Jump to content

  • 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:
    Support Our Content
    eNewsletter
    Donate

Incidence

Joyous

Recommended Posts

Joyous Enthusiast
Joyous
Posted

I've read different things, and I'm curious about the incidence of Celiac Disease and gluten intolerance in the US. Which statistics are the most likely to be accurate?

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):


happygirl Collaborator
happygirl
Posted

The latest and most accurate results came out a few year ago from Dr. Alessio Fasano's Celiac Disease Center at the University of Maryland. They reported that 1 in 133 Americans have Celiac.

According to their webpage: Spearheaded the largest epidemiology study ever performed in the US, resulting in more accurate prevalence data: instead of only 1 out 10,000, we now know the prevalence is 1 out of 133. Open Original Shared Link

From www.celiac.com: https://www.celiac.com/articles/647/1/Preva...-133/Page1.html

Prevalence of Celiac Disease in the United States is Found to be 1 in 133

Celiac.com 2/13/2003 - According to a recently published large-scale multi-year and multi-center study, 1 in 133, or a total of 2,131,019 Americans have celiac disease. Alessio Fasano, MD, et. al., and colleagues screened 13,145 subjects using serum antigliadin antibodies and anti

Joyous Enthusiast
Joyous
Posted
  • Author
The latest and most accurate results came out a few year ago from Dr. Alessio Fasano's Celiac Disease Center at the University of Maryland. They reported that 1 in 133 Americans have Celiac.

According to their webpage: Spearheaded the largest epidemiology study ever performed in the US, resulting in more accurate prevalence data: instead of only 1 out 10,000, we now know the prevalence is 1 out of 133. Open Original Shared Link

From www.celiac.com: https://www.celiac.com/articles/647/1/Preva...-133/Page1.html

Prevalence of Celiac Disease in the United States is Found to be 1 in 133

Celiac.com 2/13/2003 - According to a recently published large-scale multi-year and multi-center study, 1 in 133, or a total of 2,131,019 Americans have celiac disease. Alessio Fasano, MD, et. al., and colleagues screened 13,145 subjects using serum antigliadin antibodies and anti

happygirl Collaborator
happygirl
Posted

The problem with non-Celiac gluten intolerance is that it not as easily identified as Celiac is. Celiac is well-defined (while it may be restrictive, we do have a definition of it) but gluten intolerance isn't. Does that include a gluten allergy? Or an intolerance of IgG or IgA? Or what if you are negative on all tests but you react to gluten and don't know why? What defines a reaction?

Yes, there are more than just 1 in 133 that have a gluten problem. Its hard to say....some doctors say its rare, other doctors think almost everyone has a gluten problem.

The EMA test is pretty specific/sensitive for testing for Celiac.

Here's the full article: Open Original Shared Link

from the article: DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA

The criteria for the diagnosis of celiac disease were either EMA-positive serologic findings with an intestinal biopsy consistent with celiac disease or EMA-positive serologic findings with HLA haplotypes compatible with celiac disease when a biopsy was not performed. Endoscopic biopsy of the intestine was recommended and performed if possible for all individuals who were either EMA positive or were AGA IgG positive and IgA deficient.

Sailing Girl Apprentice
Sailing Girl
Posted

So you had to have either:

-- a positive blood test with a positive biopsy, or

-- a positive blood test with certified American Celiac genes (DQ2 or DQ8).

Those who tested negative on the blood test but had completely flattened villi were not counted.

Those who tested positive on the blood test but didn't have "official" Celiac genes (those recognized by American MDs) were not counted.

Those who didn't have enough damage either in their intestines or elsewhere (yet!) to test positive on the blood test were not counted.

How many people does that fail to count? How many people on this board wouldn't have made the cut? Neither my daughter nor I would have made it into the 1 of 133 -- yet gluten is poison to us.

I'm sorry -- I don't think 1 in 133 comes even close to describing the extent of this condition.

Joyous Enthusiast
Joyous
Posted
  • Author
:blink: wow
Guest CD_Surviver
Guest CD_Surviver
Posted

what i have read about the stitistic is that 3% of all americans have celiac and only 3% of that 3% have been diagnosed!

Lauren

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):


happygirl Collaborator
happygirl
Posted

Less than 1% (1 in 133) have Celiac, and 97% of that percentage don't know they have it. And this only counts "traditional" Celiac.

hathor Contributor
hathor
Posted

There are some study results of gluten sensitivity among different populations here:

Open Original Shared Link

I'm not sure adding it all up what the overall percentage would be. From somewhere I have the figure of 35% in my mind, but I don't know if that was derived from this work or something else.

A doctor in New Zealand reports a gluten sensitivity rate (I don't know how he determines it) there of 10%. I don't know why it would be that different from ours.

I think definitions and diagnostic criteria must come into play when it comes to statistics. And when folks don't agree on those, you aren't going to have agreement on the incidence stats either.

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      131,683
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748
    Jean Tonkin
    Newest Member
    Jean Tonkin
    Joined
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      121.4k
    • Total Posts
      1m
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):



  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):


  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • Scott Adams
      Draft gluten-free ciders… can they be trusted ?

      By Scott Adams · Posted

      I'd go with a vodka tonic, but that's just me😉
    • Rejoicephd
      Draft gluten-free ciders… can they be trusted ?

      By Rejoicephd · Posted

      That and my nutritionist also said that drinking cider is one of the worst drink choices for me, given that I have candida overgrowth.  She said the combination of the alcohol and sugar would be very likely to worsen my candida problem.  She suggested that if I drink, I go for clear vodka, either neat or with a splash of cranberry.   So in summary, I am giving ciders a rest.  Whether it's a gluten risk or sugars and yeast overgrowth, its just not worth it.
    • Inkie
      Tea Bags and Gluten

      By Inkie · Posted

      Thank you for the information ill will definitely bring it into practice .
    • Scott Adams
      Tea Bags and Gluten

      By Scott Adams · Posted

      While plain, pure tea leaves (black, green, or white) are naturally gluten-free, the issue often lies not with the tea itself but with other ingredients or processing. Many flavored teas use barley malt or other gluten-containing grains as a flavoring agent, which would be clearly listed on the ingredient label. Cross-contamination is another possibility, either in the facility where the tea is processed or, surprisingly, from the tea bag material itself—some tea bags are sealed with a wheat-based glue. Furthermore, it's important to consider that your reaction could be to other substances in tea, such as high levels of tannins, which can be hard on the stomach, or to natural histamines or other compounds that can cause a non-celiac immune response. The best way to investigate is to carefully read labels for hidden ingredients, try switching to a certified gluten-free tea brand that uses whole leaf or pyramid-style bags, and see if the reaction persists.
    • Scott Adams
      Inconclusive results

      By Scott Adams · Posted

      This is a challenging and confusing situation. The combination of a positive EMA—which is a highly specific marker rarely yielding false positives—alongside strongly elevated TTG on two separate occasions, years apart, is profoundly suggestive of celiac disease, even in the absence of biopsy damage. This pattern strongly aligns with what is known as "potential celiac disease," where the immune system is clearly activated, but intestinal damage has not yet become visible under the microscope. Your concern about the long-term risk of continued gluten consumption is valid, especially given your family's experience with the consequences of delayed diagnosis. Since your daughter is now at an age where her buy-in is essential for a gluten-free lifestyle, obtaining a definitive answer is crucial for her long-term adherence and health. Given that she is asymptomatic yet serologically positive, a third biopsy now, after a proper 12-week challenge, offers the best chance to capture any microscopic damage that may have developed, providing the concrete evidence needed to justify the dietary change. This isn't about wanting her to have celiac; it's about wanting to prevent the insidious damage that can occur while waiting for symptoms to appear, and ultimately giving her the unambiguous "why" she needs to accept and commit to the necessary treatment. This article might be helpful. It breaks down each type of test, and what a positive results means in terms of the probability that you might have celiac disease. One test that always needs to be done is the IgA Levels/Deficiency Test (often called "Total IGA") because some people are naturally IGA deficient, and if this is the case, then certain blood tests for celiac disease might be false-negative, and other types of tests need to be done to make an accurate diagnosis. The article includes the "Mayo Clinic Protocol," which is the best overall protocol for results to be ~98% accurate.    
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

NOTICE: This site places This site places cookies on your device (Cookie settings). on your device. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.