4.3 Article

Is there an association between coeliac disease and inflammatory bowel diseases? A study of relative prevalence in comparison with population controls

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 42, 期 10, 页码 1214-1220

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS AS
DOI: 10.1080/00365520701365112

关键词

coeliac disease; Crohn's disease; colitis; inflammatory bowel disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. The relationship between coeliac disease and inflammatory bowel disease ( IBD) is controversial. The aim of this study was to determine the prevalence of coeliac disease in IBD and the prevalence of IBD in coeliac disease. Material and methods. Patients were enrolled from specialist IBD and coeliac clinics. Antigliadins, endomysial, tissue transglutaminase antibody and total IgA levels were measured in IBD patients. Patients with positive antibodies were offered a duodenal biopsy. The notes on coeliac patients were reviewed for colonoscopic and biopsy findings. Controls were recruited from the local population. Results. The study included 305 patients with coeliac disease, 354 with IBD and 601 healthy controls. The IBD group comprised 154 ulcerative colitis ( UC) cases, 173 Crohn's disease, 18 indeterminate colitis and 9 cases of microscopic colitis. Forty-seven patients had positive antibodies and 3 had villous atrophy on biopsy. All three patients had positive anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies but only two were endomysial antibody ( EMA) positive. Ten coeliac patients had IBD ( 5 UC and 5 lymphocytic colitis). Five controls had coeliac disease and 2 had IBD ( 1 Crohn's disease and 1 UC). Stepwise multiple logistic regression showed only antibody positivity as being significant ( p<0.0001). Conclusions. The prevalence of IBD in coeliac disease was increased 10-fold compared with that in controls ( odds ratio 9.98, 95% CI 2.8-45.9, p = 0.0006), while the prevalence of coeliac disease in IBD was comparable with that in controls ( odds ratio 1.02, 95% CI, 0.24-4.29, p = 1.0).

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

4.3
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