Z Gastroenterol 2021; 59(08): e265
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1733762
Ernährungsmedizinische und pharmakologische Intervention in der gastroenterologischen Pharmakologie
Montag, 13. September 2021, 15:10-16:30 Uhr, After-Work-Stream: Kanal 2
Dünndarm, Dickdarm und Proktologie

Adherence to celiac diagnostic guidelines: results from the German Celiac Registry (GeCeR)

S Koletzko
1   Dr. v. Haunersches Kinderspital, Gastroenterologie und Hepatologie, München, Deutschland
2   School of Medicine Collegium Medicum University of Warmia and Mazury, Department of Paediatrics, Olsztyn, Polen
,
C Sobotzki
3   Kompetenznetz Darmerkrankungen, IBD, Kiel, Deutschland
,
M Bloemacher
3   Kompetenznetz Darmerkrankungen, IBD, Kiel, Deutschland
,
R di Giuseppe
3   Kompetenznetz Darmerkrankungen, IBD, Kiel, Deutschland
,
S Franzenburg
3   Kompetenznetz Darmerkrankungen, IBD, Kiel, Deutschland
,
S Plachta-Danielzik
3   Kompetenznetz Darmerkrankungen, IBD, Kiel, Deutschland
,
B Bokemeyer
3   Kompetenznetz Darmerkrankungen, IBD, Kiel, Deutschland
4   University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Medical Clinic, Kiel, Deutschland
,
S Baas
5   Deutsche Zöliakiegesellschaft, Stuttgart, Deutschland
,
D Schuppan
6   Institute of Translational Immunology and Center for Celiac Disease, Food Allergy and Autoimmunity, Mainz, Deutschland
7   Harvard Medical School, Division of Gastroenterology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika
› Author Affiliations
 
 

    Background Guidelines for celiac disease (CeD) diagnosis request positive CeD specific autoantibodies against tissue-transglutaminase (TGA) or endomysium (EMA) and Marsh 2/3 lesions. Since 2012, the pediatric guidelines by ESPGHAN allow diagnosis without biopsies if < 18 years, TGA-IgA ≥10x normal and positive EMA in 2nd blood sample.

    Aim We aimed to analyse data from the German Celiac Registry (GeCeR) for guideline conform diagnosis.

    Methods CeD patients with completed self-reported baseline information received questionnaires on diagnostic work-up filled by their physicians. We divided participants into 4 groups: CeD diagnosis as adult prior (G1) or after (G2) 2012, and as child aged < 18 years prior (G3) or after 2012 (G4) 2012. We determined the proportion with guideline conform, non-conform or uncertain diagnosis in relation to age and year of diagnosis.

    Results From 11/2019 - 3/2021, 3,167 participants registered and 2.281 (72 %) completed questionnaires. Complete doctors´ forms were available for 551 patients: 75 % females, mean age 35.3 (2.3-88.9) years; age at diagnosis 28.1 (1.0-89.2); year of diagnosis 2012 (1965-2020). In G4, 52/188 (27.7 %) were diagnosed without biopsies. The rate of guideline conform diagnosis improved since 2012, but in both time-periods was higher in children than adults (Table). In 396 participants with reported TGA-IgA results, the percentage having ≥10xULN decreased with age at diagnosis from 72.6, 68.1, 58.8, 53.1, to 49.6 % at ages < 10, 10-20, 20-30, 30-40, ≥40 years, respectively.

    Conclusion In spite of improvement, at least 30 % of adults and 16 % of children are not diagnosed according to CeD guidelines in Germany, indicating poor quality of care.

    Tab. 1

     

    Diagnosed as adult/child

    Adult (> 18 years)

    Adult (> 18 years)

    Child (<18 years)

    Child (<18 years)

    Year of diagnosis (group)

    <2012 (G1)

    > 2012 (G2)

    <2012 (G3)

    > 2012 (G4)

    n

    131

    200

    32

    188

    Mean age (range)

    59.0 (27.4-84.0)

    45.6 (19.1-88.9)

    23.8 (11.1-67.7)

    10.0 (2.3-23.2)

    Age at diagnosis (range)

    42.7 (19.2-68.2)

    42.1 (18.2-89.2)

    5.4 (1.3-14.0)

    7.0 (1.0-17.5)

    Year of diagnosis (range)

    2003 (1978-2011)

    2016 (2012-2020)

    2001 (1965-2011)

    2017 (2012-2020)

    Diagnosis made according to CeD guidelines*

    Conform

    29.8 %

    60 %

    68.8 %

    83.0 %

    Unclear

    22.9 %

    10 %

    12.5 %

    0.5 %

    Not conform

    47.3 %

    30 %

    18.8 %

    16.5 %

    *G4 vs G2: p < 0.05, G3 vs G1: p < 0.05, G4 vs G3 p < 0.05, G2 vs G1 p < 0.05



    #

    Publication History

    Article published online:
    07 September 2021

    © 2021. Thieme. All rights reserved.

    Georg Thieme Verlag KG
    Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany