Search

Objective: This study aimed to assess if there is secondary care medical inertia towards coeliac disease (CD)., Design: Group (1): Time from primary care presentation to diagnostic endoscopy was quantified in 151 adult patients with a positive endomysial antibody test and compared with 92 adult patients with histologically proven inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Group (2): Across four hospitals, duodenal biopsy reports for suspected CD were reviewed (n=1423). Group (3): Clinical complexity was compared between known CD (n=102) and IBD (n=99) patients at their respective follow-up clinic appointments. Group (4): 50 gastroenterologists were questioned about their perspective on CD and IBD., Results: Group (1): Suspected coeliac patients waited significantly longer for diagnostic endoscopy following referral (48.5 (28-89) days) than suspected patients with IBD (34.5 (18-70) days; p=0.003). Group (2): 1423 patients underwent diagnostic endoscopy for possible CD, with only 40.0% meeting guidelines to take four biopsies. Increased diagnosis of CD occurred if guidelines were followed (10.1% vs 4.6% p<0.0001). 12.4% of newly diagnosed CD patients had at least one non-diagnostic gastroscopy in the 5 years prior to diagnosis. Group (4): 32.0% of gastroenterologists failed to identify that CD has greater prevalence in adults than IBD. Moreover, 36.0% of gastroenterologists felt that doctors were not required for the management of CD., Conclusion: Prolonged waiting times for endoscopy and inadequacies in biopsy technique were demonstrated suggesting medical inertia towards CD. However, this has to be balanced against rationalising care accordingly. A Coeliac UK National Patient Charter may standardise care across the UK., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background & Aims: Celiac disease is underdiagnosed. Many patients are examined by endoscopy, but celiac disease is missed or not detected. We evaluated the accuracy of finger prick-based point-of-care tests in the detection of celiac disease and developed an algorithm for diagnosis., Methods: We performed a prospective study of 2 groups of patients with celiac disease evaluated at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield (United Kingdom) from March 2013 through February 2014. In group 1, patients at high risk of celiac disease who tested positive for endomysial antibody (n = 55) were evaluated using the Biocard test (BHR Pharmaceuticals, Nuneaton, UK) and the Celiac Quick Test (Biohit Healthcare UK, Ellesmere Port, UK), which measure antibodies to tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG), and the Simtomax test (Tillotts Pharma, Rheinfelden, Switzerland), which measures deamidated gliadin peptide antibodies (DGP). Patients in group 2 (508 consecutive patients who underwent an endoscopy examination for any indication) received the DGP test, and also were evaluated using a diagnostic algorithm that incorporated results from the DGP test and data on symptoms. In both groups, point-of-care tests were taken at the time of endoscopy and results were compared with results from histologic analyses of duodenal biopsy specimens from all patients., Results: In group 1, the DGP test identified patients with celiac disease with 94.4% sensitivity, the Celiac Quick Test identified patients with 77.8% sensitivity (P = .03 vs the DGP test), and the Biocard test identified patients with 72.2% sensitivity (P = .008 vs the DGP test). In group 2, the DGP test identified patients with celiac disease with 92.7% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 83.0-97.3), 85.2% specificity (95% confidence interval, 81.5-88.3), a positive predictive value of 49.2% (95% confidence interval, 40.3-58.2), and a negative predictive value of 98.7% (95% confidence interval, 96.8-99.5). Measurement of serum anti-tTG identified patients with celiac disease with 91.2% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 81.1-96.4), 87.5% specificity (95% confidence interval, 84.0-90.4), a positive predictive value of 53.0% (95% confidence interval, 43.6-62.2), and a negative predictive value of 98.5% (95% confidence interval, 96.5-99.4). The algorithm identified patients with celiac disease with 98.5% sensitivity; its use could reduce duodenal biopsies by 35%., Conclusions: In a prospective study, a test for DGP identified patients with celiac disease with similar levels of sensitivity and specificity as standard serologic analysis of anti-tTG. Use of the DGP test before endoscopy could increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of celiac disease. Further studies, in lower-prevalence populations, are required to assess the impact of the test in clinical practice., (Copyright © 2015 AGA Institute. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Celiac disease (CD) is a common but underdiagnosed condition. A rapid point-of-care test (POCT) could reduce lead times and missed diagnoses., Objective: To assess the utility of an immunoglobulin (Ig) A tissue transglutaminase (TTG) antibody POCT in an endoscopic setting., Design: Prospective observational study., Setting: A single UK university hospital., Patients: Patients presenting with suspected CD, known CD, and routine endoscopy for upper GI symptoms., Interventions: All patients were tested with POCT, serum TTG, endomysial antibody (EMA), and upper GI endoscopy with duodenal biopsies at the same visit., Main Outcome Measurements: Comparison was made with histology in all cases, with villous atrophy regarded as diagnostic of CD., Results: A total of 576 patients (63.5% female, mean [± standard deviation] age 49.7 years [± 17.6 years]) were recruited. A total of 523 patients had no prior diagnosis of CD, and 53 patients had known CD coming for reassessment. A total of 117 patients were newly diagnosed with CD, and 82 were positively identified by the POCT. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value were 70.1%, 96.6%, 85.4%, and 91.8%, respectively. In comparison, TTG and EMA both performed significantly better than the POCT. Sensitivity and specificity of TTG were 91.0% and 83.5%, respectively, and EMA were 83.8% and 97.5%, respectively. Of patients with known CD coming for reassessment, 26 had villous atrophy, and POCT results were positive in 16 (61.5%). There was poor agreement between POCT and standard serology., Limitations: High pre-test probability of CD., Conclusion: The performance of this POCT was disappointing compared with standard serology and cannot at present be recommended within the context of an endoscopy unit., (Copyright © 2014 American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy. Published by Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)