Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.




  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):


  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Help Celiac.com:
    eNewsletter
    Donate
  • Record is Archived

    This article is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Jefferson Adams
    Jefferson Adams

    Are Estimates of Celiac Disease Rates Too High?

    Reviewed and edited by a celiac disease expert.
    Are Estimates of Celiac Disease Rates Too High? - A new review questions estimates of celiac disease rates.
    Caption: A new review questions estimates of celiac disease rates.

    Celiac.com 01/25/2010 - A new systematic review by Italian researchers suggests that many studies showing rising or elevated rates of celiac disease are not backed up by clinical evidence, and are therefore suspect. The researchers say that rates of celiac disease are being over-estimated, mainly because tissue transglutaminase antibodies were the only diagnostic tool. As a result, many cases labeled as celiac disease in medical studies are not confirmed by biopsy.

    By the 1990s, celiac disease, which had been considered a rare condition, showed a marked increase, according to medical literature. Recently, researchers have projected celiac disease rates as high as 1 out of 100 people in the Western world.

    Celiac.com Sponsor (A12):
    To better understand the true prevalence of celiac disease in the general population that drove the researchers conducted their systematic review of published papers.

    The research team included Federico Biagi, Catherine Klersy, Davide Balduzzi, and Gino Roberto Corazza, affiliated with the Coeliac Centre/First Department of Internal Medicine, and the Biometry and Clinical Epidemiology at the Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo at the University of Pavia, Italy.

    They found that the overall prevalence of celiac disease in the general population appears to be around 1/160 people, but this varies widely according to the diagnostic criteria used in the original papers. Figures also vary by region and ethnicity, as has been well-established.

    Once studies were adjusted to include only biopsy-proven cases, rates of celiac disease remained within the historical averages, and show no signs of sharp rise or increase over time.

    Their initial search of medical literature for papers in English on celiac disease epidemiology since 1990 yielded 519 papers. Once the team eliminated studies with small sample sizes, and studies set up in primary care or endoscopy units, they were left with 40 papers focusing on the prevalence of celiac disease in the general population, plus an additional paper published in the present issue.

    The team realized that differences in study type, populations, diagnostic criteria, and sample sizes made a proper meta-analysis impossible. However, they divided and regrouped the papers according to their various characteristics and then classiï¬ed them based on the diagnostic criteria used in the original papers.

    They also determined whether there were any significant differences in rates when different types of populations, sample sizes, years of publications, geographic regions, and diagnostic criteria were assessed.

    The team was surprised to find that just four histologically confirmed studies suggesting a prevalence of celiac disease higher than 1/100.  On the other hand, seven biopsy-based papers suggested a prevalence lower than 1/400.

    Prevalence obtained with tissue transglutaminase antibodies only was markedly higher than that obtained through a histological diagnosis, while post-hoc comparisons showed that the prevalence obtained with TTA was signiï¬cantly higher than that obtained using histology or EMA.

    From these results, the team concludes that the prevalence of celiac disease in the general population has been over-estimated, mainly due to tissue transglutaminase antibodies being used as the only diagnostic tool.

    Source:

    • Open Original Shared Link


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Guest Kit Kellison

    Posted

    Dr. Fasano can be credited for the current gold-standard of celiac disease diagnosis confirmation using endoscopy. Now that he's backing off that, saying that sera confirmation appears to be enough...where does that leave this estimation?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest VICKIE

    Posted

    I was told that the only true exact diagnosis was biopsy. Serology in my case every time did not show celiac disease, however biopsy with a second opinion did, on the other hand a second biopsy showed leukocytic colitis and then my doctor told me I only had IBS. So what is the real truth in this matter?

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest a j ponder

    Posted

    This is a rubbish study - the biopsy has repeatedly been shown to be a crap tool to assess the severity of coeliac disease - and bunching a handful of studies together proves absolutely nothing when populations have such markedly different rates of coeliac disease (as was actually stated in the article). And this makes complete sense when you look at the genetic markers which vary considerably from population to population. On top of which doctors are stupid - they treat their patients like idiots - without even realising that they're ruining their own tests by not clearly ensuring the patient is ingesting significant amounts of gluten in the lead up to the test. On top of which what person in their right mind would let a doctor biopsy them after they've had a blood test that's 99- 100 percent specific. Yes, the blood test is a terrible screening test - but it is because it misses about 20% of full blown coeliacs - not because it is over-diagnosing the condition. So Viki ignore your blood test - you have celiac - because of this high false negative rate a positive biopsy trumps a negative blood test every time - in the same way that a positive blood test should trump a negative biopsy - because even good doctors can miss the specific patch that shows coeliac damage - and bad doctors and inexperienced doctors have a success rate that is astoundingly low.

     

    So the whole "Gold standard" thing is a load of croc designed to lower rates of coeliac - not only does it increase the number of people opting out of testing but there's also a reasonable chance of a false negative further artificially reducing the "coeliac" population. To get a real handle on all this we need to roll on AGA testing as the traditional concept of "Coeliac" is being proven to be more and more a construct of the belief that the condition of coeliac is rare - instead of the product of scientific evidence.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    Guest Sydney

    Posted

    This is a rubbish study - the biopsy has repeatedly been shown to be a crap tool to assess the severity of coeliac disease - and bunching a handful of studies together proves absolutely nothing when populations have such markedly different rates of coeliac disease (as was actually stated in the article). And this makes complete sense when you look at the genetic markers which vary considerably from population to population. On top of which doctors are stupid - they treat their patients like idiots - without even realising that they're ruining their own tests by not clearly ensuring the patient is ingesting significant amounts of gluten in the lead up to the test. On top of which what person in their right mind would let a doctor biopsy them after they've had a blood test that's 99- 100 percent specific. Yes, the blood test is a terrible screening test - but it is because it misses about 20% of full blown coeliacs - not because it is over-diagnosing the condition. So Viki ignore your blood test - you have celiac - because of this high false negative rate a positive biopsy trumps a negative blood test every time - in the same way that a positive blood test should trump a negative biopsy - because even good doctors can miss the specific patch that shows coeliac damage - and bad doctors and inexperienced doctors have a success rate that is astoundingly low.

     

    So the whole "Gold standard" thing is a load of croc designed to lower rates of coeliac - not only does it increase the number of people opting out of testing but there's also a reasonable chance of a false negative further artificially reducing the "coeliac" population. To get a real handle on all this we need to roll on AGA testing as the traditional concept of "Coeliac" is being proven to be more and more a construct of the belief that the condition of coeliac is rare - instead of the product of scientific evidence.

    A j, you sound like a cranky bitter person, upset with your diagnosis and hoping the rest of the world is just as screwed as you are. A high Ttg is not specific to celiac and can be indicative of other autoimmune disorders. Why would someone with celiac show no immune response in their blood? Why, unless the celiac is very recently activated, would someone with the disease show no sign of damaged villi? There is no big conspiracy theory here! Why the hell would doctors want to "artificially lower" celiac rates?? You need to accept the fact that doctors aren't all out to get us, and that if someone says they have celiac and their doctor says they don't, they have every right to go to another doctor or cut gluten anyway. Ever heard of gluten sensitivity? Just because gluten makes someone feel bad does not mean they have celiac disease! Accept your diagnosis and stop acting like the world is against you. An increased number of gluten free products on the shelves and increased volume of research popping up looking for cures and treatments shows that people are taking this disease seriously, and no conspiracy is at play.

    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments

  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Help Celiac.com:
    Donate
  • About Me

    Jefferson Adams

    Jefferson Adams is Celiac.com's senior writer and Digital Content Director. He earned his B.A. and M.F.A. at Arizona State University. His articles, essays, poems, stories and book reviews have appeared in numerous magazines, journals, and websites, including North American Project, Antioch Review, Caliban, Mississippi Review, Slate, and more. He is the author of more than 2,500 articles on celiac disease. His university coursework includes studies in science, scientific methodology, biology, anatomy, physiology, medicine, logic, and advanced research. He previously devised health and medical content for Colgate, Dove, Pfizer, Sharecare, Walgreens, and more. Jefferson has spoken about celiac disease to the media, including an appearance on the KQED radio show Forum, and is the editor of numerous books, including "Cereal Killers" by Scott Adams and Ron Hoggan, Ed.D.

    >VIEW ALL ARTICLES BY JEFFERSON ADAMS

     


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):
    Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):





    Celiac.com Sponsors (A17-M):




  • Related Articles

    Tina Turbin
    Celiac.com 11/30/2011 - Researchers have been talking about it for some time, raising the hopes of the celiac community: a drug to help relieve us from the harmful effects of gluten exposure. Celiac patients are closer than ever to having such a drug on the market, as Alvine Pharmaceuticals has announced that their drug ALV003 has shown promise in a clinical trial by reducing gluten-triggered harm in people with celiac disease.
    Celiac disease is an autoimmune reaction triggered by exposure to gluten, a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye, that causes the immune system to attack the small intestine, interfering with the absorption of nutrients and leading to malnutrition and a variety of other symptoms. The disease currently has only one treatment, which is non-drug: the gluten...


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 07/26/2013 - There are a number of highly specific and sensitive blood tests that can be used in diagnosing celiac disease; however histological examination of a biopsy taken by endoscopy remains the gold standard for celiac diagnosis.
    However, not every patient wants to undergo an endoscopy, and many will happily undergo additional blood tests to avoid or delay endoscopy.
    In an effort to help clinicians make accurate celiac diagnosis without endoscopy and biopsy, the company Nestec S.A. of Vevey, Switzerland, a research and testing subsidiary of Nestlé has obtained U.S. Patent No. 8,409,819, entitled "Methods to predict risk for celiac disease by detecting anti-flagellin antibody levels."
    The inventors have shown that a subset of at risk patients had elevated anti-...


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/26/2014 - Imagine being able to go to a party, or a restaurant, and test any food on your plate for gluten.
    A company called 6SensorLabs is developing a gluten sensor based on existing protein sensing technology that is already commercially available and proven to work. The company is looking to design a gluten test that can be used with all types of food.
    The portable test would work by placing a sample of food would be placed in a disposable pod and placing the pod in a sensor.
    Once activated, the device would tell you, in two minutes or less, if the food sample contained any gluten over the FDA standard of 20 ppm gluten or more.
    The sensor could also be used to detect gluten in any packaged foods.
    The sensor is designed to test a specific section of...


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 11/13/2014 - An anonymous donor has made a $2 million dollar contribution to the National Foundation for Celiac Awareness (NFCA).
    The donation is the largest in the organization's history, and will support the NFCA’s mission is to raise celiac disease awareness, promote research and testing testing, and improve the quality of life for celiacs eating a gluten-free diet.
    Since 2003, the NFCA has worked to promote celiac disease research and awareness.
    The grant will help to ensure support for the NFCA as it looks to increase research and awareness into the future.
    Stay tuned for updates on how the NFCA supplements or expands its ongoing efforts on behalf of people with celiac disease and gluten intolerance.


  • Recent Activity

    1. - CatherineWang replied to B1rdL0ver's topic in Related Issues & Disorders
      40

      Dealing with constant nausea and just feeling awful.

    2. - cristiana replied to BunnyBrown's topic in Related Issues & Disorders
      3

      Recently had my esophagus dilated

    3. - cristiana replied to twe0708's topic in Post Diagnosis, Recovery & Treatment of Celiac Disease
      54

      How Long Do Celiac Patients Live?

    4. - Exchange Students replied to Exchange Students's topic in Parents, Friends and Loved Ones of Celiacs
      2

      Exchange Students who are celiac in need of host

    5. - Scott Adams replied to Exchange Students's topic in Parents, Friends and Loved Ones of Celiacs
      2

      Exchange Students who are celiac in need of host


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      120,167
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Usedtolovebread
    Newest Member
    Usedtolovebread
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      120.2k
    • Total Posts
      1m

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Popular Now

    • Sunflowers06
      6
    • Momkaren
      10
    • Elizabeth M Blair
      5
    • B1rdL0ver
    • twe0708
      54
  • Popular Articles

    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
  • Upcoming Events

×
×
  • Create New...