Related Experiment Videos
Coeliac disease: is it time for mass screening?
M Luisa Mearin1, Annali Ivarsson, William Dickey
1Pediatric Gastroenterology, Department of Pediatrics, Leiden University Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands. m.l.mearin_manrique@lumc.nl
Best Practice & Research. Clinical Gastroenterology
|June 1, 2005
Summary
Coeliac disease (CD) affects up to 1% of European ancestry populations, but most cases go undiagnosed. While screening tools exist, the benefits of early CD detection through mass screening are uncertain due to potentially lower long-term complication risks.
Area of Science:
- Gastroenterology
- Public Health
- Medical Screening
Background:
- Coeliac disease (CD) affects up to 1% of European ancestry populations, with a majority of cases remaining undiagnosed.
- Available serological markers offer high sensitivity and specificity for CD detection, enabling population-wide screening.
- CD presents significant individual and community health burdens, including morbidity and potential long-term complications like gut malignancy and osteoporosis.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the appropriateness of mass population screening for coeliac disease (CD) using established screening principles.
- To assess the potential benefits and challenges of early CD diagnosis through screening, considering current understanding of disease complications and treatment adherence.
- To explore the implications of different screening methods, including serological testing and HLA typing, for CD detection.
Main Methods:
- Application of Wilson and Jugner's screening principles to coeliac disease.
- Review of current literature on CD prevalence, associated morbidities, and long-term complications.
- Consideration of diagnostic methods including serological markers and duodenal biopsy.
- Evaluation of HLA typing (DQ2/DQ8) as a pre-screening tool.
Main Results:
- While CD is prevalent, recent evidence suggests lower risks of malignancy and osteoporosis than previously assumed, potentially reducing the prophylactic benefits of early screening.
- Dietary gluten exclusion, the primary treatment for CD, poses compliance challenges, especially for asymptomatic individuals.
- The benefits of identifying milder forms of gluten-sensitive enteropathy (Marsh I, II lesions) through screening remain unknown, and treatment protocols for these cases require consensus.
- Screening via serum antibodies may necessitate lifelong repetition, while HLA typing, though enabling exclusion of many, carries ethical considerations.
Conclusions:
- The overall prophylactic benefits of mass coeliac disease screening may be limited due to revised estimates of long-term complication risks.
- Further research is needed to determine the clinical utility of screening for milder enteropathy forms and to establish treatment guidelines.
- The cost-effectiveness of coeliac disease screening programs, balancing screening/treatment costs against prevented morbidity, has not been calculated.