Diagnosing Coeliac Disease During Mass-Screening of General Paediatric Population: Is Biopsy Avoidable?

Meta-analysis: High pooled positive predictive value of the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition no-biopsy approach for coeliac disease testing in children

BACKGROUND

The European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition established guidelines in 2012 for a no-biopsy approach to diagnose coeliac disease in children. This guideline required symptoms suggestive of coeliac disease, positive human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DQ2/DQ8 haplotypes, tissue transglutaminase type-2 immunoglobulin A antibody titre at levels greater than 10 times the upper limit of normal, and positive endomysial immune-globulin A antibody test. An updated 2020 guideline excluded the need for symptoms and positive HLA.

AIMS

To assess the pooled positive predictive value (PPV) of the no-biopsy approach with small bowel biopsy (SBB) data as the reference standard for comparison.

METHODS

Database searches (October 2023) provided data that we combined using a random-effects meta-analysis to provide a pooled PPV, representing the probability that a positive test result means that an individual truly has the condition.

RESULTS

We included 23 studies. Study sample sizes totalled 23,769 but only 3007 children had comparative SBB. The proportion of coeliac disease confirmed by the no-biopsy approach and SBB ranged from 79.2% to 100%, with an overall pooled PPV of 97.4% (95% confidence interval 96.0, 98.6). Sensitivity analysis showed higher PPV for the criteria that included HLA (98.5% vs. 96.8%; p = 0.017).

CONCLUSION

Both no-biopsy criteria exhibit high PPV when compared to the reference standard. These results provide a consistent message of accuracy and feasibility to inform change and improve outcomes.

Population level screening for celiac disease: is now the time?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As incidence and prevalence of celiac disease is increasing, subclinical and asymptomatic presentations are more commonly identified through celiac disease screening. However, the United States Preventive Services Task Force released a statement in 2017 maintaining that there is insufficient evidence to recommend general population screening for celiac disease for asymptomatic individuals. This review summarizes the current available evidence on celiac disease screening.

RECENT FINDINGS

Literature demonstrates that by limiting screening to individuals with recognized symptoms, celiac disease diagnosis is frequently delayed or missed entirely. Most individuals with screening-identified celiac disease have previously unrecognized symptoms that improve through treatment with a gluten-free diet. Screening-identified individuals also demonstrate signs of impaired nutrition, growth, bone health, and quality of life which improve with treatment. Overall, celiac disease screening is viewed favorably by those identified through celiac disease screening programs.

SUMMARY

Individuals with screening-identified celiac disease may still incur complications from untreated disease and receive benefit from treatment with a gluten-free diet. More data is needed to determine the cost effectiveness of different mass screening approaches that incorporate the societal perspective towards screening.

Diagnostic performances of celiac disease serological tests among Saudi patients

BACKGROUND

: The prevalence of celiac disease (CD) is relatively high in Saudi Arabia, and little is known about the accuracy of serological markers in the local population. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of various serological markers for detecting CD in Saudi children and adults.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of 148 CD patients and 512 controls to assess the diagnostic performances of IgA anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies (TTG), IgG anti-TTG, IgA anti-deamidated gliadin peptide antibodies (anti-DGP), IgG anti-DGP, and endomysium antibodies (EMA).

RESULTS

: Immunoglobulin A (IgA) anti-TTG was the most sensitive test [98.9% (95% confidence interval (CI) 94.1-99.8%)], while EMA was the most specific [100%, 95%CI 98.6-100%]. By applying the criteria of IgA anti-TTG titers ≥10 × upper limit of normal (ULN) and positive EMA, 57.3% of patients could have avoided intestinal biopsy. IgG anti-DGP test had a sensitivity of 85.9% (95% CI = 77.3-91.5%) and a specificity of 93.5% (95% CI = (90.0-95.9%). Titers of IgA anti-TTG, IgA anti-DGP, and IgG anti-DGP were higher in CD patients with the Marsh 3c class than in those with the Marsh 3b and Marsh 3a classes. IgG anti-TTG and IgA anti-DGP had no additional diagnostic value.

CONCLUSIONS

: IgA anti-TTG and EMA are excellent CD markers in children and adults. The use of IgA anti-TTG titers ≥10 × ULN and positive EMA as criteria for CD diagnosis in children and adults might be a good alternative to intestinal biopsy.

Review article: Diagnosis of coeliac disease: a perspective on current and future approaches

Diagnostics will play a central role in addressing the ongoing dramatic rise in global prevalence of coeliac disease, and in deploying new non-dietary therapeutics. Clearer understanding of the immunopathogenesis of coeliac disease and the utility of serology has led to partial acceptance of non-biopsy diagnosis in selected cases. Non-biopsy diagnosis may expand further because research methods for measuring gluten-specific CD4+ T cells and the acute recall response to gluten ingestion in patients is now relatively straightforward. This perspective on diagnosis in the context of the immunopathogenesis of coeliac disease sets out to highlight current consensus, limitations of current practices, gluten food challenge for diagnosis and the potential for diagnostics that measure the underlying cause for coeliac disease, gluten-specific immunity.