Clinical utility of urinary gluten immunogenic peptides in the follow-up of patients with coeliac disease.

BACKGROUND: Gluten-free diet (GFD) is the only treatment for patients with coeliac disease (CD) and its compliance should be monitored to avoid cumulative damage. AIMS: To analyse gluten exposures of coeliac patients on GFD for at least 24 months using different monitoring tools and its impact on duodenal histology at 12-month follow-up and evaluate the interval of determination of urinary gluten immunogenic peptides (u-GIP) for the monitoring of GFD adherence. METHODS: Ninety-four patients with CD on a GFD for at least 24 months were prospectively included. Symptoms, serology, CDAT questionnaire, and u-GIP (three samples/visit) were analysed at inclusion, 3, 6, and 12 months. Duodenal biopsy was performed at inclusion and 12 months. RESULTS: At inclusion, 25.8% presented duodenal mucosal damage; at 12 months, this percentage reduced by half. This histological improvement was indicated by a reduction in u-GIP but did not correlate with the remaining tools. The determination of u-GIP detected a higher number of transgressions than serology, regardless of histological evolution type. The presence of >4 u-GIP-positive samples out of 12 collected during 12 months predicted histological lesion with a specificity of 93%. Most patients (94%) with negative u-GIP in ≥2 follow-up visits showed the absence of histological lesions (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: This study suggests that the frequency of recurrent gluten exposures, according to serial determination of u-GIP, could be related to the persistence of villous atrophy and that a more regular follow-up every 6 months, instead of annually, provides more useful data about the adequate adherence to GFD and mucosal healing.

Gastroduodenal involvement in patients with familial adenomatous polyposis. Prospective study of the nature and evolution of polyps: evaluation of the treatment and surveillance methods applied.

OBJECTIVES: Analysis of the incidence rate and the evolution of duodenal and stomach polyps in our familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) patients, the suitability of the surveillance method and the cancer-preventing treatment applied and the analysis of the complications arising from each procedure employed. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine patients diagnosed with FAP underwent study and endoscopic surveillance of the upper digestive tract. Front-view and side-view endoscopies were used. Papillary biopsies were performed even when the papilla were macroscopically normal. The Spigelman classification was used to determine the seriousness of the condition and to establish the surveillance and treatment intervals. RESULTS: Duodenal and/or papillary polyps were presented by 79.3% of the patients. Endoscopic polypectomy was performed in 13 patients with duodenal polyps. Endoscopic polypectomies for the papilla were performed in all patients. One patient required a cephalic duodenopancreatectomy and another endoscopic ampullectomy. The condition did not become cancerous in any of the patients who underwent surveillance. We report two complications arising from treatment: one postpolypectomy haemorrhage and one stenosis of the biliary-enteric anastomosis after cephalic duodenopancreatectomy. CONCLUSION: Our study shows a high incidence rate of duodenal polyps in FAP patients. A minute examination of the duodenum and papilla is necessary, using side-view endoscopes and duodenal papilla biopsies even when papilla appears to be normal. None of the patients having completed the surveillance and the prescribed treatment developed cancer and all have a low Spigelman score. This method, therefore, seems to be adequate for the treatment and surveillance of duodenal polyps.