SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Journal of Human Rhythm / 2018 / Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1

Seroprevalence of Celiac Disease in Patients with Presumed Diagnosis of Diarrhea Predominant Irritable Bowel Disease

Ezgi AKTAŞ
Teslime AYAZ
Halil RAKİCİ
Damla TÜFEKÇİ
Neslihan OZYURT
Pages
44–51
Publication Date
2018-03-26
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

No difference was notedbetween seropositive and seronegative patients in terms of gender, active smoking, co-morbid psychiatric disorder and laboratoryfindings.Conclusion In conclusion, our findings revealed that non-negligible percentage of patients with suspected IBS-D had positive serological findingsfor CD and thereby emphasize that “test and treat” strategy for CD in patients with presumed IBS-D may be worthwhile.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Object This study aims to determine seroprevalence of celiac disease (CD) in patients with presumed diarrhea predominant irritable boweldisease (IBS-D).Methods A total of 100 patients with presumed IBS-D (mean(SD) age: 42.8(16.8) years, 64.0% were females) were included in this crosssectional single-centre study.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Seroprevalence of CD specific anti-tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG) antibodies (anti-tTG IgA and anti-tTG IgG) andendomysial (EMA) antibody were determined, while demographic characteristics and laboratory findings were compared between CDseronegative and seropositive patients.Results Anti-tTG IgG antibody was positive in 17.0% of patients, as followed by anti-tTG IgA antibody positivity in 7.0% and anti-EMA antibodypositivity in 12.0% of patients.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:No difference was notedbetween seropositive and seronegative patients in terms of gender, active smoking, co-morbid psychiatric disorder and laboratoryfindings.Conclusion In conclusion, our findings revealed that non-negligible percentage of patients with suspected IBS-D had positive serological findingsfor CD and thereby emphasize that “test and treat” strategy for CD in patients with presumed IBS-D may be worthwhile.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Diyare ağırlıklı irritabıl bağırsak hastalığı · çölyak hastalığı · seroloji

Abstract

Object This study aims to determine seroprevalence of celiac disease (CD) in patients with presumed diarrhea predominant irritable boweldisease (IBS-D).Methods A total of 100 patients with presumed IBS-D (mean(SD) age: 42.8(16.8) years, 64.0% were females) were included in this crosssectional single-centre study. Data on patient demographics, smoking status, co-morbid psychiatric disorders and blood biochemistrywere recorded. Seroprevalence of CD specific anti-tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG) antibodies (anti-tTG IgA and anti-tTG IgG) andendomysial (EMA) antibody were determined, while demographic characteristics and laboratory findings were compared between CDseronegative and seropositive patients.Results Anti-tTG IgG antibody was positive in 17.0% of patients, as followed by anti-tTG IgA antibody positivity in 7.0% and anti-EMA antibodypositivity in 12.0% of patients. Positive findings for at least one antibody was noted in 17(17.0%) patients including positivity for singleantibody in 3(3.0%) patients, two antibodies in 9(9.0%) patients and three antibodies in 5 (5.0%) patients. No difference was notedbetween seropositive and seronegative patients in terms of gender, active smoking, co-morbid psychiatric disorder and laboratoryfindings.Conclusion In conclusion, our findings revealed that non-negligible percentage of patients with suspected IBS-D had positive serological findingsfor CD and thereby emphasize that “test and treat” strategy for CD in patients with presumed IBS-D may be worthwhile.

Özet

Amaç: Diyare ağırlıklı irritabl barsak sendromu (İBS-D) hastalarında çölyak hastalığı (ÇH) seroprevalansının belirlenmesiYöntem Bu kesitsel tek-merkezli çalışmaya, İBS-D tanısı konulmuş 100 hasta (ort(SS) yaş: 42.8(16.8) yıl, %64.0’ü kadın) dahil edildi. Hastalarındemografik özellikleri, sigara içme durumu, eş-zamanlı psikiyatrik hastalık varlığı ve kan biyokimyası sonuçları kaydedildi. Anti-dokutransglutamaz(anti-tTG) antikorları (anti-tTG IgA ve anti-tTG IgG) ve endomisyum antikoru (anti-EMA) temelinde ÇH seroprevalansıbelirlenerek; seropozitif ve seronegatif hastalar demografik özellikler ve laboratuvar bulguları açısından karşılaştırıldı.Bulgular Hastaların %17’sinde anti-tTG IgG, %12.0’sinde anti-EMA ve %7’sinde anti-tTG IgA antikoru pozitif olarak saptandı. Hastaların17(%17.0)’sinde en az bir antikor pozitifliği mevcut olup, bu hastaların 3(%3.0)‘ünde tek değer, 9 (9.0%)’unda iki değer [2(%2.0)hastada anti- tTG IgA + anti-tTG IgG, 7(%7.0) hastada anti-tTG IgG + anti-EMA] ve 5(%5.0) ‘inde ise üç değer (anti-tTG IgA + anti-tTGIgG + anti-EMA) üzerinden pozitiflik saptandı. ÇH seronegatif ve seropozitif hastalar arasında cinsiyet, aktif sigara içiciliği, eş-zamanlıpsikiyatrik hastalık varlığı ve laboratuvar bulgular açısından anlamlı bir farklılık gözlenmedi.Sonuç Sonuç olarak, bulgularımız ÇH serolojik bulgularının İBS-D hastalarının önemli bir kısmında pozitif olduğunu göstermekte ve dolayısıylaIBS-D hastalarında ÇH için “test ve tedavi et” stratejisinin faydalı olabileceğine işaret etmektedir

🔖

Cite This Article

AKTAŞ, E., AYAZ, T., RAKİCİ, H., TÜFEKÇİ, D., OZYURT, N. (2018). Seroprevalence of Celiac Disease in Patients with Presumed Diagnosis of Diarrhea Predominant Irritable Bowel Disease. Journal of Human Rhythm, Cilt: 4 - Sayı: 1, 44–51. https://ajindex.com/articles/835794

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Bellini M, Tosetti C, Costa F, Biagi S, et al. The general practitioner’s approach to irritable bowel syndrome: from intention to practice. Dig Liver Dis 2005;37:934-39
  2. Videlock EJ, Chang L. Irritable bowel syndrome: current approach to symptoms, evaluation, and treatment. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2007;36:665-85
  3. Longstreth GF, Thompson WG, Chey WD, Houghton LA, et al. Functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology 2006;130:1480-91
  4. Talley NJ. Irritable bowel syndrome. Intern Med J 2006;36:724–8
  5. Mayer EA. Irritable bowel syndrome. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1692–9
  6. Kellow JE. Introduction: a practical evidence based approach to the diagnosis of functional gastrointestinal disorders. Am J Gastroenterol 2010;105:743–6
  7. Ozden A. Irritable bowel syndrome. 2nd ed. Ankara: Turkish Gastroenterology Foundation Publications; 2006. [in Turkish] 8. Sertbas Y. Prevalence and clinical characteristics of irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in police officers in Istanbul. Sci Res Essays 2014;9:535-9
  8. Karaman N, Turkay C, Yonem O. Irritable bowel syndrome prevalence in city center of Sivas. Turk J Gastroenterol 2003;14:128–31
  9. Drossman DA, Dumitrascu DL. Rome III: new standard for functional gastrointestinal disorders. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis 2006;15:237–41
  10. Svendsen JH, Munck LK, Andersen JR. Irritable bowel syndrome: prognosis and diagnostic safety. A 5-year follow-up study. Scand J Gastroenterol 1985;20:415–8
  11. Vanner SJ, Depew WT, Paterson W, DaCosta LR, et al. Predictive value of the Rome Criteria for diagnosing the irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:2912–7
  12. Frissora CL, Koch KL. Symptom overlap and comorbidity of irritable bowel syndrome with other conditions. Curr Gastroenterol Rep 2005;7:264-71
  13. Drossman DA. Irritable bowel syndrome: how far do you go in the workup? Gastroenterology 2002;121:1512–5
  14. Burbige EJ. Irritable bowel syndrome: diagnostic approaches in clinical practice. Clin Exp Gastroenterol 2010;3:127-37
  15. James MW, Scott BB. Coeliac disease: the cause of the various associated disorders? Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2001;13:1119-21
  16. Green PH, Jabri B. Coeliac disease. Lancet 2003;362:383-91.Review
  17. Crowe SE. In the clinic. Celiac disease. Ann Intern Med 2011;154:ITC5- 1–ITC5-16, quiz ITC5-16
  18. Tjon JML, van Bergen J, Konig F. Celiac disease: how complicated can it get? Immunogenetics 2010;62:641–51
  19. Zipser RD, Patel S, Yahya KZ, Baisch DW, Monarch E. Presentations of adult c