McGowan Kelly E, Lyon Martha E, Loken Steven D, Butzner J Decker
Department of Pediatrics, Calgary Laboratory Services, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Clin Chem. 2007 Oct;53(10):1775-81. doi: 10.1373/clinchem.2007.090308. Epub 2007 Aug 10.
The aim of this study was to retrospectively examine how positive IgA-endomysial antibody (EMA) test results for celiac disease were being interpreted and acted on by physicians in the Calgary Health Region.
We reviewed consecutive EMA test results, with or without a serum IgA, obtained during a 17-month period. Seropositive tests were cross-referenced to the surgical database to determine the number of patients who underwent intestinal biopsy and the results of the biopsy. We sent questionnaires to the ordering physicians of positive tests with no record of intestinal biopsy.
Among 11,716 EMA tests in 9533 patients, 349 results were positive in 313 patients (3%). Intestinal biopsies were performed in 218 (70%) of the seropositive patients; 194 of them were diagnostic of celiac disease. Celiac disease was also found in 10 EMA-negative patients. Of the 109 positive tests performed in 95 patients with no subsequent biopsy, 28 had appropriate indications to not perform a biopsy; the most common reason being that the test had been ordered to follow up on a previous biopsy-proven diagnosis of celiac disease (n = 21). For 33 other positive test results without a subsequent biopsy, management appeared to be inappropriate, most commonly (n = 21) because of a recommendation to follow a gluten-free diet despite lack of a tissue diagnosis of celiac disease. For the remaining 48 positive EMA results, administrative issues prevented evaluation (n = 19), the patients refused further evaluation (n = 11), or physician surveys were not returned (n = 18).
Celiac disease affected 2% of patients, with a similar prevalence in male and female patients. Most positive EMA tests (77%) were appropriately managed by physicians. Beginning a gluten-free diet without biopsy or failing to follow up on a positive EMA test remain common errors of management.
本研究的目的是回顾性地研究卡尔加里健康地区的医生如何解读和处理乳糜泻的IgA-肌内膜抗体(EMA)检测阳性结果。
我们回顾了在17个月期间获得的连续EMA检测结果,无论是否有血清IgA。血清学阳性检测结果与手术数据库进行交叉核对,以确定接受肠道活检的患者数量和活检结果。我们向EMA检测阳性但无肠道活检记录的开单医生发送了问卷。
在9533例患者的11716次EMA检测中,313例患者(3%)的349次结果为阳性。218例(70%)血清学阳性患者接受了肠道活检;其中194例诊断为乳糜泻。在10例EMA检测阴性的患者中也发现了乳糜泻。在95例未进行后续活检的患者中进行的109次阳性检测中,28次有不进行活检的适当指征;最常见的原因是该检测是为了跟进先前活检证实的乳糜泻诊断(n = 21)。对于其他33次阳性检测结果且未进行后续活检的情况,处理似乎不恰当,最常见的情况(n = 21)是尽管缺乏乳糜泻的组织诊断,但仍建议采用无麸质饮食。对于其余48次EMA阳性结果,行政问题妨碍了评估(n = 19),患者拒绝进一步评估(n = 11),或医生调查问卷未返回(n = 18)。
乳糜泻影响2%的患者,男性和女性患者的患病率相似。大多数EMA检测阳性结果(77%)得到了医生的适当处理。在没有活检的情况下开始无麸质饮食或未能跟进EMA检测阳性结果仍然是常见的处理错误。