 patients with abnormal histology had clinical features related to GSE. Marsh Ⅰ and Ⅲ subjects had more abdominal pain than Marsh 0 (P = 0.029), and a similar trend was observed for distension and diarrhea. No differences in the percentage of osteopenia were found between Marsh Ⅰ and Ⅲ (P = 0.608). Adherence to follow-up was 69.2%. Of 15 GSE patients, 66.7% followed a GFD with 80% responding to it. CONCLUSION: GSE in the general population is frequent and clinically relevant, irrespective of histological severity, tTGA is the marker of choice. Mass screening programs are useful in identifying patients who can benefit from GFD and follow-up.
Bibliography:Celiac disease
R587.2
Massscreening
14-1219/R
Antitransglutaminase and antiendomysiumantibodies; Celiac disease; Lymphocytic enteritis; Massscreening
Lymphocytic enteritis
R169.1
Antitransglutaminase and antiendomysiumantibodies
ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
Author contributions: Mariné M, Esteve M, Fernández-Bañares F, Salas A and Viver JM contributed to the study concept and design. Mariné M, Esteve M, Santaolalla R, Fernández-Bañares F, Alsina M, Farré C, Salas A, Tomàs M, Abugattas E, Ordás I, Loras C, Cortijo M and Viver JM contributed to the acquisition of data; Salas A performed the histopathological analysis; Methodology design and laboratory analysis was carried out by Mariné M, Esteve M, Fernández-Bañares F, Santaolalla R, Alsina M, Farré C; Mariné M, Esteve M, Fernández-Bañares F, Salas A, Alsina M performed the analysis and interpretation of data; Mariné M, Esteve M, Fernández-Bañares F, Viver JM wrote the manuuscript; Mariné M, Esteve M, Fernández-Bañares F, Alsina M, Farré C, Cortijo M, Santaolalla R, Salas A, Tomàs M, Abugattas E, Loras C, Ordás I, Viver JM carried out a critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content; Esteve M, Mariné M, Fernández-Bañares F performed the statistical analysis; The study was supervised by Esteve M, Fernández-Bañares F, Mariné M.
Correspondence to: Maria Esteve, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of Mútua de Terrassa, University of Barcelona, Plaça Dr Robert nº 5, 08221 Terrassa, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. mestevecomas@telefonica.net
Telephone: +34-93-7365050
Fax: + 34-93-7365043
ISSN:1007-9327
2219-2840
2219-2840
DOI:10.3748/wjg.15.1331