Should we screen reflux oesophagitis patients for coeliac disease?

Coeliac disease is a strong risk factor for Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease while a gluten free diet is protective: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GORD) mechanisms are well described, but the aetiology is uncertain. Coeliac disease (CD), a gluten enteropathy with increased duodenal eosinophils overlaps with GORD. Functional dyspepsia is a condition where duodenal eosinophilia is featured, and a 6-fold increased risk of incident GORD has been observed. Perturbations of the duodenum can alter proximal gastric and oesophageal motor function. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the association between CD and GORD.

Methods

A systematic search of studies reporting the association of GORD and CD was conducted. CD was defined by combined serological and histological parameters. GORD was defined based on classical symptoms, oesophagitis (endoscopic or histologic) or abnormal 24-h pH monitoring; studies reporting oesophageal motility abnormalities linked with GORD were also included. Pooled odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model.

Findings

31 papers were included. Individuals with CD on a gluten containing diet were 3 times more likely to have GORD than controls (OR: 3.37, 95% CI: 2.09-5.44), and over 10 times more likely when compared to those on a gluten free diet (GFD) (OR: 10.20, 95% CI: 6.49-16.04). Endoscopic oesophagitis was significantly associated with CD (OR: 4.96; 95% CI: 2.22-11.06). One year of a GFD in CD and GORD was more efficacious in preventing GORD symptom relapse than treatment with 8 weeks of PPI in non-CD GORD patients (OR: 0.18, 95% CI: 0.08-0.36). Paediatric CD patients were more likely to develop GORD (OR: 3.29, 95% CI: 1.46-7.43), compared to adult CD patients (OR: 2.55, 95% CI: 1.65-3.93).

Interpretation

CD is strongly associated with GORD but there was high heterogeneity. More convincingly, a GFD substantially improves GORD symptoms, suggesting a role for duodenal inflammation and dietary antigens in the aetiology of a subset with GORD. Ruling out CD in patients with GORD may be beneficial.

Funding

The study was supported by an Investigator Grant from the NHMRC to Dr. Talley.

Prevalence and clinical significance of esophageal abnormalities in children with celiac disease

Variable endoscopic and histological findings of esophageal lining are often detected in celiac disease, with unknown significance. We investigated the frequency and significance of such abnormalities in children. Macroscopic esophageal findings as reported by endoscopist and histological results by pathologist were compared between 316 celiac disease patients and 378 disease controls who had undergone upper gastrointestinal endoscopy with systematic esophageal biopsy sampling. Association between esophageal abnormalities and other clinical and histological characteristics of the disease was evaluated in celiac disease patients. Endoscopic esophageal findings were reported least often (3.8%) of all diseases in celiac disease, whereas histopathologic abnormalities were frequent (16.8%, n = 53). Children with celiac disease and esophageal histopathology reported more reflux than those with normal esophagus (5.7 vs. 0.8%, P = 0.032), whereas the groups were comparable in the frequency and severity of other symptoms, demographic data, prevalence of celiac disease-associated and other coexisting chronic conditions, family history of celiac disease, anthropometric and laboratory parameters, and degree of villous atrophy. Only 2 (3.7%) out of the 53 children with histologic findings had esophageal symptoms at diagnosis, and altogether seven were treated with acid blockers. Four children had increased number (≥15 eosinophils per high-power field) of esophageal eosinophils, but none of them had definite eosinophilic esophagitis. The remaining 45 children had only unspecific inflammation in the esophagus and reported no esophageal problems during a median of 6.9 years follow-up. To conclude, although relatively common, histopathological esophageal findings in celiac disease are mostly unspecific and without major clinical significance even in a long-term follow-up.

Gastrointestinal Symptoms in Celiac Disease Patients on a Long-Term Gluten-Free Diet

Experience suggests that many celiac patients suffer from persistent symptoms despite a long-term gluten-free diet (GFD). We investigated the prevalence and severity of these symptoms in patients with variable duration of GFD. Altogether, 856 patients were classified into untreated (n = 128), short-term GFD (1–2 years, n = 93) and long-term GFD (≥3 years, n = 635) groups. Analyses were made of clinical and histological data and dietary adherence. Symptoms were evaluated by the validated GSRS questionnaire. One-hundred-sixty healthy subjects comprised the control group. Further, the severity of symptoms was compared with that in peptic ulcer, reflux disease, inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Altogether, 93% of the short-term and 94% of the long-term treated patients had a strict GFD and recovered mucosa. Untreated patients had more diarrhea, indigestion and abdominal pain than those on GFD and controls. There were no differences in symptoms between the short- and long-term GFD groups, but both yielded poorer GSRS total score than controls (p = 0.03 and p = 0.05, respectively). Furthermore, patients treated 1–2 years had more diarrhea (p = 0.03) and those treated >10 years more reflux (p = 0.04) than controls. Long-term treated celiac patients showed relatively mild symptoms compared with other gastrointestinal diseases. Based on our results, good response to GFD sustained in long-term follow-up, but not all patients reach the level of healthy individuals.

Cost Effectiveness of Routine Duodenal Biopsy Analysis for Celiac Disease During Endoscopy for Gastroesophageal Reflux

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Some patients with refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) actually have undiagnosed celiac disease. These patients often undergo an esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) to determine the etiology and severity of GERD. Performing routine duodenal biopsy analysis during an EGD could identify patients with celiac disease. We evaluated the cost effectiveness of this approach.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the MEDLINE database to identify publications through March 2014 on patients who underwent a duodenal biopsy analysis during an EGD for GERD. Data collected were used to construct a decision tree to calculate the cost effectiveness of an EGD with and without celiac disease tests.

RESULTS

Among 10,000 patients with refractory GERD who underwent an EGD, we predicted a biopsy strategy would detect 70% of patients with celiac disease if the prevalence of celiac disease was 1% in this cohort. Biopsy analysis at the start of the EGD procedure would increase the remaining quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) by 0.0032, and increase the lifetime cost by $389/patient. Compared with no biopsy, the biopsy strategy cost $55,692.86/case of celiac disease detected, and $121,875/QALY gained. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for the biopsy strategy met the threshold of less than $50,000/QALY when 1 of the following parameters was met: when the utility of living with GERD was less than 0.88, when the prevalence of celiac disease in patients with refractory GERD was greater than 1.8%, when biopsy analysis detected celiac disease with more than 98.1% specificity, when the cost of a gluten-free diet was less than $645.85/y, or if the cost of proton pump inhibitor therapy was more than $5874.01/y.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on base-case values, it is not cost effective to perform a biopsy analysis to detect celiac disease in patients undergoing an EGD for refractory GERD. However, the approach becomes cost effective when the prevalence of celiac disease in this population is 1.8% or greater.

Utility of testing patients, on presentation, for serologic features of celiac disease

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Celiac disease shares features of other disorders. It can be diagnosed conclusively only based on duodenal histology analysis, which is not practical for screening purposes. Serologic analysis might be used to identify candidates for biopsy analysis. We aimed to develop a simple diagnostic approach that all clinicians could follow to increase the percentage of patients accurately diagnosed with celiac disease at initial presentation.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of data from 752 patients (88 with celiac disease, none were IgA deficient) who attended a UK district general hospital from January 2007 through December 2008 and underwent biopsy analysis and serologic tests to measure endomyseal antibodies and IgA antibodies against tissue transglutaminase (tTG). Patients avoiding gluten in their diet were excluded. Patients were assigned to 1 of 4 groups: high-risk (based on presence of anemia, chronic diarrhea, unintentional weight loss, or dermatitis herpetiformis), low-risk (based on such factors as dyspepsia, abnormal liver function, ataxia, or chronic cough), nutrient deficiency (based on levels of iron, vitamins B12 and D, or folate), or screening (because they had type 1 diabetes or a family history of celiac disease). Patients with celiac disease were identified using the modified Marsh criteria (grades 1-3) for interpreting duodenal histology. We compared clinical category, serology profiles, and biopsy results between patients with and without celiac disease.

RESULTS

Celiac disease was diagnosed in 64 of 565 patients in the high-risk group (11%), 14 of 156 patients in the low-risk group (9%; P = .47 compared with high-risk group), 7 of 28 patients in the nutrient-deficiency group, and 3 of 3 patients in the screening group. Among 71 patients who tested positive for both antibodies (tTG and endomyseal antibodies), the positive predictive value for celiac disease was 97%; a negative test result for tTG had a negative predictive value of 98%. Among 708 patients with normal-looking biopsy samples, only 62 had celiac disease (9%). Among 44 patients with abnormal biopsy samples, 26 had celiac disease (59%).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a retrospective analysis, patients with and without celiac disease cannot be distinguished based on clinical features. Patients who present with symptoms of celiac disease should be tested for tTG, to identify candidates for duodenal biopsy analysis.

Celiac disease, eosinophilic esophagitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease, an adult population-based study

OBJECTIVE

Celiac disease (CD) has been linked to gastroesophageal reflux disease (GORD) and eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE), but population-based studies of the prevalence of CD in these conditions are lacking, that is, the aim of this study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An endoscopic study was carried out in 1000 randomly selected adults from the general population. CD was defined on the basis of positive serology in parallel with mucosal abnormalities of the small intestine. Any eosinophil infiltration of the esophageal epithelium was defined as esophageal eosinophilia and EoE was defined as having at least 15 eosinophils/high-power field in biopsies from the distal esophagus. We used Fisher's exact test to compare the prevalence of GORD, esophageal eosinophilia, and EoE in subjects with CD versus controls.

RESULTS

Four hundred subjects (40%) had gastroesophageal reflux symptoms (GORS), 155 (15.5%) had erosive esophagitis, 16 (1.6%) had Barrett's esophagus, 48 (4.8%) had esophageal eosinophilia, and 11 (1.1%) had EoE. CD was diagnosed in 8/400 (2.0%) individuals with GORS (vs. controls: 10/600 (1.7%), p = 0.81), in 3/155 (1.9%) with erosive esophagitis (vs. 15/845 controls (1.8%), p = 0.75), and in 2/48 (4.2%) individuals with esophageal eosinophilia (controls: 16/952 (1.7%), p = 0.21), but in none of those 16 with Barrett's esophagus (vs. 18/984 controls (1.8%), p = 1.0) or of the 11 individuals with EoE (controls: 18/989 (1.8%), p = 1.0).

CONCLUSIONS

This population-based study found no increased risk of CD among individuals with GORD, esophageal eosinophilia, or EoE. CD screening of individuals with GORD or EoE of individuals with CD cannot be recommended.

Prior endoscopy in patients with newly diagnosed celiac disease: a missed opportunity?

BACKGROUND

Celiac disease (CD) is under-diagnosed in the United States, and factors related to the performance of endoscopy may be contributory.

AIM

To identify newly diagnosed patients with CD who had undergone a prior esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) and examine factors contributing to the missed diagnosis.

METHODS

We identified all patients age ≥ 18 years whose diagnosis of CD was made by endoscopy with biopsy at our institution (n = 316), and searched the medical record for a prior EGD. We compared those patients with a prior EGD to those with without a prior EGD with regard to age at diagnosis and gender, and enumerated the indications for EGD.

RESULTS

Of the 316 patients diagnosed by EGD with biopsy at our center, 17 (5 %) had previously undergone EGD. During the prior non-diagnostic EGD, a duodenal biopsy was not performed in 59 % of the patients, and ≥ 4 specimens (the recommended number) were submitted in only 29 % of the patients. On the diagnostic EGD, ≥ 4 specimens were submitted in 94 %. The mean age of diagnosis of those with missed/incident CD was 53.1 years, slightly older than those diagnosed with CD on their first EGD (46.8 years, p = 0.11). Both groups were predominantly female (missed/incident CD: 65 vs. 66 %, p = 0.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Among 17 CD patients who had previously undergone a non-diagnostic EGD, non-performance of duodenal biopsy during the prior EGD was the dominant feature. Routine performance of duodenal biopsy during EGD for the indications of dyspepsia and reflux may improve CD diagnosis rates.

Esophageal manifestations of celiac disease

Celiac disease (CD) may often be associated with various motor disorders affecting the different segments of the digestive tract, including the esophagus. Although it has not been universally reported, some available evidences indicate that pediatric and adult celiac patients could manifest a higher frequency of esophagitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease-related symptoms compared to nonceliac patients. In addition, several published studies have consistently shown the efficacy of a gluten-free diet in rapidly controlling esophageal symptoms and in preventing their recurrence. Since the participation of gluten in the esophageal symptoms of CD seems clear, its intimate mechanisms have yet to be elucidated, and several hypothesis have been proposed, including the specific immune alterations characterizing CD, the reduction in nutrient absorption determining the arrival of intact gluten to distal gastrointestinal segments, and various dysregulations in the function of gastrointestinal hormones and peptides. Recent studies have suggested the existence of a possible relationship between CD and eosinophilic esophagitis, which should be more deeply investigated.

Esophagitis in children with celiac disease

Objectives. To our knowledge, the occurrence of esophagitis in children with celiac disease (CD) has never been evaluated. The aim of this study is to determine the prevalence of esophagitis in children with CD. Patients and Methods. Between 2003 and 2007, children with biopsy confirmed CD were retrospectively identified. Biopsy reports were reviewed for esophageal inflammation. Biopsy reports of 2218 endoscopies performed during the same period were also evaluated for inflammation. Results. Forty-nine children diagnosed with CD (47% boys). Nineteen of 49 (39%) patients with CD had esophagitis (95% CI 0.23–0.5). Thirty percent of boys and 46% of girls with CD had esophagitis (95% CI 0.12–0.40). Overall, 45% of patients who underwent upper endoscopy had esophagitis. The prevalence of esophagitis in CD (39%) compared to the prevalence of esophagitis (45%) in our practice was not significantly different, P = 0.2526. Conclusion. There was no difference in the prevalence of esophagitis between children diagnosed with CD at the time of their diagnostic EGD and the prevalence of esophagitis in children without CD. A prospective study to determine whether the esophagitis should be treated with acid suppression or whether the esophagitis heals with the gluten-free diet is warranted.

Gastroesophageal reflux symptoms in patients with celiac disease and the effects of a gluten-free diet

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Celiac disease (CD) patients often complain of symptoms consistent with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). We aimed to assess the prevalence of GERD symptoms at diagnosis and to determine the impact of the gluten-free diet (GFD).

METHODS

We evaluated 133 adult CD patients at diagnosis and 70 healthy controls. Fifty-three patients completed questionnaires every 3 months during the first year and more than 4 years after diagnosis. GERD symptoms were evaluated using a subdimension of the Gastrointestinal Symptoms Rating Scale for heartburn and regurgitation domains.

RESULTS

At diagnosis, celiac patients had a significantly higher reflux symptom mean score than healthy controls (P < .001). At baseline, 30.1% of CD patients had moderate to severe GERD (score >3) compared with 5.7% of controls (P < .01). Moderate to severe symptoms were significantly associated with the classical clinical presentation of CD (35.0%) compared with atypical/silent cases (15.2%; P < .03). A rapid improvement was evidenced at 3 months after initial treatment with a GFD (P < .0001) with reflux scores comparable to healthy controls from this time point onward.

CONCLUSIONS

GERD symptoms are common in classically symptomatic untreated CD patients. The GFD is associated with a rapid and persistent improvement in reflux symptoms that resembles the healthy population.

Meta-analysis: yield of diagnostic tests for coeliac disease in dyspepsia

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) may be increased in individuals with dyspepsia, but evidence is conflicting.

AIMS

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting prevalence of CD in dyspepsia.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were searched up to February 2009. Case series and case-control studies applying serological tests and/or distal duodenal biopsy for CD to unselected adults with dyspepsia were eligible. Prevalence of positive coeliac serology and biopsy-proven CD were pooled for all studies and compared between cases and controls using an odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Fifteen studies were identified. Prevalence of positive coeliac serology was higher in cases with dyspepsia (7.9%) compared with controls (3.9%), but not significantly so (OR for positive endomysial antibodies or tissue transglutaminase 1.89; 95% CI 0.90-3.99). Prevalence of biopsy-proven CD following positive serology was also higher (3.2% in cases vs. 1.3% in controls), but again this was not statistically significant (OR 2.85; 95% CI 0.60-13.38). Prevalence of biopsy-proven CD was 1% in ten studies performing duodenal biopsy first-line.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of biopsy-proven CD in subjects with dyspepsia was 1% and was higher than in controls, although this difference was not statistically significant.

Pre-endoscopy serological testing for coeliac disease: evaluation of a clinical decision tool

OBJECTIVE

To determine an effective diagnostic method of detecting all cases of coeliac disease in patients referred for gastroscopy without performing routine duodenal biopsy.

DESIGN

An initial retrospective cohort of patients attending for gastroscopy was analysed to derive a clinical decision tool that could increase the detection of coeliac disease without performing routine duodenal biopsy. The tool incorporated serology (measuring antibodies to tissue transglutaminase) and stratifying patients according to their referral symptoms (patients were classified as having a "high risk" or "low risk" of coeliac disease). The decision tool was then tested on a second cohort of patients attending for gastroscopy. In the second cohort all patients had a routine duodenal biopsy and serology performed.

SETTING

Teaching hospital in Sheffield.

PARTICIPANTS

2000 consecutive adult patients referred for gastroscopy recruited prospectively.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Evaluation of a clinical decision tool using patients' referral symptoms, tissue transglutaminase antibody results, and duodenal biopsy results.

RESULTS

No cases of coeliac disease were missed by the pre-endoscopy testing algorithm. The prevalence of coeliac disease in patients attending for endoscopy was 3.9% (77/2000, 95% confidence interval 3.1% to 4.8%). The prevalence in the high risk and low risk groups was 9.6% (71/739, 7.7% to 12.0%) and 0.5% (6/1261, 0.2% to 1.0%). The prevalence of coeliac disease in patients who were negative for tissue transglutaminase antibody was 0.4% (7/2000). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for a positive antibody result to diagnose coeliac disease was 90.9%, 90.9%, 28.6%, and 99.6%, respectively. Evaluation of the clinical decision tool gave a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 100%, 60.8%, 9.3%, and 100%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Pre-endoscopy serological testing in combination with biopsy of high risk cases detected all cases of coeliac disease. The use of this decision tool may enable the endoscopist to target patients who need a duodenal biopsy.

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

AIM: To investigate the prevalence of celiac disease serologic markers (antigliadin IgA, IgG, and anti-endomysial IgA) in patients with reflux esophagitis and to detect the relationship between reflux esophagitis and celiac disease (CD).

METHODS: This study was performed prospectively between January 2003 and January 2004. Sixty-eight adult reflux esophagitis patients and 40 people as control group for symptoms related with gastrointestinal system were enrolled in this study. The diagnostic work-up included an accurate medical history with gastrointestinal symptoms, routine laboratory measurements, the detection of antibodies against gliadin (IgA and IgG) and endomysium (IgA), and an upper endoscopy with postbulbar biopsy.

RESULTS: IgA-AGA and IgG-AGA were positive at 8.8% and 10.3% in patients with reflux esophagitis. In control group, it was found that 10% people had positive IgA-AGA, and 7.5% people had positive IgG-AGA. There was no significant relationship between patients and control group regarding positive IgA-AGA and IgG-AGA. The patients and persons in control group had no positive IgA-EMA. On postbulbar biopsies, no finding was detected concerning celiac disease. There were no symptoms and signs for gluten enteropathy in patients and control group.

CONCLUSION: This review supports that an association does not exist between celiac disease and reflux esophagitis. We think these diseases exist independently from each other.