Celiac Disease is Misdiagnosed Based on Serology Only in a Substantial Proportion of Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although the diagnostic process in celiac disease (CeD) has been addressed in several international guidelines, little is known about the actual proceeding in current clinical practice. This study investigated the initial presentation, the diagnostic process, follow-up evaluations, and adherence to a gluten-free diet in CeD patients in a real-life setting in Switzerland from a patient's perspective. METHODS: We performed a large patient survey among unselected CeD patients in Switzerland. RESULTS: A total of 1689 patients were analyzed. The vast majority complained of both gastrointestinal and nonspecific symptoms (71.5%), whereas 1.8% reported an asymptomatic disease course. A total of 35.8% CeD patients were diagnosed by a nongastroenterologist. The diagnostic process differed between nongastroenterologists and gastroenterologists, with the latter more often using duodenal biopsy alone or in combination with serology (94.7% vs. 63.0%) and nongastroenterologists more frequently establishing the diagnosis without endoscopy (37.0% vs. 5.3%, P<0.001). Follow-up serology after 6 months was performed only in half of all patients (49.4%), whereas 69.9% had at least 1 follow-up serology within the first year after diet initiation. About 39.7% had a follow-up endoscopy with duodenal biopsies (after a median of 12 mo; range, 1 to 600 mo). The likelihood of receiving any follow-up examination was higher in patients initially diagnosed by a gastroenterologist. CONCLUSIONS: A significant proportion of CeD patients are diagnosed by nongastroenterologists. Under the diagnostic lead of the latter, more than a third of the patients receive their diagnosis on the basis of a positive serology and/or genetics only, in evident violation of current diagnostic guidelines, which may lead to an overdiagnosis of this entity.

The perspective of celiac disease patients on emerging treatment options and non-celiac gluten sensitivity.

BACKGROUND: Non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) and emerging treatment options are hot topics in the celiac disease (CeD) scientific literature. However, very little is known about the perspective on these issues of CeD patients. METHODS: We performed a large patient survey among unselected CeD patients in Switzerland. RESULTS: A total of 1689 patients were analyzed. 57.5% have previously heard of NCGS. 64.5% believe in the existence of this entity. Regarding a potential influence of NCGS on CeD awareness, 31.7% show a positive and 27.5% a negative perception. Patients with prior use of alternative medicine and women more often have heard of and believe in the existence of NCGS vs. those never having used alternative methods and men, respectively (66.9 vs. 56.9%, p=0.001 and 78.5 vs. 69.0%, p=0.001; 60.7 vs. 44.2%, p<0.001 and 71.0 vs. 60.8%, p=0.002). Women and patients ≥30 years more often show a negative attitude towards NCGS (32.2% vs. 24.8%, p=0.024 and 32.2% vs. 24.2%, p=0.018). With regard to emerging treatment options for CeD, 43.3% have previously heard of novel agents, more women than men (46.0 vs. 38.0%, p=0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Perception of and attitude towards NCGS differ depending on sex, age and prior use of alternative medicine. Knowledge of the progress towards emerging treatment options is currently limited.

Celiac disease diagnosis still significantly delayed - Doctor's but not patients' delay responsive for the increased total delay in women.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient data on diagnostic delay and associated factors in celiac disease (CeD) as well as on its potential impact on the course of disease. METHODS: Specifically taking its two components - patients' and doctors' delay - into account, we performed a large systematic patient survey study among unselected CeD patients in Switzerland. RESULTS: We found a mean/median total diagnostic delay of 87/24 months (IQR 5-96), with a range from 0 up to 780 months and roughly equal fractions of patients' and doctors' delay. Both mean/median total (93.1/24 vs. 60.2/12, p<0.001) and doctors' (41.8/3 vs. 23.9/2, p<0.001) diagnostic delay were significantly higher in female vs. male patients, whereas patients' delay was similar, regardless of preceding irritable bowel syndrome diagnosis. Patients with a diagnostic delay shorter than 2 years were significantly less often in need of steroids and/or immunosuppressants, substitution for any nutritional deficiency but more often free of symptoms 6 and 12 months after diagnosis. CONCLUSIONS: There is a substantial diagnostic delay in CeD, which is associated with a worse clinical outcome and significantly longer in female patients. This increased diagnostic delay in women is due to doctors' but not patients' delay and cannot be explained by antecedent IBS prior to establishing the CeD diagnosis.