4.7 Review

Screening for Celiac Disease in Type 1 Diabetes: A Systematic Review

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 136, 期 1, 页码 E170-E176

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2014-2883

关键词

-

资金

  1. Novo Nordisk
  2. Medtronic
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. Sanofi Aventis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Prevalence rates of type 1 diabetes (T1D) and celiac disease (CD) vary from 1.6% to 16.4% worldwide. Screening guidelines are variable and not evidence based. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review of CD in T1D. METHODS: Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched. Studies were limited to those in English and in humans. We selected longitudinal cohort studies screening for CD in T1D with at least 5 years of follow-up. Screening rates, characteristics, and prevalence of biopsy-proven CD in people with T1D were extracted. RESULTS: We identified 457 nonduplicate citations; 48 were selected for full-text review. Nine longitudinal cohort studies in 11 157 children and adolescents with 587 cases of biopsyproven CD met the inclusion criteria. Median follow-up was 10 years (range: 5-18 years). The weighted pooled prevalence of CD was 5.1% (95% confidence interval: 3.1-7.4%). After excluding 41 cases with CD onset before T1D, CD was diagnosed in 218 of 546 (40%) subjects within 1 year, in 55% within 2 years, and in 79% within 5 years of diabetes duration. Two studies (478 cases) reported higher rates of CD in children aged <5 years at T1D diagnosis. The duration of follow-up varied across the included studies. CD screening frequency progressively decreased with increased T1D duration. CONCLUSIONS: Because most cases of CD are diagnosed within 5 years of T1D diagnosis, screening should be considered at T1D diagnosis and within 2 and 5 years thereafter. CD screening should be considered at other times in patients with symptoms suggestive of CD. More research is required to determine the screening frequency beyond 5 years of diabetes duration.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据