Celiac disease is uncommon in irritable bowel syndrome in the USA

Italian guidelines for the management of irritable bowel syndrome: Joint Consensus from the Italian Societies of: Gastroenterology and Endoscopy (SIGE), Neurogastroenterology and Motility (SINGEM), Hospital Gastroenterologists and Endoscopists (AIGO), Digestive Endoscopy (SIED), General Medicine (SIMG), Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Pediatric Nutrition (SIGENP) and Pediatrics (SIP)

The irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic disorder of gut-brain interaction. IBS is still associated with areas of uncertainties, especially regarding the optimal diagnostic work-up and the more appropriate management. Experts from 7 Italian Societies conducted a Delphi consensus with literature summary and voting process on 27 statements. Recommendations and quality of evidence were evaluated using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Consensus was defined as >80% agreement and reached for all statements. In terms of diagnosis, the consensus supports a positive diagnostic strategy with a symptom-based approach, including the psychological comorbidities assessment and the exclusion of alarm symptoms, together with the digital rectal examination, full blood count, C-reactive protein, serology for coeliac disease, and fecal calprotectin assessment. Colonoscopy should be recommended in patients with alarm features. Regarding treatment, the consensus strongly supports a dietary approach for patients with IBS, the use of soluble fiber, secretagogues, tricyclic antidepressants, psychologically directed therapies and, only in specific IBS subtypes, rifaximin. A conditional recommendation was achieved for probiotics, polyethylene glycol, antispasmodics, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and, only in specific IBS subtypes, 5-HT3 antagonists, 5-HT4 agonists, bile acid sequestrants.

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.

Screening for Celiac Disease in Patients with Irritable Bowel Syndrome Fulfilling Rome III Criteria

Background Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common functional gastrointestinal disorder. Celiac disease (CD), a treatable autoimmune enteropathy, with varied presentations, may simulate clinically symptoms of IBS. The aim of the present study is to screen for CD in patients with IBS diagnosed based on the Rome III criteria.

Patients and Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted at a secondary care gastrointestinal unit in Al-Salam General Hospital in Mosul city, Iraq, from November 2015 to October 2016. All patients fulfilling the Rome III criteria for IBS were screened for CD using antitissue transglutaminase IgA antibodies (anti-tTG). Patients who tested positive were subjected to endoscopic duodenal biopsy to confirm the diagnosis of CD.

Results A total of 100 patients were included in the present study (58 female and 42 male), the mean age of the participants was 40.8 years old (standard deviation [SD] ± 11.57). Ten patients (10/100, 10%) tested positive for anti-tTG antibodies. Five of the seropositive patients (5/10, 50%) showed positive biopsy results according to the Marsh classification, 3 of whom having diarrhea, and 2 with constipation.

Conclusion Positive serology and biopsy results suggestive of CD are common among patients with IBS. Screening patients with IBS for CD is justified.

Making a Confident Diagnosis of Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is among the most common diagnoses made by medical providers and its symptoms are common causes for health care consultation. IBS is characterized by abdominal pain associated with abnormal stool consistency and/or frequency and is widely considered a diagnosis of exclusion, despite abundant evidence contradicting such an approach. A positive diagnosis is achieved through application of symptom-based clinical criteria, careful history and physical examination, evaluation for alarm sign/symptoms, and judicious use of diagnostic testing. This article reviews the symptom-based criteria for IBS and utility of diagnostic tests commonly included in the evaluation of IBS symptoms.