celiac disease: ten things that every gastroenterologist should know
TRANSCRIPT
Q7
Q4
Q5
Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 2014;-:-–-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
All studies published in Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology are embargoed until 3PM ET of the day they are published as correctedproofs on-line. Studies cannot be publicized as accepted manuscripts or uncorrected proofs.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
Celiac Disease: Ten Things That Every GastroenterologistShould Know
66
67
68
69
Amy S. Oxentenko and Joseph A. Murray
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
Abbreviations used in this paper: CD, celiac disease; DBE, double-balloonendoscopy; DGP, deamidated gliadin peptide; EATL, enteropathy-asso-ciated T-cell lymphoma; EMA, endomysial antibody; GFD, gluten-free diet;IDA, iron deficiency anemia; Ig, immunoglobulin; MMA, methylmalonicacid; NRCD, nonresponsive celiac disease; RCD, refractory celiac dis-ease; TTG, tissue transglutaminase; T1DM, type 1 diabetes mellitus; VCE,video capsule endoscopy.
© 2014 by the AGA Institute1542-3565/$36.00
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2014.07.024
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
There are 10 things that all gastroenterologists shouldknow about celiac disease. The immunoglobulin A tissuetransglutaminase is the single best serologic test to usefor the detection of celiac disease (CD). CD can berecognized endoscopically, and water immersion en-hances villi detection, although a normal endoscopicappearance does not preclude the diagnosis. It is rec-ommended that 4 biopsies be taken from the secondpart of the duodenum and 2 bulb biopsies be taken atthe 9 o’clock and 12 o’clock positions to maximize thesensitivity for histologic confirmation of CD. Considerserologic testing of first-degree relatives, patients withtype 1 diabetes mellitus, Down’s, Turner’s, and Wil-liams’ syndromes, as well as those with prematureosteoporosis, iron deficiency, abnormal liver bio-chemistries, and other manifestations of CD. Patientsalready on a prolonged gluten-free diet (GFD) should betested for the presence of HLA DQ2 or DQ8, therebyavoiding the need for further evaluation of CD in non-allelic carriers. The basic treatment of CD is a strict,lifelong GFD, enabled by an expert dietitian. Newlydiagnosed adults with CD should be assessed formicronutrient deficiencies (iron, B12, folate, zinc, cop-per), fat soluble vitamin deficiencies (vitamin D), andbone densitometry. All patients diagnosed with CDshould have clinical follow-up to ensure response andadherence to a GFD. In those with persistent or re-lapsing symptoms, the robustness of the original diag-nosis should be reviewed, gluten exposure sought, and asystematic evaluation for alternative and associateddiseases performed. Evaluate those with refractorydisease for malignant transformation.
Keywords: ---.
Celiac disease (CD) is increasingly common andtopical for both the general and medical com-
munities; therefore, gastroenterologists will be calledon for expertise in this area. How CD is diagnosed haschanged over time, and confusion abounds regardingthe use and interpretation of diagnostic tests, whichare often confounded by adoption of the gluten-freediet (GFD). Herein, we address 10 important thingsthat gastroenterologists need to know about CD, whichare based on current evidence and our experience inMayo Clinic’s Celiac Disease Clinic.
FLA 5.2.0 DTD � YJCGH53905_proof �
1. How to Use Serology to DiagnoseCeliac Disease
Serologic testing for CD has significantly advancedduring the past 2 decades. The long-used anti-gliadinantibodies have been supplanted by serology with bettertest characteristics.1 For example, endomysial antibody(EMA), used for more than 20 years, has specificity of99%,2 although the sensitivity varies because of thetechnical issues inherent in direct immunofluorescence.This high specificity keeps EMA in use despite tissuetransglutaminase (TTG) being identified as the targetedepitope. EMA is used primarily when discordance existsbetween other markers and histologic findings1 or whenTTG immunoglobulin (Ig) A antibodies are equivocal.
TTG antibodies come in both IgA-based and IgG-based assays, which are performed with enzyme-linkedimmunosorbent assay by using human recombinant/derived proteins. IgA TTG has high sensitivity andspecificity of w98% and is the endorsed serologicmarker for evaluating CD.3 It is well-known that IgAdeficiency affects 2%–3% of CD patients and occurs in1:131 patients tested for CD4; thus, IgA-based assaysalone are not always reliable. To avoid missing IgA-deficient CD, a serologic cascade testing starting withserum IgA level can be performed, and if normal, an IgATTG is adequate; however, if the IgA level is low or ab-sent, IgG-based testing with deamidated gliadin peptide(DGP) and/or TTG could be added/substituted5
(Figure 1). The accuracy of IgG TTG is poor (30%–70%) in IgA sufficiency, so this test in isolation shouldnot be used for routine CD screening.6 However, IgG TTGperforms well with known IgA deficiency, with sensi-tivity and specificity approaching 95%.2
Point-of-care finger stick TTG antibody testing hasbeen developed as a rapid screen for CD, and although
11 August 2014 � 5:16 pm � ce CLR
Figure 1. Schematicapproach to serologicdiagnosis of CD.
2 Oxentenko and Murray Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology Vol. -, No. -
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
the specificity was reportedly 100%, the sensitivity wasonly 82%. It cannot be recommended until sensitivityimproves.7
The newest serologic marker is the DGP antibody,which comes in both IgA-based and IgG-based assays andis significantly better than anti-gliadin antibody testing.6
Despite specificity that is close to TTG assays, thesensitivity of either the IgA-based or IgG-based DGP inisolation is lower8; however, a combined IgA/IgG DGPpanel has accuracy equivalent to IgA-based TTG.2
In children older than 2 years, IgA TTG is thepreferred test. Serologic markers may have decreasedsensitivity in children younger than 2 years. The com-bination of DGP IgA/IgG with IgA TTG is the recom-mended strategy.3
Should panels of serologic studies for CD be morewidely used? The answer is no. The widespread use ofpanels would not be cost-effective as first-line testing;although it may slightly improve overall sensitivity, itreduces specificity, leading to unnecessary endoscopy.3
227
228
229
230
231
232
Practical Suggestion
IgA-based TTG is the serologic test of choice for eval-uating CD in patients consuming a gluten-containing diet.
FLA 5.2.0 DTD � YJCGH53905_proof �
IgG-based tests are needed in IgA deficiency. The use ofceliac cascade testing starting with serum IgA level coulddirect downstream serology. Equivocal or discrepantserologic tests should be interpreted with caution.
2. Can Celiac Disease Be RecognizedEndoscopically?
Gross Endoscopic Views
There are several well-described endoscopic featuresof CD, including mucosal fold loss, mosaic pattern, scal-loping, nodularity, fissuring, and prominent submucosalvascularity (Figure 2A and B). The sensitivity of endo-scopic markers varies (59%–94%), yet the specificity ishigh (92%–100%).9,10 The pattern of endoscopicmarkers may differ between adults and children. Amosaic pattern is found commonly in children, andalthough the frequency of other endoscopic markers ofCD increases with age, the mosaic pattern does not.
Water Immersion
Water immersion involves instilling 100–200 mLwater into the duodenum after deflation, takes only 30
11 August 2014 � 5:16 pm � ce CLR
print&
web4C=FPO
Figure 2. Images of the duodenum in CD. (A) Typical changesof villous atrophy characterized by scalloping of the folds,mosaic pattern, and nodularity. (B) Loss of the folds in patientwith treated CD.
- 2014 --- Q13
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
seconds to perform, has high sensitivity and specificityfor detecting total villous atrophy,11 and may help targetduodenal biopsies because of the patchy nature of CD.12
Combining water immersion with intravenous hyoscinebutylbromide may increase the positive predictive valueand specificity for CD compared with air insufflationalone (84% vs 99% and 87% vs 99%, respectively).13
Other Endoscopic Techniques
Video capsule endoscopy (VCE) may be indicated inpatients with CD who are unable to undergo upperendoscopy, have alarm features, or have normal histol-ogy but positive celiac serologies.14 VCE can examine theentire small bowel but lacks sensitivity for partial villousatrophy, is subject to interpretation, and lacks a stan-dardized grading system for CD. The sensitivity of VCE inCD is 89% with specificity of 95%.15
Although VCE adds little to the work-up of uncom-plicated CD, it is useful when evaluating refractory oratypical features.
Balloon-assisted endoscopy (DBE) or push entero-scopy may be useful in patients with CD who have patchysmall bowel involvement, disease limited to the jejunum,or in those undergoing an evaluation for complications ofthe disease. Antegrade DBE may uncover ulcerativejejunitis or enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma(EATL) and could be considered in CD patients with re-fractory celiac disease (RCD) type II, ongoing weight loss,continued intussusception despite a sustained GFD,suspicious lesions in the small intestine, or other alarmfeatures.
Chromoendoscopy enhances mucosal features of CDbut alone adds little to a skilled endoscopist. However,high-magnification endoscopy with chromoendoscopymay improve accuracy for detecting partial villous atro-phy compared with conventional endoscopy.16 Opticalband imaging may also enhance mucosal detail withoutdye to detect total and partial villous atrophy patterns.17
Practical Suggestion
Biopsy for CD is suggested, even in the absence ofendoscopic markers. Although novel techniques may
FLA 5.2.0 DTD � YJCGH53905_proof �
enhance visualization of the mucosa, biopsies are stillneeded. Water immersion is simple and may be useful totarget biopsies or evaluate patients without a priorindication for biopsy.
3. What Biopsies Should Be Taken toEvaluate for Celiac Disease?
Endoscopically obtained, non-jumbo duodenal bi-opsies are standard for the evaluation of CD.18 Studiesreport that 10%–70% of non-oriented duodenal biopsieswere adequate for evaluation.19,20 Duodenal bulb bi-opsies increase the diagnostic yield for newly diagnosedCD by 9%–13% and uncover villous atrophy not seen onpost-bulbar biopsies in 14% with established CD.21,22
High sensitivity (100%) was achieved when 4 post-bulbar biopsies were combined with bulb biopsiesfrom both the 9 o’clock and 12 o’clock positions.3,23
Whether the post-bulbar and bulbar biopsies must besubmitted separately versus combined in 1 jar is unclear.
Practical Suggestion
Take 4 biopsies from the post-bulbar duodenum and1–2 biopsies from the 9 o’clock and/or 12 o’clock posi-tion of the bulb (Figure 3).
4. Which At-risk Patients Should BeTested for Celiac Disease?
First-degree relatives, especially siblings, of thosewith CD are at increased risk of CD.24–27 When siblingpairs have CD, the familial risk is further elevated.28 It iscontroversial whether asymptomatic family membersshould be tested. However, supposedly asymptomaticfamily members diagnosed with CD often uncover illhealth that improves on a GFD.29 Therefore, it isreasonable to consider testing all first-degree relatives.3
Providers should, at minimum, assess for clinical fea-tures of CD among relatives. In families with affected sibpairs, all first-degree and second-degree relatives shouldbe tested. Any family member with features of CD re-quires duodenal biopsies even if seronegative.30 HLAtesting is less helpful in family members because of thehigh likelihood of at-risk HLA alleles.31
CD is more common in type 1 diabetes mellitus(T1DM), with higher prevalence in children (3%–8%)compared with adults (2%–5%).30,32 Both conditionsshare the same HLA DQ2/8 alleles. Although some sug-gest that all patients with T1DM be screened for CD,33
most recommend testing only symptomatic pa-tients.30,34 However, patients with T1DM and features ofCD or repeated hypoglycemia should be evaluated. In anypatient with T1DM presenting for upper endoscopy,duodenal biopsies could be considered.30 Because of theshared HLA alleles between CD and T1DM, screening
11 August 2014 � 5:16 pm � ce CLR
Figure 3.Optimal site for biopsy of CD, showing at least 4samples to be taken from second part of duodenum and 2samples from duodenal bulb, specifically at the 9 and 12o’clock positions.
4 Oxentenko and Murray Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology Vol. -, No. -
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
should be done with serology. Duodenal biopsies shouldbe performed if there is high concern of CD despitenegative serologies. Screening for CD is not routinelyrecommended in those with thyroid and other autoim-mune conditions unless there are features of disease.30
Patients with Down’s syndrome are 5 times morelikely to develop CD compared with the general popu-lation,30 although prevalence rates vary.35 Althoughthere is not uniform consensus regarding screening forCD in those with Down’s syndrome,36 there is agreementthat patients with CD features be evaluated. Oneapproach in Down’s syndrome is to first testfor permissive haplotypes (HLA DQ2 and DQ8), andif absent, future testing is unnecessary.36 In thosewith permissive haplotypes, serologic surveillance is
FLA 5.2.0 DTD � YJCGH53905_proof �
suggested. It is not known whether repeat future testingis needed. Patients with Turner’s and Williams’ syn-dromes are also at increased risk of CD.37,38
Practical Suggestion
Consider serologic testing for all first-degree relativesof a patient with CD, even those apparently asymptom-atic. Test relatives of affected sib pairs. Test symptomatic(and consider screening asymptomatic) patients withT1DM and Down’s, Turner’s, and Williams’ syndromes byusing serology in diabetic patients and HLA haplotypingin those with chromosomal abnormalities. In these pa-tients, diagnostic testing should be the terminology usedrather than screening to ensure insurance coverage.
5. How Does One Evaluate for CeliacDisease in a Patient on aGluten-free Diet?
With increasing frequency, patients start a GFDbefore testing for CD.39 With data showing that patientswith diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndromemay benefit from a GFD40,41 and because of the mediafocus on a GFD, the trend will continue. Although there islittle harm beyond cost to a patient on a balanced GFD,CD may be overlooked and complications ignored.
Ideally, patients who self-initiated a GFD should beevaluated for CD. First, determine the patient’s willing-ness to resume gluten intake for testing. In the patientwho refuses to resume eating gluten, this poses a chal-lenge. The sensitivity of serology and histology di-minishes with longer duration on a GFD.2 Althoughserology could be checked first,42 a positive result is theonly helpful result and indicates duodenal biopsies areneeded. However, if the patient has been on a GFD forless than 1 month, begin with serology because the yieldmay be reasonable in this period.3 In the patient on aprolonged GFD, HLA haplotyping can be done first.Although 30%–40% of the normal population will bepositive for HLA DQ2 or DQ8,43 the absence of permis-sive genes will allow 60%–70% of patients to be reas-sured that CD is ruled out. A gluten challenge should bediscussed for those carrying HLA DQ2 or DQ8 beforefurther testing.
In the past, a gluten challenge entailed consumptionof 8–10 g gluten daily for 4 weeks.30 However, as little as3 g gluten daily for 2 weeks will allow 75% of patients tomeet diagnostic criteria for CD.42 For those intolerant tothe gluten challenge after 2 weeks, serology andduodenal biopsies should be performed. In patientstolerating gluten ingestion after the 2-week period, thechallenge should continue 6 additional weeks, withserology performed after the 8-week challenge. Ifserology is positive, then duodenal biopsies are done. Ifseronegative, repeat serology after 2–6 additional weeksbecause a delayed rise in serologic titers may occur.42
11 August 2014 � 5:16 pm � ce CLR
- 2014 --- 5
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
Practical Suggestion
In patients requiring an evaluation for CD while on aGFD, testing for the presence of HLA DQ2 or DQ8 iden-tifies those requiring further testing. In patients positivefor HLA DQ2 or DQ8 and not highly sensitive to gluteningestion, testing after a low-dose (3 g daily) glutenchallenge for 6 weeks may suffice to diagnose CD.
6. How Is Celiac Disease Managed?
A strict, lifelong GFD, avoiding wheat, rye, and barley,remains the treatment of CD.3 How much is too much?Although the maximum safe amount of gluten for pa-tients with CD is unknown, <10 mg daily of gluten isprobably safe in preventing ongoing intestinal injury. Forfoods to be labeled as gluten-free, the Food and DrugAdministration requires there be <20 parts per millionof gluten in the product44; however, restaurants andfoods with meat, poultry, and eggs are not covered bythese regulations.
Previously, patients with CD were advised to avoidoats because of cross-contact or cross-sensitivity. Oatavoidance limits food choices.45 Oats belong to the samesubfamily as wheat, rye, and barley but to a differenttribe and contain very few deleterious peptides. Cross-sensitivity to oats may occur in highly sensitive pa-tients. Initial avoidance of oats should be considered innewly diagnosed CD with severe malabsorption, withreintroduction after 1 year when symptom-free.Although cross-contact of oats with gluten-containinggrains occurs, it is rare. For patients doing well on aGFD, pure oats can be consumed in moderation, but ifsymptoms recur or serologic titers rise, then withholdoats.3
All patients with CD should be referred to a dietitianwell-versed in a GFD. Guidelines are now available fordietitians to follow in regard to assessing patients withCD.46 If left to research a GFD on their own, patientsencounter misinformation47 and may unnecessarilyrestrict intake. Other practical topics addressed by di-etitians include how to avoid cross-contact at home (eg,separate toasters or jars of spread), travel and restauranttips, and reliable information on the Internet. In addition,it is necessary to review the overall health of a patient’sGFD, because obesity, diabetes, and other comorbiditiesare increasingly common.48
Patients with CD should have all medications andsupplements reviewed by a pharmacist to ensure thatthey are gluten-free,49 recognizing this may bemanufacturer-dependent. Food and Drug Administrationfood labeling rules do not apply to medications.
Practical Suggestion
All patients should follow a strict, lifelong GFDavoiding wheat, rye, and barley. All patients should be
FLA 5.2.0 DTD � YJCGH53905_proof �
counseled on a GFD by an expert dietitian, and a phar-macist should review all medications and supplements.Oats should be eliminated for the first year in patientswith significant features of disease and only reintro-duced later if well-controlled.
7. What Should Be Assessed in thePatient With Newly DiagnosedCeliac Disease?
Vitamin and mineral deficiencies should be sought,and bone health should be assessed. Patients with overtmalabsorption may have multiple deficiencies of fatsoluble vitamins, minerals, and micronutrients.
Iron deficiency anemia (IDA) is a very commonmanifestation of CD, affecting up to 32% of adults; CD isfrequent in patients undergoing endoscopy for IDA.50 Acomplete blood count and ferritin should be assessed innewly diagnosed CD, and CD should be considered in allpatients with IDA without documented bleeding.
Vitamin B12 deficiency occurs in CD because of (1)terminal ileal involvement, (2) pancreatic insufficiency,or (3) concomitant autoimmune gastritis, which causesB12 deficiency in 10.5% of CD patients.51 Vitamin B12
deficiency occurs in 12%–41% of patients with CD,51 yetthe true prevalence may be higher because most studiesuse serum B12 levels without methylmalonic acid (MMA)levels. Because of the potential irreversible neurologicsequelae from untreated deficiency, all patients with CDshould have vitamin B12 levels checked, with follow-upMMA levels when B12 is low normal.
Folate is also absorbed in the proximal intestine, andalthough low levels of folate have been found in 35%–49% of CD patients, resultant anemia is less common.Serum folate levels may be normal to elevated in CD withconcomitant bacterial overgrowth. Folate levels shouldbe measured in CD, and emphasis should be placed onfolate supplementation in women of childbearing age.
Copper deficiency occurs in 6.8%–33% with CD52 andcan cause microcytic anemia, neutropenia, and throm-bocytopenia and rarely myeloneuropathy.53 Becausecopper deficiency may occur without anemia, levelsshould be checked in newly diagnosed patients to pre-vent neurologic sequelae. Zinc deficiency affects 20%–31% of patients with CD and can cause poor tissuehealing, dermatitis, or dysgeusia.52
Bone disease is frequent in CD, resulting frommalabsorption of calcium and/or vitamin D, with sub-sequent osteopenia, osteoporosis, or osteomalacia. Innewly diagnosed patients, the prevalence of osteoporosisis approximately 28% in the spine and 15% in the hip.Bone mineral density improves on a GFD, especially inthe first year54,55; however, fracture risk is increasedboth before and after diagnosis.56 Although vitamin Ddeficiency is common in CD, the prevalence of osteoma-lacia is unknown.54 All patients with CD should havecalcium and 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at baseline, and
11 August 2014 � 5:16 pm � ce CLR
6 Oxentenko and Murray Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology Vol. -, No. -
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
many recommend bone densitometry for adults atdiagnosis3 or after 1 year to allow stabilization.54
Practical Suggestion
Patients with newly diagnosed CD should have acomplete blood count, ferritin, vitamin B12, folate, cop-per, zinc, calcium, and 25-hydroxy vitamin D checked.Parenteral vitamin B12 should be given with severedeficiency, neurologic features, or ongoing malabsorp-tion. Bone densitometry should be performed in adultswith CD.
8. How Are Adherence and Response toa Gluten-free Diet Measured?
Adherence to a GFD can be measured by self-report,dietitian inquiry, structured surveys, serologic titers,and assessment of mucosal healing. Most patients withCD will claim to be gluten-free; however, true adherenceranges from 42% to 91%.57 Multiple factors affectcompliance, including the ability to follow the GFD inrelation to changes (travel, dining out, social events,stress, mood), being involved in CD support groups, andcomprehension of the GFD. Although self-reporting maybe useful early in GFD, its reliability declines over time.
All CD patients should have a follow-up consultationwith a dietitian well-versed in the GFD if adherence isquestionable or additional resources are needed. Briefadherence surveys have been developed that are as good,if not better, than following serologic titers. The CeliacDietary Adherence Test is a 7-item validated question-naire that correlates with results of a structured dietitianassessment and serologic concentrations.58 Similarly, a1-minute, 4-question survey with a 5-level scoring sys-tem correlates well with serologic positivity, villous at-rophy, and celiac-related complications, with lowerscores predicting adverse outcomes.59
Once on a GFD, there is improvement of clinical,serologic, and histologic features, albeit at differing rates.In adults, diarrhea improves within days, with mean timeto symptom improvement of 4 weeks, and two-thirds ofpatients have complete resolution by 6 months.Abdominal pain, fecal incontinence, and bloating allimprove similarly.60 Failure of symptoms to improveshould prompt evaluation for associated disorders orceliac-related complications.61
Serologic titers fall soon after initiating a GFD, withsubstantially lower antibody levels at 1 year withongoing decline to negative/normal by 2 years. Althoughantibody levels will decline in incompletely compliantpatients, the rate of decline will be less than with strictcompliance.62 Normal serology does not guarantee strictGFD adherence; in addition, many patients have ongoingmucosal atrophy despite normal serology.63
Histologic improvement is slow in adults and delayedcompared with symptomatic or serologic improvement.64
FLA 5.2.0 DTD � YJCGH53905_proof �
Mucosal recovery, defined by a villous:crypt ratio of 3:1,was present in 34% at 2 years and in 66% at 5 years,63
with healing complete in 90% by 9 years. Persistentinjury ismore likely in thosewho are noncompliant orwhohad severe symptoms or total villous atrophy atbaseline.63 Therefore, repeat biopsies after 1 year on aGFD may still show mucosal injury, and providers couldconsider waiting 2 years before assessing healing.Mucosal recovery is faster and more complete in children,with 95% recovery in 2 years and 100% recovery long-term in children following a GFD.
Physicians should provide consistency in the follow-up care of patients with CD.3 Currently, there is signifi-cant variability in the care provided,65 with suboptimalfollow-up of CD at 1 and 5 years of 41.0% and 88.7%,respectively.66
Practical Suggestion
A follow-up visit should be scheduled 3–6 monthsafter CD is diagnosed, with serologic titer consideredthen, and annual visits and serology thereafter. Assessfor adherence to a GFD with structured interview with anexpert dietitian. Patients can be assessed for histologicimprovement after 2 years on a GFD.
9. What Is the Approach to theNonresponsive Celiac Patient?
Nonresponsive celiac disease (NRCD) is defined as alack of response to 6 months on a GFD or recurrence ofceliac-related features despite compliance.30,67 NRCD iscommon and has been reported in 10%–19% withCD.68,69 Applying a stepwise approach to NRCD isimperative.3
The first step in those with NRCD is to verify thediagnosis of CD, reviewing baseline serologic titer(s) andintestinal biopsies. In the patient with enteropathy butnegative serology on a gluten-containing diet, othercauses of villous atrophy need to be considered,including, but not limited to, small intestinal bacterialovergrowth, autoimmune enteropathy, tropical sprue,drug-associated enteropathy (eg, olmesartan), Crohn’sdisease, combined variable immunodeficiency, collage-nous sprue, and eosinophilic gastroenteritis.70,71 CD canbe excluded by the absence of HLA DQ2 and DQ8.70
If the initial diagnosis of CD is robust, the next step isto evaluate whether gluten exposure (blatant, surrepti-tious, or inadvertent) is ongoing.61 A persistent orrecurrent elevation of serologic titer suggests gluteningestion, although a normal value does not ensurecompliance.72 There may be gluten exposure in non-fooditems such as medications, supplements, cosmetics, andglues.49,73
If gluten ingestion is unlikely, then duodenal biopsiesshould be performed. Biopsy the duodenum for RCD and
11 August 2014 � 5:16 pm � ce CLR
- 2014 --- 7
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
the colon for microscopic colitis, which is 50-fold to72-fold more common in CD.74,75
If duodenal and colonic biopsies are normal, thenother causes of diarrhea need to be considered, such asdisaccharidase deficiency, small intestinal bacterialovergrowth, pancreatic insufficiency, or irritable bowelsyndrome; the latter is most common among theseassociated conditions and reported in 22% of NRCD.68
Practical Suggestion
In NRCD, verify the original CD diagnosis, and seekgluten ingestion. If gluten exposure is not present, thenduodenal and colonic biopsies can be helpful. If thesetests are negative, then systematic evaluation is needed.
10. What Do We Do With RefractoryCeliac Disease?
RCD is defined as recurrent or persistent villous atro-phy associated with malabsorption despite 12 months ormore on a verified GFD in patients with CD, without otherdiagnoses or gluten contamination.76 RCD affects only1.5% of CD patients.77 RCD is divided into 2 types. RCDtype I is defined as those who meet the definition of RCD,with polyclonal intraepithelial lymphocytes bearingtypical CD3 and CD8 surfacemarkers, whereas RCD type IIhas clonal T-cell receptors, without the typical CD3–T-cellreceptor surface markers, but preserved intracellular CD3expression.76 Of those with RCD, approximately 15% areRCD type II.77 Prognosis in RCD II is poor, with 5-yearsurvival at 44%–58%78–80 and a high risk of lymphoma.80
To evaluate for RCD, duodenal biopsies should undergoimmunophenotyping and T-cell rearrangement studies.RCD, ulcerative jejunitis, andEATL are complications of CDthat need to be considered carefully in NRCD.
Practical Suggestion
Ongoing villous atrophy should prompt immunophe-notyping and T-cell rearrangement studies to look forRCD II and lymphoma. RCD prompts further highlyspecialized investigations, including determination oftype and ongoing close surveillance for EATL.
801
References 802803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
1. Rostom A, Dube C, Cranney A, et al. The diagnostic accuracy ofserologic tests for celiac disease: a systematic review. Gastro-enterology 2005;128:S38–S46.
2. Leffler DA, Schuppan D. Update on serologic testing in celiacdisease. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:2520–2524.
3. Rubio-Tapia A, Hill ID, Kelly CP, et al. ACG clinical guidelines:diagnosis and management of celiac disease. Am J Gastro-enterol 2013;108:656–677.
4. McGowan KE, Lyon ME, Butzner JD. Celiac disease and IgAdeficiency: complications of serological testing approachesencountered in the clinic. Clin Chem 2008;54:1203–1209.
FLA 5.2.0 DTD � YJCGH53905_proof �
5. Villalta D, Tonutti E, Prause C, et al. IgG antibodies againstdeamidated gliadin peptides for diagnosis of celiac disease inpatients with IgA deficiency. Clin Chem 2010;56:464–468.
6. Rashtak S, Ettore MW, Homburger HA, et al. Combinationtesting for antibodies in the diagnosis of coeliac disease: com-parison of multiplex immunoassay and ELISA methods. AlimentPharmacol Ther 2008;28:805–813.
7. Korponay-Szabo IR, Szabados K, Pusztai J, et al. Populationscreening for coeliac disease in primary care by district nursesusing a rapid antibody test: diagnostic accuracy and feasibilitystudy. BMJ 2007;335:1244–1247.
8. Lewis NR, Scott BB. Meta-analysis: deamidated gliadin peptideantibody and tissue transglutaminase antibody compared asscreening tests for coeliac disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther2010;31:73–81.
9. Oxentenko AS, Grisolano SW, Murray JA, et al. The insensitivityof endoscopic markers in celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol2002;97:933–938.
10. Dickey W, Hughes D. Prevalence of celiac disease and itsendoscopic markers among patients having routine uppergastrointestinal endoscopy. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:2182–2186.
11. Cammarota G, Cesaro P, Martino A, et al. High accuracy andcost-effectiveness of a biopsy-avoiding endoscopic approach indiagnosing coeliac disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2006;23:61–69.
12. Cammarota G, Cazzato A, Genovese O, et al. Water-immersiontechnique during standard upper endoscopy may be useful todrive the biopsy sampling of duodenal mucosa in children withceliac disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2009;49:411–416.
13. Gasbarrini A, Ojetti V, Cuoco L, et al. Lack of endoscopic visual-ization of intestinal villi with the “immersion technique” in overtatrophic celiac disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2003;57:348–351.
14. Cellier C, Green PH, Collin P, et al. ICCE consensus for celiacdisease. Endoscopy 2005;37:1055–1059.
15. Rokkas T, Niv Y. The role of video capsule endoscopy in thediagnosis of celiac disease: a meta-analysis. Eur J GastroenterolHepatol 2012;24:303–308.
16. Siegel LM, Stevens PD, Lightdale CJ, et al. Combined magni-fication endoscopy with chromoendoscopy in the evaluation ofpatients with suspected malabsorption. Gastrointest Endosc1997;46:226–230.
17. Cammarota G, Cesaro P, Cazzato A, et al. Optimal band imagingsystem: a new tool for enhancing the duodenal villous pattern inceliac disease. Gastrointest Endosc 2008;68:352–357.
18. Thijs WJ, van Baarlen J, Kleibeuker JH, et al. Duodenal versusjejunal biopsies in suspected celiac disease. Endoscopy 2004;36:993–996.
19. Gonzalez S, Gupta A, Cheng J, et al. Prospective study of therole of duodenal bulb biopsies in the diagnosis of celiac disease.Gastrointest Endosc 2010;72:758–765.
20. Collin P, Kaukinen K, Vogelsang H, et al. Antiendomysial andantihuman recombinant tissue transglutaminase antibodies inthe diagnosis of coeliac disease: a biopsy-proven Europeanmulticentre study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005;17:85–91.
21. Bonamico M, Mariani P, Thanasi E, et al. Patchy villous atrophyof the duodenum in childhood celiac disease. J Pediatr Gas-troenterol Nutr 2004;38:204–207.
22. Mangiavillano B, Masci E, Parma B, et al. Bulb biopsies for thediagnosis of celiac disease in pediatric patients. GastrointestEndosc 2010;72:564–568.
11 August 2014 � 5:16 pm � ce CLR
812
Q6
8 Oxentenko and Murray Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology Vol. -, No. -
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
23. Kurien M, Evans KE, Hopper AD, et al. Duodenal bulb biopsiesfor diagnosing adult celiac disease: is there an optimal biopsysite? Gastrointest Endosc 2012;75:1190–1196.
24. Almeida PL, Gandolfi L, Modelli IC, et al. Prevalence of celiacdisease among first degree relatives of Brazilian celiac patients.Arq Gastroenterol 2008;45:69–72.
25. Esteve M, Rosinach M, Fernandez-Banares F, et al. Spectrum ofgluten-sensitive enteropathy in first-degree relatives of patientswith coeliac disease: clinical relevance of lymphocytic enteritis.Gut 2006;55:1739–1745.
26. Fasano A, Berti I, Gerarduzzi T, et al. Prevalence of celiacdisease in at-risk and not-at-risk groups in the UnitedStates: a large multicenter study. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:286–292.
27. Rubio-Tapia A, Van Dyke CT, Lahr BD, et al. Predictors of familyrisk for celiac disease: a population-based study. Clin Gastro-enterol Hepatol 2008;6:983–987.
28. Book L, Zone JJ, Neuhausen SL. Prevalence of celiac diseaseamong relatives of sib pairs with celiac disease in U.S. families.Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:377–381.
29. Ukkola A, Maki M, Kurppa K, et al. Diet improves perception ofhealth and well-being in symptomatic, but not asymptomatic,patients with celiac disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;9:118–123.
30. Rostom A, Murray JA, Kagnoff MF. American Gastroenterolog-ical Association (AGA) Institute technical review on the diagnosisand management of celiac disease. Gastroenterology 2006;131:1981–2002.
31. Rashtak S, Murray JA. Tailored testing for celiac disease. AnnIntern Med 2007;147:339–341.
32. Saukkonen T, Savilahti E, Reijonen H, et al. Coeliac disease:frequent occurrence after clinical onset of insulin-dependentdiabetes mellitus—Childhood Diabetes in Finland StudyGroup. Diabet Med 1996;13:464–470.
33. Hill ID, Dirks MH, Liptak GS, et al. Guideline for the diagnosisand treatment of celiac disease in children: recommendations ofthe North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology,Hepatology and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2005;40:1–19.
34. NIH Consensus Development Conference on Celiac Disease.NIH Consens State Sci Statements 2004;21:1–23.
35. Agardh D, Nilsson A, Carlsson A, et al. Tissue transglutaminaseautoantibodies and human leucocyte antigen in Down’s syn-drome patients with coeliac disease. Acta Paediatr 2002;91:34–38.
36. Marild K, Stephansson O, Grahnquist L, et al. Down syndrome isassociated with elevated risk of celiac disease: a nationwidecase-control study. J Pediatr 2013;163:237–242.
37. Gillett PM, Gillett HR, Israel DM, et al. Increased prevalence ofceliac disease in girls with Turner syndrome detected usingantibodies to endomysium and tissue transglutaminase. Can JGastroenterol 2000;14:915–918.
38. Giannotti A, Tiberio G, Castro M, et al. Coeliac disease in Wil-liams syndrome. J Med Genet 2001;38:767–768.
39. Coburn JA, Vande Voort JL, Lahr BD, et al. Human leukocyteantigen genetics and clinical features of self-treated patients ona gluten-free diet. J Clin Gastroenterol 2013.
40. Wahnschaffe U, Schulzke JD, Zeitz M, et al. Predictors of clinicalresponse to gluten-free diet in patients diagnosed with diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome. Clin Gastroenterol Hep-atol 2007;5:844–850, quiz 769.
FLA 5.2.0 DTD � YJCGH53905_proof �
41. Vazquez-Roque MI, Camilleri M, Smyrk T, et al. A controlled trialof gluten-free diet in patients with irritable bowel syndrome-diarrhea: effects on bowel frequency and intestinal function.Gastroenterology 2013;144:903–911.
42. Leffler D, Schuppan D, Pallav K, et al. Kinetics of the histolog-ical, serological and symptomatic responses to gluten challengein adults with coeliac disease. Gut 2013;62:996–1004.
43. Murray JA, Moore SB, Van Dyke CT, et al. HLA DQ gene dosageand risk and severity of celiac disease. Clin GastroenterolHepatol 2007;5:1406–1412.
44. Food labeling: gluten-free labeling of foods—final rule. FedRegist 2013;78:47154–47179.
45. Kemppainen TA, Heikkinen MT, Ristikankare MK, et al. Nutrientintakes during diets including unkilned and large amounts ofoats in celiac disease. Eur J Clin Nutr 2010;64:62–67.
46. Celiac disease evidence-based nutrition guideline. Available at:http://andevidencelibrary.com/topic.cfm?cat¼3677&auth¼1.Accessed October 24, 2013.
47. McNally SL, Donohue MC, Newton KP, et al. Can consumerstrust web-based information about celiac disease? accuracy,comprehensiveness, transparency, and readability of informa-tion on the internet. Interact J Med Res 2012;1:e1.
48. Barton SH, Kelly DG, Murray JA. Nutritional deficiencies in celiacdisease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2007;36:93–108.
49. Mangione RA, Patel PN. Caring for patients with celiac disease:the role of the pharmacist. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003) 2008;48:e125–e139.
50. Grisolano SW, Oxentenko AS, Murray JA, et al. The usefulnessof routine small bowel biopsies in evaluation of iron deficiencyanemia. J Clin Gastroenterol 2004;38:756–760.
51. Dickey W. Low serum vitamin B12 is common in coeliac diseaseand is not due to autoimmune gastritis. Eur J GastroenterolHepatol 2002;14:425–427.
52. Botero-Lopez JE, Araya M, Parada A, et al. Micronutrient de-ficiencies in patients with typical and atypical celiac disease.J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2011;53:265–270.
53. Halfdanarson TR, Kumar N, Hogan WJ, et al. Copper deficiencyin celiac disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 2009;43:162–164.
54. Bernstein CN, Leslie WD, Leboff MS. AGA technical review onosteoporosis in gastrointestinal diseases. Gastroenterology2003;124:795–841.
55. Blazina S, Bratanic N, Campa AS, et al. Bone mineral densityand importance of strict gluten-free diet in children and ado-lescents with celiac disease. Bone 2010;47:598–603.
56. Jafri MR, Nordstrom CW, Murray JA, et al. Long-term fracturerisk in patients with celiac disease: a population-basedstudy in Olmsted County, Minnesota. Dig Dis Sci 2008;53:964–971.
57. Hall NJ, Rubin G, Charnock A. Systematic review: adherence toa gluten-free diet in adult patients with coeliac disease. AlimentPharmacol Ther 2009;30:315–330.
58. Leffler DA, Dennis M, Edwards George JB, et al.A simple validated gluten-free diet adherence survey foradults with celiac disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2009;7:530–536.
59. Biagi F, Andrealli A, Bianchi PI, et al. A gluten-free diet score toevaluate dietary compliance in patients with coeliac disease. BrJ Nutr 2009;102:882–887.
60. Murray JA, Watson T, Clearman B, et al. Effect of a gluten-freediet on gastrointestinal symptoms in celiac disease. Am J ClinNutr 2004;79:669–673.
11 August 2014 � 5:16 pm � ce CLR
928
Q2
Q3
- 2014 --- 9
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
61. Abdulkarim AS, Burgart LJ, See J, et al. Etiology of nonre-sponsive celiac disease: results of a systematic approach. Am JGastroenterol 2002;97:2016–2021.
62. Nachman F, Sugai E, Vazquez H, et al. Serological tests forceliac disease as indicators of long-term compliance with thegluten-free diet. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2011;23:473–480.
63. Rubio-Tapia A, Rahim MW, See JA, et al. Mucosal recovery andmortality in adults with celiac disease after treatment with agluten-free diet. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:1412–1420.
64. Lanzini A, Lanzarotto F, Villanacci V, et al. Complete recovery ofintestinal mucosa occurs very rarely in adult coeliac patientsdespite adherence to gluten-free diet. Aliment Pharmacol Ther2009;29:1299–1308.
65. Parakkal D, Du H, Semer R, et al. Do gastroenterologists adhereto diagnostic and treatment guidelines for celiac disease? J ClinGastroenterol 2012;46:e12–e20.
66. Herman ML, Rubio-Tapia A, Lahr BD, et al. Patients with celiacdisease are not followed up adequately. Clin GastroenterolHepatol 2012;10:893–899.
67. Rubio-Tapia A, Murray JA. Classification and management ofrefractory coeliac disease. Gut 2010;59:547–557.
68. Leffler DA, Dennis M, Hyett B, et al. Etiologies and predictors ofdiagnosis in nonresponsive celiac disease. Clin GastroenterolHepatol 2007;5:445–450.
69. Fine KD, Meyer RL, Lee EL. The prevalence and causes ofchronic diarrhea in patients with celiac sprue treated with agluten-free diet. Gastroenterology 1997;112:1830–1838.
70. Pallav K, Leffler DA, Tariq S, et al. Noncoeliac enteropathy: thedifferential diagnosis of villous atrophy in contemporary clinicalpractice. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2012;35:380–390.
71. Rubio-Tapia A, Herman ML, Ludvigsson JF, et al. Severespruelike enteropathy associated with olmesartan. Mayo ClinProc 2012;87:732–738.
72. Vahedi K, Mascart F, Mary JY, et al. Reliability of anti-transglutaminase antibodies as predictors of gluten-free diet
FLA 5.2.0 DTD � YJCGH53905_proof �
compliance in adult celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2003;98:1079–1087.
73. Thompson T, Grace T. Gluten in cosmetics: is there a reason forconcern? J Acad Nutr Diet 2012;112:1316–1323.
74. Stewart M, Andrews CN, Urbanski S, et al. The association ofcoeliac disease and microscopic colitis: a large population-based study. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2011;33:1340–1349.
75. Green PH, Yang J, Cheng J, et al. An association betweenmicroscopic colitis and celiac disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hep-atol 2009;7:1210–1216.
76. Malamut G, Murray JA, Cellier C. Refractory celiac disease.Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2012;22:759–772.
77. Roshan B, Leffler DA, Jamma S, et al. The incidence and clinicalspectrum of refractory celiac disease in a north american referralcenter. Am J Gastroenterol 2011;106:923–928.
78. Rubio-Tapia A, Kelly DG, Lahr BD, et al. Clinical staging andsurvival in refractory celiac disease: a single center experience.Gastroenterology 2009;136:99–107, quiz 352–353.
79. Al-Toma A, Verbeek WH, Hadithi M, et al. Survival in refractorycoeliac disease and enteropathy-associated T-cell lymphoma:retrospective evaluation of single-centre experience. Gut 2007;56:1373–1378.
80. Malamut G, Afchain P, Verkarre V, et al. Presentation and long-term follow-up of refractory celiac disease: comparison of type Iwith type II. Gastroenterology 2009;136:81–90.
Reprint requestsAddress requests for reprints to: Joseph A. Murray, MD, Mayo Clinic, Divisionof Gastroenterology and Hepatology, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, Minne-sota 55905. e-mail: [email protected]; fax: (507) 255-6318.
Conflicts of interestThis author discloses the following: Joseph A. Murray received grant supportfrom Alba Therapeutics and Alvine Pharmaceuticals, Inc and is a consultant forEntera Health, Inc, AMAG Pharmaceuticals, Sonomaceutials, LLC, and Bio-LineRx. Amy S. Oxentenko discloses no conflicts.
11 August 2014 � 5:16 pm � ce CLR
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054