Shiha Mohamed G, Wickramasekera Nyantara, Raju Suneil A, Penny Hugo A, Sanders David S
Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Medicine and Population Health, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
Academic Unit of Gastroenterology, Sheffield Teaching Hospitals, Sheffield, UK.
United European Gastroenterol J. 2025 Apr;13(3):330-337. doi: 10.1002/ueg2.12651. Epub 2024 Aug 27.
There is potential for a paradigm shift from a biopsy-to a serology-based diagnosis of coeliac disease in selected adult patients. However, it remains unknown if this approach would be acceptable to patients. We aimed to explore patients' preferences regarding the no-biopsy approach for coeliac disease diagnosis.
We developed a discrete choice experiment survey containing 12 different scenarios with two possible alternatives (endoscopy & biopsy or serology) to estimate patient preferences. The scenarios were based on 5 attributes: risk of false positive results, risk of missed diagnosis, waiting time to start treatment, risk of complications, discomfort, or pain. Patient preferences and the relative importance of the attributes were estimated using a mixed logit model.
In total, 385 people (70.6% female, 98.2% white) across the four nations of the United Kingdom completed the survey. Respondents preferred a serology-based diagnosis over endoscopy and duodenal biopsies (59% vs. 41%, β coefficient 1.54, p < 0.001). Diagnostic test accuracy (p < 0.001), shorter waiting time to start treatment (p < 0.001), and discomfort levels during the procedure (p < 0.001) were the most important attributes to respondents. The risk of complications, including perforation and bleeding, did not significantly influence respondents' choices. Respondents with previous endoscopy experience were more willing to undergo endoscopy compared with those who never had one.
The no-biopsy approach to diagnosing coeliac disease is acceptable and preferred by patients over endoscopy and biopsy. Our findings highlight the importance of patient-centred care and shared decision-making in guiding diagnostic strategies for optimal patient outcomes.
在特定成年患者中,乳糜泻的诊断可能会从活检为主转变为血清学诊断。然而,尚不清楚这种方法是否为患者所接受。我们旨在探讨患者对乳糜泻无活检诊断方法的偏好。
我们开展了一项离散选择实验调查,包含12种不同场景,每种场景有两种可能的选择(内镜检查及活检或血清学检查),以评估患者的偏好。这些场景基于5个属性:假阳性结果风险、漏诊风险、开始治疗的等待时间、并发症风险、不适或疼痛。使用混合逻辑回归模型估计患者的偏好以及各属性的相对重要性。
英国四个地区共有385人(70.6%为女性,98.2%为白人)完成了调查。受访者更倾向于基于血清学的诊断而非内镜检查和十二指肠活检(59%对41%,β系数为1.54,p < 0.001)。诊断测试准确性(p < 0.001)、开始治疗所需的较短等待时间(p < 0.001)以及检查过程中的不适程度(p < 0.001)是受访者最重要的属性。包括穿孔和出血在内的并发症风险并未显著影响受访者的选择。有内镜检查经验的受访者比从未做过内镜检查的受访者更愿意接受内镜检查。
乳糜泻的无活检诊断方法是可以接受的,并且患者比内镜检查和活检更倾向于此方法。我们的研究结果强调了以患者为中心的护理和共同决策在指导诊断策略以实现最佳患者结局方面的重要性