Antibody negative coeliac disease presenting in elderly people—an easily missed diagnosis
BMJ 2005; 330 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7494.775 (Published 31 March 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:775All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Antonio TURSI,M.D.
Consultant Gastroenterologist
Digestive Endoscopy Unit, “Lorenzo Bonomo” Hospital, Andria (BA) - Italy
Sir,
I read with extreme interest the recent case report by David Sanders and
collegues about the uncommon case of a 79-year old man in whom celiac
disease was diagnosed despite antibodies negativity (1). This case
confirms several other recent reports, which showed that in some celiac
patients antibodies may be negative. In particular, seronegative celiac
disease seems to be quite frequent in patients with Marsh I-IIIa lesions
(2-6). This is a very important challenge in clinical practice, since most
of general pratictioners (and most of gastroenterologists) advice and
carry out gastroscopy in suspected coeliac disease only after a positive
antibodies assessment. On the other hand, it is not easy to obtain
patients’ consent to gastroscopy in presence of mild gastrointestinal
symptoms (as dyspepsia) or in absence of them but suspected for celiac
disease (as patients complaining for iron-deficiency anaemia or
osteoporosis), and negative for serological searching. How we can overcome
this problem? In their recent excellent review, Armin Alaedini and Peter
Green underline the concept of intestinal biopsy in high clinical
suspicion of celiac disease and irrespective of serological results (7).
However, I think that other non-invasive methods should be carried out to
select patients to undergo gastroscopy. In particular, I think that tests
evaluating small bowel absorption should be performed in every case of
suspicious celiac disease and irrespective of serological searching, since
they may supply more information about small bowel function. In fact we
cannot forget that coeliac disease is a malapsorptive syndrome, and that
it affect always small bowel function.
We performed a sorbitol H2 breath test in every patient suspected for
celiac disease as adjunctive non invasive method assessing small bowel
function. Sorbitol, a hexahydroxy alcohol used as a sugar substitute in
many dietetic foods and as a drug vehicle, has been recently used to
diagnose celiac patients, since its supply at low dose and concentration
to patients with celiac disease resulted in an increased excretion of H2
with respect to healthy controls (8). At the same time, it has been showed
that this test may be useful as a screening tool in patients with celiac
disease (9), as well as we demonstrate more recently its effectiveness
both in detecting histological lesions in patients affected by
subclinical/silent form of celiac disease (10) and in detecting
histological damage in first-degree seronegative relatives (11). Sorbitol
H2 breath test is useful even in borderline gluten-sensitive enteropathy,
in whom histology is often confounding or misleading or inconsistent for
coeliac disease but clinical features are consistency for celiac disease
(as iron deficiency anaemia not responding to oral iron supplementation):
in these cases sorbitol H2 breath test- positivity before gluten-free
diet and sorbitol H2 breath test- negativity after gluten-free diet
showed a small bowel restoration after gluten withdrawal and permitted to
made a definitive diagnosis of celiac disease (12).
Unfortunately, this test shows high sensitivity but low specificity in
detecting small bowel histological damage, since also diseases involving
small bowel (as Crohn’s disease) may show abnormal sorbitol H2 breath test
(13). So, I don’t think that sorbitol H2 breath test may replace
serological tests nor intestinal biopsy. However, Sorbitol H2 breath test
is a cheap, easy and non-invasive method to assess small bowel function,
and I think that it may supply a valid contribution in detecting
intestinal damage even in seronegative patients and in selecting patients
to undergo small intestinal biopsy.
REFERENCES
1) Sanders DS; Hurlstone DP, McAlindon ME, Hadjuvassiliou M, Cross SS,
Wild G, Atkins CJ. Antibody negative celiac disease presenting in elderly
people – an easily missed diagnosis. BMJ 2005;330: 775-6
2) Rostami K, Kerckhaert J, Tiemessen R, von Blomberg ME, Meijer JWR,
Mulder CJJ. Sensitivity of antiendomysium and antigliadin antibodies in
untreated celiac disease: disappointing in clinical practice. Am J
Gastroenterol 1999;94: 888-94
3) Dickey W, Hughes DF, McMillan SA. Reliance on serum endomysial antibody
testing underestimates the true prevalence of coeliac disease by one
fifth. Scand J Gastroenterol 2000;35: 181-3
4) Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Giorgetti G, Gigliobianco A, Lombardi D,
Gasbarrini G. Low prevalence of antigliadin and anti-endomysium antibodies
in subclinical/silent coeliac disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 1507-
10
5) Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Giorgetti G. Prevalence of anti-tissue
transglutaminase antibodies in different degrees of intestinal damage in
celiac disease. J Clin Gastroenterol 2003; 36: 219-221
6) Abrams JA, Diamone B, Rotterdam H, Green PHR. Seronegative celiac
disease: increased prevalence with lesser degrees of villous atrophy. Dig
Dis Sci 2004;49: 546-50
7) Alaedini A, Green PHR. Narrative review. Celiac disease: understanding
a complex autoimmune disordes. Ann Intern Med 2005;142: 289-98
8) Corazza GR, Strocchi A, Rossi R, Sirola D , Gasbarrini G. Sorbitol
malabsorption in normal volunteers and in patients with coeliac disease.
Gut 1988;29: 44-8
9) Pelli MA, Capodicasa E, De Angelis V, Morelli A, Bassotti G. Sorbitol
H2-breath test in celiac disease. Importance of early positivity.
Gastroenterol Int 1998;11: 65-8
10) Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Giorgetti GM. Sorbitol H2-Breath test versus
anti-endomysium (EMA) antibodies for the diagnosis of subclinical/silent
coeliac disese. Scand J Gastroenterol 2001;36: 1170-2
11) Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Giorgetti GM, Inchingolo CD. Effectiveness of
sorbitol H2 breath test in detecting histological damage among relatives
of coeliacs. Scand J Gastroenterol 2003;38: 727-731
12) Tursi A, Brandimarte G. The symptomatic and histological response to a
gluten-free diet in patients with borderline enteropathy. J Clin
Gastroenterol 2003;36(1): 13-17
13) Tursi A, Giorgetti GM, Brandimarte G, Elisei W. High prevalence of
celiac disease among patients affected by Crohn’s disease. Inflamm Bowel
Dis 2005; (in press)
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
Unforgiving Master of Non-Specificity And Disguise
The review by Sander’s et al. [1] shares insights from seronegative subgroup of coelics showing us another feature of non-specificity of gluten-sensitive enteropathy spectrum. Their report reminds us how coeliac disease’s (CD) behaviour could simply be beyond clinician’s expectations, the reason for which most sufferers remain under and/or undiagnosed. Despite many published reports on seronegative coeliacs since we first characterised their clinical presentation in 1998-99, this subgroup understandably continues to be forgotten or not included in diagnostic workup, unless presenting with coeliac crisis. Why? Because, we know that non-elucidated tricks and non-specificities in the nature of this common and tricky disorder including atypical clinical symptoms, atypical serology and histology, makes the diagnostic pathway extremely difficult. We have still no clue as to how high the prevalence of sero-negative cases might be as this has not been investigated or even estimated. Do the clinicians know that excluding IgA-deficient cases, ± 40% of coeliac patients could present with negative serology [2-3]? If yes we should clearly expect a higher prevalence for CD, as epidemiological studies are obviously based on serological tests. A significant number of patients seen in Gastroenterology clinics are presenting with IBS and atypical symptoms but again, who knows how many of them could be seronegative coeliacs? How could we find them?
It’s time to forget the classical presentation and focus on non-specific specificities of CD spectrum. As Peter Watson highlighted in the same issue, we may improve the detection rate by a combination of serological tests instead of using only one antibody test.
Biopsies taken from only 2nd part of duodenum seems to be inefficient, as CD could affect any part of small bowels from bulb to terminal ileum [4-5]. Very often symptomatic cases present with negative serology and/or normal biopsy. Bear in mind that the same cases might present with positive results later in life like in Sander’s et al. case. Therefore, CD cannot be excluded based on one serology and biopsy attempt. Repeating the tests, i.e. after a few months to 2 years, would be the key steps in detecting sufferers in disguise.
1.Sanders DS, Hurlstone DP, McAlindon ME, Hadjivassiliou M, Cross SS, Atkins CJ.Antibody negative coeliac disease presenting in elderly people--an easily missed diagnosis. BMJ. 2005;2;330:775-6.
2.Abrams JA, Diamond B, Rotterdam H, Green PH. Seronegative celiac disease: increased prevalence with lesser degrees of villous atrophy. Dig Dis Sci. 2004;49:546-50.
3. Rostami K, Kerckhaert J, Tiemessen R, von Blomberg BM, Meijer JW, Mulder CJ. Sensitivity of antiendomysium and antigliadin antibodies in untreated celiac disease: disappointing in clinical practice. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999;94:888-94
4. Meijer JW, Wahab PJ, Mulder CJ. Small intestinal biopsies in celiac disease: duodenal or jejunal? Virchows Arch. 2003;442:124-8.
5. Dickey W, Hughes DF. Histology of the terminal ileum in coeliac disease. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;39:665-7.
Competing interests: Associate, Medical
Advisory Council, Coeliac UK
Competing interests: No competing interests