4.6 Article

Screening for asymptomatic celiac disease among patients referred for bone densitometry measurement

期刊

BONE
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 970-974

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.bone.2003.07.002

关键词

celiac disease; bone mineral density; prevalence; anti-endomysial antibodies; tissue transglutaminase antibodies

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Celiac disease (CD) is a relatively common gastrointestinal disorder that can be asymptomatic. An increased prevalence of subclinical CD has been reported in many populations. Even among asymptomatic patients a reduction in bone mineral density (BMD) has been observed. The aim of this study was to evaluate the prevalence of silent CD in a cohort of consecutive individuals referred for bone densitometry measurement. Serum samples were taken from 454 women attending for bone densitometry (mean age: 56 +/- 11 years). Of the individuals evaluated, 89 had normal BMD and 365 had low BMD (T score < -1.0). Subjects were screened for the presence of serum IgA anti-endomysial antibodies (EMA) and IgA tissue transglutaminase (tTG) antibodies by indirect immunofluorescence and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA), respectively. BMD was measured by dual X-ray absorptiometry (DEXA) at the lumbar spine and femoral neck. Eight EMA tTG-positive individuals were identified in this population (1.8% or 1:57). Serologically positive women had a lower mean Z score at both the lumbar spine and femoral neck than EMA tTG-negative women. But this did not approach significance. There was no significant difference in the incidence of CD between the normal- and low-BMD groups in this dataset (P = 0.365). In conclusion, our study indicates that the prevalence of CD in our dataset is high. However, the frequency of asymptomatic CD among low-BMD individuals is similar to that among normal-BMD individuals in our population. These observations do not support the hypothesis that serological testing for CD may be a good accompaniment to DEXA scanning. (C) 2003 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

4.6
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