Advertisement
Journal Home
Search for

Volume 123, Issue 8, Pages 691-693 (August 2010)


View previous. 6 of 40 View next.

Celiac Disease Diagnosis: Simple Rules Are Better Than Complicated Algorithms

Carlo Catassi, MD, MPHab, Alessio Fasano, MDaCorresponding Author Informationemail address

Abstract 

Celiac disease is the only treatable autoimmune disease, provided that a correct diagnosis is achieved and a strict, lifelong gluten-free diet is implemented. The current diagnostic algorithm for celiac disease includes initial screening serological tests, followed by a confirmatory small intestinal biopsy showing the autoimmune insult typical of celiac disease. The biopsy, considered the diagnostic gold standard, has been recently questioned as a reliable and conclusive test for every case. Indeed, the wide variability of celiac disease-related findings suggests that it is difficult to conceptualize the diagnostic process into rigid algorithms that do not always cover the clinical complexity of this disease. Instead we find clinically useful the shifting to a quantitative approach that can be defined as the “4 out of 5” rule: the diagnosis of celiac disease is confirmed if at least 4 of the following 5 criteria are satisfied: typical symptoms of celiac disease; positivity of serum celiac disease immunoglobulin, A class autoantibodies at high titer; human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DQ2 or DQ8 genotypes; celiac enteropathy at the small bowel biopsy; and response to the gluten-free diet.

a Mucosal Biology Research and Center for Celiac Research, University of Maryland, School of Medicine, Baltimore

b Universita' Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy

Corresponding Author InformationRequests for reprints should be addressed to Alessio Fasano, MD, Mucosal Biology Research Center and Center for Celiac Research, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Health Science Facility II, Room S345, 20 Penn Street, Baltimore, MD 21201

 Funding: This manuscript was partially funded by the Center for Celiac Research, University of Maryland School of Medicine.

 Conflict of Interest: Both authors disclose no conflict of interests related to the content of this manuscript.

 Authorship: Both authors had access to the data and had equal role in writing the manuscript.

PII: S0002-9343(10)00359-1

doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2010.02.019


View previous. 6 of 40 View next.

Advertisement