4.5 Article

Lymphocytic duodenosis: Aetiology and long-term response to specific treatment

期刊

DIGESTIVE AND LIVER DISEASE
卷 44, 期 8, 页码 643-648

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.dld.2012.03.006

关键词

Coeliac disease; Gluten-sensitive enteropathy; Helicobacter pylori infection; Lymphocytic duodenosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The clinical significance of lymphocytic duodenosis remains unclear. Aim: To prospectively assess the aetiology of lymphocytic duodenosis and the patterns of clinical presentation. Methods: Ninety consecutive patients with lymphocytic duodenosis and clinical symptoms of the coeliac disease spectrum were prospectively included. All subjects underwent serological testing and HLA genotyping for coeliac disease, assessment of Helicobacter pylori infection, and parasite stool examination. Intake of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was also recorded. The final aetiology of lymphocytic duodenosis was evaluated on the basis of the long-term response to specific therapy. Results: More than one initial potential aetiology was observed in 44% of patients. The final diagnosis was gluten-sensitive enteropathy alone or associated with Helicobacter pylori infection in 43.3%, Helicobacter pylori infection (without gluten-sensitive enteropathy) in 24.4%, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs intake in 5.5%, autoimmune disease in 3.3%, and parasitic infection in 2.2%. Among first degree relatives and patients with chronic diarrhoea, the most common final diagnosis was gluten-sensitive enteropathy. In contrast, in the group presenting with chronic dyspepsia the most common diagnosis was Helicobacter pylori infection ('Diarrhoea' vs 'Dyspepsia' groups, p = 0.008). Conclusions: Lymphocytic duodenosis is often associated with more than one potential initial aetiology. Clinical presentation may be useful to decide the initial therapeutic approach with these patients. (C) 2012 Editrice Gastroenterologica Italiana S.r.l. Published by Elsevier Ltd. 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

4.5
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