No popular authors found.
Ads by Google:

Categories

No categories found.


Get Celiac.com's E-Newsletter




Ads by Google:



Follow / Share


  FOLLOW US:
Twitter Facebook Google Plus Pinterest RSS Podcast Email  Get Email Alerts

SHARE:

Popular Articles

No popular articles found.
Celiac.com Sponsors:

Swedish Study on the Causes of Death in Celiac Disease Patients

Arch Intern Med. 2003;163:1566-1572.
Ulrike Peters, PhD, MPH; Johan Askling, MD; Gloria Gridley, MS; Anders Ekbom, MD, PhD; Martha Linet, MD

Celiac.com 07/30/2003 - The following abstract paints a fairly bleak picture for those of us with celiac disease; however, after taking a closer look at it I believe that it has some serious limitations that should not be overlooked, and have likely produced skewed or irrelevant results. For example, the study does not indicate whether or not the patients in it followed a strict gluten-free diet. Other studies have shown that the mortality risk for celiacs decreases to that of the normal population when a gluten-free diet is followed for at least five years, and that it is also affected by how soon the diagnosis is made and how soon treatment begins. It is well known that not following a gluten-free diet will increase a celiacs risk of death by many causes to many times that of the normal population, which is precisely why it is so important to include such information in studies of this type. In my opinion doing a study like this and not including such data is like doing a study on diabetes where perhaps half or more people in the study do not take insulin but ought to, and then publishing the ultra-high mortality rate that would be its outcome: "Conclusion: Diabetics have a 20-fold mortality rate over the normal population." The conclusion would clearly not be true for those who took their insulin.

Additionally the time period that is covered by this study, 1964-1993, could be considered the dark ages of celiac disease, even in Europe (we actually may be just entering the Renaissance age for celiac disease here in the USA, but this could be argued!). Many doctors during this time did not stress enough to their patients the importance of following a strict gluten-free diet, just as many still do not even do this day. My doctor didnt. He just diagnosed me and said I shouldnt eat gluten (as opposed to telling me that it could kill me if I kept eating it), and he didnt even explain to me HOW to avoid it! Is it possible that some of the folks in this study, diagnosed as far back as 1964, might have had similar experiences with their doctors? I would be willing to bet that at least 50% of the people in this study (if not more) were not following a strict gluten-free diet, or were not following the diet at all. If this is true, it is kind of like studying a group of diabetics whose only treatment was to be told by their doctors that they should avoid sugar, which seems absurd if you think about it.

Last, the study has considerable bias in that it recruited only hospitalized celiacs, presumably because they were already significantly ill, and those who never made it into a hospital were excluded. It reports findings of auto-immune diseases and small bowel/lymphoma excesses--these are already well known--but what other researchers may disagree with is the scale of the excess--SMR is always a very crude method of expressing this in such studies. - Scott Adams (special thanks to Dr. Geoff Helliwell for his comments on this study)

Ads by Google:

Abstract:
"Background: Patients with celiac disease have an increased risk of death from gastrointestinal malignancies and lymphomas, but little is known about mortality from other causes and few studies have assessed long-term outcomes."

"Methods: Nationwide data on 10,032 Swedish patients hospitalized from January 1, 1964, through December 31, 1993, with celiac disease and surviving at least 12 months were linked with the national mortality register. Mortality risks were computed as standardized mortality ratios (SMRs), comparing mortality rates of patients with celiac disease with rates in the general Swedish population."

"Results: A total of 828 patients with celiac disease died during the follow-up period (1965-1994). For all causes of death combined, mortality risks were significantly elevated: 2.0-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.8-2.1) among all patients with celiac disease and 1.4-fold (95% CI, 1.2-1.6) among patients with celiac disease with no other discharge diagnoses at initial hospitalization. The overall SMR did not differ by sex or calendar year of initial hospitalization, whereas mortality risk in patients hospitalized with celiac disease before the age of 2 years was significantly lower by 60% (95% CI, 0.2-0.8) compared with the same age group of the general population. Mortality risks were elevated for a wide array of diseases, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma (SMR, 11.4), cancer of the small intestine (SMR, 17.3), autoimmune diseases (including rheumatoid arthritis [SMR, 7.3] and diffuse diseases of connective tissue [SMR, 17.0]), allergic disorders (such as asthma [SMR, 2.8]), inflammatory bowel diseases (including ulcerative colitis and Crohns disease [SMR, 70.9]), diabetes mellitus (SMR, 3.0), disorders of immune deficiency (SMR, 20.9), tuberculosis (SMR, 5.9), pneumonia (SMR, 2.9), and nephritis (SMR, 5.4)."

"Conclusion: The elevated mortality risk for all causes of death combined reflected, for the most part, disorders characterized by immune dysfunction."

Celiac.com welcomes your comments below (registration is NOT required).





Spread The Word







Related Articles



Comments




Rate this article and leave a comment:
Rating: * Poor Excellent
Your Name *: Email (private) *:




In Celiac.com's Forum Now:

All Activity
Celiac.com Celiac Disease & Gluten-Free Diet Forum - All Activity

@cyclinglady thanks for checking in Restricted diet didn't do much. Still had some VA last time they checked. Heath still otherwise fine, so RCD remains unlikely. My sxs kick in lockstep with life stress, so that kind of points to some general IBS stuff on top of celiac disease. Very doubtful I'm getting any gluten in, but fingers crossed my system is just a little hyper-vigilant, as I ponder on this thread.

I have always noticed that the table wine in Europe is pretty damn good! I am a wine lover and so is my husband but he does like his Green's beer.

The reason they set the limit at 20ppms is that through scientific study, they have proven that the vast majority of people with Celiac Disease do not have an autoimmune reaction to amounts below that......it is a safe limit for most. Also, just because that limit is set at 20ppms, does not mean that gluten-free products contain that amount of gluten. Testing for lower levels becomes more expensive with each increment down closer to 0-5ppms, which translates into higher priced products. Unless you eat a lot of processed gluten-free food, which can have a cumulative affect for some, most people do well with the 20ppm limit.

I'm in the Houston area so I'm assuming there are plenty of specialists around, though finding one that accepts my insurance might be hard. This might sound dumb, but do I search for a celiac specialist?? I'm so new to this and want to feel confident in what is/isn't wrong with my daughter. I'm with you on trusting the specialist to know the current research.

Hi VB Thats sounds like a good plan. Would it help to know that a frustrating experience in seeking diagnosis isn't unusual With your IGG result I'm sure a part of you is still wondering if they are right to exclude celiac. I know just how you feel as I too had a negative biopsy, but by then a gluten challenge had already established how severely it affected me. So I was convinced I would be found to be celiac and in a funny way disappointed not to get the 'official' stamp of approval. Testing isnt perfect, you've already learned of the incomplete celiac tests offered by some organisations and the biopsy itself can only see so much. If you react positively to the gluten free diet it may mean you're celiac but not yet showing damage in a place they've checked, or it may be that you're non celiac gluten sensitive, which is a label that for a different but perhaps related condition which has only recently been recognised and for which research is still very much underway. We may not be able to say which but the good news is all of your symptoms: were also mine and they all resolved with the gluten free diet. So don't despair, you may still have found your answer, it just may be a bit wordier than celiac! Keep a journal when you're on the diet, it may help you track down your own answers. Best of luck!