Cost-effectiveness analysis of strategies for diagnosing celiac disease

Defining the optimum strategy for identifying adults and children with coeliac disease: systematic review and economic modelling

BACKGROUND

Coeliac disease is an autoimmune disorder triggered by ingesting gluten. It affects approximately 1% of the UK population, but only one in three people is thought to have a diagnosis. Untreated coeliac disease may lead to malnutrition, anaemia, osteoporosis and lymphoma.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to define at-risk groups and determine the cost-effectiveness of active case-finding strategies in primary care.

DESIGN

(1) Systematic review of the accuracy of potential diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease. (2) Routine data analysis to develop prediction models for identification of people who may benefit from testing for coeliac disease. (3) Systematic review of the accuracy of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease. (4) Systematic review of the accuracy of genetic tests for coeliac disease (literature search conducted in April 2021). (5) Online survey to identify diagnostic thresholds for testing, starting treatment and referral for biopsy. (6) Economic modelling to identify the cost-effectiveness of different active case-finding strategies, informed by the findings from previous objectives.

DATA SOURCES

For the first systematic review, the following databases were searched from 1997 to April 2021: MEDLINE® (National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, MD, USA), Embase® (Elsevier, Amsterdam, the Netherlands), Cochrane Library, Web of Science™ (Clarivate™, Philadelphia, PA, USA), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform ( WHO ICTRP ) and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For the second systematic review, the following databases were searched from January 1990 to August 2020: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Kleijnen Systematic Reviews ( KSR ) Evidence, WHO ICTRP and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. For prediction model development, Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum and a subcohort of the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children were used; for estimates for the economic models, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum was used.

REVIEW METHODS

For review 1, cohort and case-control studies reporting on a diagnostic indicator in a population with and a population without coeliac disease were eligible. For review 2, diagnostic cohort studies including patients presenting with coeliac disease symptoms who were tested with serological tests for coeliac disease and underwent a duodenal biopsy as reference standard were eligible. In both reviews, risk of bias was assessed using the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 tool. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were fitted, in which binomial likelihoods for the numbers of true positives and true negatives were assumed.

RESULTS

People with dermatitis herpetiformis, a family history of coeliac disease, migraine, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis or chronic liver disease are 1.5-2 times more likely than the general population to have coeliac disease; individual gastrointestinal symptoms were not useful for identifying coeliac disease. For children, women and men, prediction models included 24, 24 and 21 indicators of coeliac disease, respectively. The models showed good discrimination between patients with and patients without coeliac disease, but performed less well when externally validated. Serological tests were found to have good diagnostic accuracy for coeliac disease. Immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase had the highest sensitivity and endomysial antibody the highest specificity. There was little improvement when tests were used in combination. Survey respondents (n = 472) wanted to be 66% certain of the diagnosis from a blood test before starting a gluten-free diet if symptomatic, and 90% certain if asymptomatic. Cost-effectiveness analyses found that, among adults, and using serological testing alone, immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase was most cost-effective at a 1% pre-test probability (equivalent to population screening). Strategies using immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody plus human leucocyte antigen or human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability had similar cost-effectiveness results, which were also similar to the cost-effectiveness results of immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase at a 1% pre-test probability. The most practical alternative for implementation within the NHS is likely to be a combination of human leucocyte antigen and immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing among those with a pre-test probability above 1.5%. Among children, the most cost-effective strategy was a 10% pre-test probability with human leucocyte antigen plus immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase, but there was uncertainty around the most cost-effective pre-test probability. There was substantial uncertainty in economic model results, which means that there would be great value in conducting further research.

LIMITATIONS

The interpretation of meta-analyses was limited by the substantial heterogeneity between the included studies, and most included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias. The main limitations of the prediction models were that we were restricted to diagnostic indicators that were recorded by general practitioners and that, because coeliac disease is underdiagnosed, it is also under-reported in health-care data. The cost-effectiveness model is a simplification of coeliac disease and modelled an average cohort rather than individuals. Evidence was weak on the probability of routine coeliac disease diagnosis, the accuracy of serological and genetic tests and the utility of a gluten-free diet.

CONCLUSIONS

Population screening with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase (1% pre-test probability) and of immunoglobulin A endomysial antibody followed by human leucocyte antigen testing or human leucocyte antigen testing followed by immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase with any pre-test probability appear to have similar cost-effectiveness results. As decisions to implement population screening cannot be made based on our economic analysis alone, and given the practical challenges of identifying patients with higher pre-test probabilities, we recommend that human leucocyte antigen combined with immunoglobulin A tissue transglutaminase testing should be considered for adults with at least a 1.5% pre-test probability of coeliac disease, equivalent to having at least one predictor. A more targeted strategy of 10% pre-test probability is recommended for children (e.g. children with anaemia).

FUTURE WORK

Future work should consider whether or not population-based screening for coeliac disease could meet the UK National Screening Committee criteria and whether or not it necessitates a long-term randomised controlled trial of screening strategies. Large prospective cohort studies in which all participants receive accurate tests for coeliac disease are needed.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019115506 and CRD42020170766.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research ( NIHR ) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Relevance of HLA-DQB1*02 Allele in the Genetic Predisposition of Children with Celiac Disease: Additional Cues from a Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Celiac disease (CD) is a multifactorial immune-mediated disorder, triggered by the ingestion of gluten in genetically-predisposed subjects carrying MHC-DQ2 and -DQ8 heterodimers, which are encoded by four HLA-DQ allelic variants, overall. This meta-analysis aims at providing further epidemiological support to the predominant relevance of one specific allele, namely HLA-DQB1*02, in the predisposition and genetic risk of CD. Materials and Methods: We performed a search of MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Scopus, retrieving all publications (case-control study, cross-sectional, and retrospective cohort study) on the association between HLA class II polymorphisms and first-degree relatives (FDRs) of children with CD. After a critical reading of the articles, two investigators independently performed data extraction according to the following inclusion criteria: HLA class II genes, any DQ and DR molecules, and CD diagnosed following the current clinical guidelines. A third participant was consulted for discussion to reach an agreement concerning discrepancies. Results: Our search strategy selected 14 studies as being eligible for inclusion, and those were submitted for data extraction and analysis. These studies were published between 1999 and 2016 and, collectively, enrolled 3063 FDRs. Positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-, respectively) for CD diagnosis, according to the presence of the HLA-DQ genotype coding a complete MHC-DQ2 and/or MHC-DQ8 molecules, were 1.449 (CI 1.279-1.642) and 0.187 (CI 0.096-0.362), respectively. If only the isolated presence of HLA-DQB1*02 allele is considered, the pooled estimation of LR+ was 1.659 (CI 1.302-2.155) and, importantly, the LR- still showed a very good discriminatory power of 0.195 (CI 0.068-0.558). Conclusions: Through our differential meta-analysis, comparing the presence of the genotype coding the full MHC-DQ2 and/or DQ8 molecules with the isolated presence of HLA-DQB1*02 allelic variant, we found that the LR- of the latter analysis maintained the same value. This observation, along with previous evidences, might be useful to consider potential cost-effective widened screening strategies for CD in children.

Systematic Literature Review of the Economic Burden of Celiac Disease

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of celiac disease (CD) has rapidly increased over recent decades, but costs related to CD remain poorly quantified.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review assessed the economic burden of CD in North America and Europe.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, EconLit, and the Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to identify English-language literature from 2007 to 2018 that assessed costs, cost effectiveness, and health resource utilization for CD.

RESULTS

Forty-nine studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 28 (57.1%) addressed costs of testing and diagnosis; 33 (67.3%) were from Europe. The cost per positive CD diagnosis of testing patients already undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy for other indications ranged from 1300 Canadian dollars ($Can) in Canada (2016 value) to €44,712 in the Netherlands (2013 value). Adding the CD test was cost effective when it combined diagnostic modalities (e.g., serology and biopsy). Direct annual excess costs to a US payer per diagnosed CD patient totaled $US6000 (2013 value) more than for a person without CD, chiefly due to outpatient care. Hospitalizations, emergency visits, and medication use were more common with CD. After initiating a gluten-free diet (GFD), patients visited primary care providers less often, used more medications, and missed fewer days from school and work.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the few available economic studies of CD assess testing and diagnosis costs, especially in Europe. Methods of testing generally are considered cost effective when they combine diagnostic modalities in symptomatic patients. Most costs to a payer of managing CD derive from outpatient care. Following GFD initiation, patients lose fewer days from work and school than pretreatment.

Implementation of National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance to measure immunoglobulin A with all coeliac screens: can an affordable solution be devised?

There has been a dramatic increase in requests for coeliac disease (CD) serological screening using immunoglobulin (Ig)A tissue transglutaminase antibodies (IgA-tTG). Recently, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has revised its guidance, recommending that total IgA should also be measured in all samples. This is justified, as false-negative results may occur with IgA deficiency. However, implementation of this guidance will incur considerable expense. Tests that measure IgA-tTG antibodies can detect IgA deficiency, indicated by low background signal. This provides an opportunity to identify samples containing IgA ≤ 0·2g/l, obviating the need for unselected IgA measurement. We investigated the feasibility of this approach in two centres that use the EliA™ Celikey™ assay or QUANTA Lite^® enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to quantify IgA-tTG antibodies. In both cases, total IgA correlated strongly with background IgA-tTG assay signal. Using the Celikey™ assay, a threshold of < 17·5 response units achieved 100% sensitivity (95% confidence intervals 79·4-100%) for detection of IgA ≤ 0·2g/l, circumventing the need for IgA testing in > 99% of sera. A similar principle was demonstrated for the QUANTA Lite^® assay, whereby a threshold optical density of < 0·0265 also achieved 100% sensitivity (95% confidence intervals 78·2-100%) for IgA ≤ 0·2 g/l, avoiding unnecessary IgA testing in 67% of cases. These data suggest that CD screening tests can identify samples reliably containing low IgA in a real-life setting, obviating the need for blanket testing. However, this approach requires careful individualized validation, given the divergent efficiency with which assays identify samples containing low IgA.

Genetics and celiac disease: the importance of screening

The prevalence of celiac disease (CD) is increasing. Despite an increased awareness and an improvement in diagnostic testing, the majority of individuals with CD remain undiagnosed. Currently, genetic testing in screening for CD is used only to exclude a diagnosis or reinforce a strong clinical suspicion. In this paper, we review the most current literature regarding genetic testing in CD. In response to important data revealing that an individual's HLA haplotype is one of the strongest known predictors of CD, we propose genetic screening for at-risk infants to stratify individuals based on genetic risk to ultimately create genetic specific screening algorithms.

[Immunological screening and follow-up of celiac disease: experience of the University Hospital of Marseille]

PURPOSE

Anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies (ATTG) have helped to distinguish atypical and silent clinical forms of celiac disease (CD). Immunological diagnosis or follow-up of the disease is now based in France in first line upon IgA ATTG serum evaluation. In the University Hospital of Marseille, the serological diagnosis of CD had consisted during several years in simultaneous determination of both IgA anti-endomysial antibodies (AEA) and IgA ATTG. In literature, few studies focused on the concordance between the two tests and a very few epidemiological data about CD in France are available.

METHODS

Five thousand nine hundred and eighty-one patients for whom both AEA and ATTG testing were available were retrospectively included. Characteristics of this cohort were detailed. We numbered and analyzed especially bioclinical charts from patients with AAE/AATG discordance.

RESULTS

Among our patients, all ages and all medical subspecialties were represented. Eighty-five new cases of CD were identified. Among the 6516 serum evaluations performed, only 31 tests were discordant.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data give information about CD epidemiology in France. They support the contention that ATTG have to be evaluated in first line for CD diagnosis.

Serological testing for coeliac disease in Type 1 diabetes mellitus: is immunoglobulin A level measurement necessary?

AIMS

Immunoglobulin A (IgA) measurement is advocated when case finding for coeliac disease in patients with Type 1 diabetes mellitus. Currently, there is a paucity of contemporary studies assessing IgA deficiency in Type 1 diabetes. This study evaluates the prevalence of IgA deficiency in individuals with Type 1 diabetes, compared with patients with coeliac disease and control subjects. In addition, we evaluate whether routine IgA measurement is justifiable when case finding for coeliac disease in patients with Type 1 diabetes.

METHODS

All patients were assessed using IgA endomysial antibodies, IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies and total IgA levels. Altogether, 2434 individuals were tested: 1000 patients with Type 1 diabetes, 234 patients with coeliac disease and 1200 population control subjects. Definitive IgA deficiency was defined as total IgA levels < 0.07 g/l.

RESULTS

The prevalence of IgA deficiency was significantly more common in patients with Type 1 diabetes (0.9%, n = 9/1000; P = 0.036) and coeliac disease (1.29%, n = 3/234; P = 0.041) when compared with population control subjects (prevalence of 0.17%, 2/1200). No statistical difference between Type 1 diabetes and coeliac disease for IgA deficiency was identified (P = 0.87). Of patients in the group with Type 1 diabetes, 3.3% (33/1000) had coeliac disease, and of those only one patient had IgA deficiency leading to an antibody-negative presentation. Both IgA-deficient individuals within the population control subjects had normal duodenal biopsies and no relevant symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

IgA deficiency is more common in Type 1 diabetes compared with population control subjects. Despite this, very few individuals with Type 1 diabetes and IgA deficiency appear to have villous atrophy on biopsy. These outcomes question the practice of routine IgA measurement when case finding for coeliac disease in patients with Type 1 diabetes.

Are we diagnosing too many people with coeliac disease?

This review will try to address the question of whether we are diagnosing too many people with coeliac disease. The key reasons for diagnosing coeliac disease may be that it is a common condition affecting up to 1% of the adult population. Delays in diagnosis are common. The average time delay reported by Coeliac UK (National Medical Patient Charity), for patients with symptoms prior to the diagnosis being made is 13 years. For every adult case detected, it is estimated that there are eight cases not detected. Patients with coeliac disease have an associated morbidity and mortality. In addition, quality of life studies suggest that the majority of patients benefit from a gluten-free diet (GFD). Furthermore, the GFD reduces or alleviates the risk of the associated complications. All of these facts could even be used to support the argument for screening! However, conversely the tests for coeliac disease are not 100% sensitive and specific. In addition, we do not know whether patients with milder symptoms will derive less benefit from treatment and are at less risk of complications. Furthermore, evidence presented in this review suggests that actual outcomes for screening studies in an adult population have revealed poor uptake and subsequently difficulties with adherence. What little published data that are available also infers that individuals recognised through screening programmes could have been detected if carefully questioned for symptoms. There is evidence to suggest that diagnosing celiac disease is cost-effective and that the diagnostic costs are offset by reduced medical expenditures, reduced hospital and general practice attendances, but this view depends on the population prevalence of coeliac disease. We believe on the basis of the evidence presented in this review that we are not diagnosing too many adults with coeliac disease. However, the authors consider case-finding with a low threshold for serological testing to be the optimal approach. If you look for coeliac disease you will find it.

Resource use and costs associated with coeliac disease before and after diagnosis in 3,646 cases: results of a UK primary care database analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite the considerable health impact of coeliac disease (CD), reliable estimates of the impact of diagnosis on health care use and costs are lacking.

AIMS

To quantify the volume, type and costs, in a United Kingdom primary care setting, of healthcare resources used by individuals diagnosed with CD up to ten years before and after diagnosis, and to estimate medical costs associated with CD.

METHODS

A cohort of 3,646 CD cases and a parallel cohort of 32,973 matched controls, extracted from the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) over the period 1987-2005 were used i) to evaluate the impact of diagnosis on the average resource use and costs of cases; ii) to assess direct healthcare costs due to CD by comparing average resource use and costs incurred by cases vs. controls.

RESULTS

Average annual healthcare costs per patient increased by £310 (95% CI £299, £320) after diagnosis. CD cases experienced higher healthcare costs than controls both before diagnosis (mean difference £91; 95% CI: £86, £97) and after diagnosis (mean difference £354; 95% CI: £347, £361). These differences were driven mainly by higher test and referral costs before diagnosis, and by increased prescription costs after diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows significant additional primary care costs associated with coeliac disease. It provides novel evidence that will assist researchers evaluating interventions in this area, and will challenge policymakers, clinicians, researchers and the public to develop strategies that maximise the health benefits of the resources associated with this disease.

Screening for celiac disease in average-risk and high-risk populations

The prevalence of celiac disease is rising. As a result there is increasing interest in the associated mortality and morbidity of the disease. Screening of asymptomatic individuals in the general population is not currently recommended; instead, a strategy of case finding is the preferred approach, taking into account the myriad modes of presentation of celiac disease. Although a gluten-free diet is the treatment of choice in symptomatic patients with celiac disease, there is no consensus on whether institution of a gluten-free diet will improve the quality of life in asymptomatic screen-detected celiac disease patients. A review of the studies that have been performed on this subject is presented. Certain patient groups such as those with autoimmune diseases may be offered screening in the context of an informed discussion regarding the potential benefits, with the caveat that the data on this issue are sparse. Active case finding seems to be the most prudent option in most clinical situations.

Is it time to screen for adult coeliac disease?

To meet the principles of screening as described by Wilson and Jungner a disease must be common, a significant health burden, detectable and treatable. The key lies in the early detection and alteration of the natural history of disease. Coeliac disease affects 1 in 100 people. Despite this patients frequently have delays in diagnosis or may remain undetected. There is an associated morbidity and mortality which can be effectively treated by simple means of a gluten-free diet. For these reasons coeliac disease has been suggested as appropriate for mass screening. However, there are caveats to this: a complex clinical spectrum, a natural history that is imperfectly understood, overestimation of morbidity and mortality, poor adherence to treatment, and costs of service provision may argue against the time being right for mass screening. This review article provides the most contemporary overview and reference base to allow any clinician to understand the benefits or limitations of a screening programme for adult coeliac disease.

What is the use of biopsy and antibodies in coeliac disease diagnosis?

The advent of highly sensitive and specific serological markers has led to some protagonists proposing that coeliac disease can be diagnosed without the need for a biopsy. However, this is an area of controversy. Lack of consensus about diagnostic degrees of histological change, paucity of symptoms, antibody-negative disease and immunodeficiency can make diagnosis difficult even with a biopsy. Conversely, an argument can be put forward for a 'no biopsy' approach based on the large number of patients with typical symptoms and positive serology who experience a diagnostic delay. In addition, endoscopy is not without discomfort. This article discusses the use of antibodies and duodenal biopsy within this context. Finally, we propose a pragmatic diagnostic algorithm for clinicians to use when investigating patients for coeliac disease.

Parents' willingness to pay for coeliac disease screening of their child

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to determine Swedish parents' willingness to pay (WTP) for coeliac disease (CD) screening of their child.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

CD screening was undertaken involving 10,041 12-year-old children, with 7567 (75%) agreeing to participate. Blood samples from the children were analysed for CD serological markers. Parents received a questionnaire including a scenario describing the health-related risks of having CD and screening and diagnostic procedures. Parents were also asked whether they were willing to pay for CD screening, should this not be offered free of charge, and, if so, what their maximum WTP would be. Their WTP was compared with the average cost per child for the screening and case ascertainment procedures.

RESULTS

The questionnaire was answered by 6524 parents, and of 6057 valid responses 63% stated that they were willing to pay something. The mean WTP was 79 EUR and the median 10 EUR. The average cost per child for the screening and case ascertainment procedures was 47 EUR, which 23% of the parents stated they were willing to pay. Parents' WTP increased with higher education and income, and with child symptoms that may indicate CD.

CONCLUSIONS

Swedish parents' WTP for school-based CD screening of their child was higher than the average cost per child; however, only a minority of the parents were willing to pay that amount.

The economics of coeliac disease: a population-based study

BACKGROUND

Despite increasing prevalence, the economic implications of coeliac disease are just emerging.

AIMS

To assess the impact of coeliac disease diagnosis on healthcare costs and the incremental costs associated with coeliac disease.

METHODS

Administrative data for a population-based cohort of coeliac disease cases and matched controls from Olmsted County, Minnesota were used to compare (i) direct medical costs 1 year pre- and post-coeliac disease diagnosis for 133 index cases and (ii) 4-year cumulative direct medical costs incurred by 153 index cases vs. 153 controls. Analyses exclude diagnostic-related and out-patient pharmaceutical costs.

RESULTS

Average total costs were reduced by $1764 in the year following diagnosis (pre-diagnosis cost of $5023 vs. $3259; 95% CI of difference: $688 to $2993). Over a 4-year period, coeliac disease cases experienced higher out-patient costs (mean difference of $1457; P = 0.016) and higher total costs than controls (mean difference of $3964; P = 0.053). Excess average total costs were concentrated among males with coeliac disease ($14,191 vs. $4019 for male controls; 95% CI of difference: $2334 to $20,309).

CONCLUSIONS

Coeliac disease-associated costs indicate a significant economic burden of disease, particularly for diseased males. Diagnosis and treatment of coeliac disease reduce medical costs of care suggesting an economic advantage to earlier detection and treatment.

Recent advances in coeliac disease

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Worldwide awareness of coeliac disease in all ages continues to grow. This article aims to summarize critically the recent research advances in coeliac disease.

RECENT FINDINGS

Large multicentre studies have provided further evidence of the role of environmental and nonhuman leucocyte antigen genetic factors in coeliac disease. Siblings of coeliac patients carry a high risk, but those found to have negative coeliac serology are very unlikely to develop the disease. Advances in the efficacy of serological antibody testing potentiate the possibility of future accurate screening programmes in the community. Adherence to a gluten-free diet remains paramount as the recognition of coeliac related complications increases.

SUMMARY

Despite the encouraging progress that has taken place in our genetic and immunological knowledge of coeliac disease, early introduction of a gluten-free diet remains the cornerstone of treatment. Alternatives, however, aimed at altering the toxicity of cereal proteins are now looking more promising.

HLA and autoimmune digestive disease: a clinically oriented review for gastroenterologists

OBJECTIVES

The human leukocyte antigen (HLA) system includes genes involved in graft-vs-host rejection and in immune response. The discovery that HLAs are associated with several diseases led to appealing developments both in basic biomedical research and in clinical medicine, and offered the opportunity to improve the understanding of pathogenesis and classification of diseases, as well as to provide diagnostic and prognostic indicators. The aim of this article is to review the association between HLA alleles and autoimmune digestive disease and its current relationship with modern HLA nomenclature and clinical practice.

METHODS

Articles dealing with the association between HLAs and autoimmune digestive disease (including celiac disease, inflammatory bowel disease, autoimmune hepatitis, sclerosing cholangitis and primary biliary cirrhosis) were searched for using Pubmed and SCOPUS databases from earliest records to January 2008.

RESULTS

The review has provided two sections. In the first, we explain the basic principles of HLA structure, function, and nomenclature, as an introduction to the second section, which describes current associations between HLA alleles and digestive diseases. The clinical implications of each HLA association are critically discussed. Actually, a clinical role for HLA typing is suggested for only a few conditions, e.g., celiac disease.

CONCLUSIONS

The knowledge of current HLA nomenclature and of its association with some digestive diseases such as celiac disease can be useful in clinical practice for diagnostic and prognostic purposes. This can avoid improper HLA typing as well as stressing the need for further studies on other possible clinical applications.