New and old criteria for diagnosing celiac disease: do they really differ? A retrospective observational study

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study is to compare two groups of celiac patients: the first one, in which diagnosis was based on a “biopsy sparing” approach according to the 2012 ESPGHAN criteria, and the second one, based on the biopsy approach like the one of the 1991 Revised Criteria, in order to find relevant difference for sex, M/F ratio, age at diagnosis, clinical features at the onset, presence and prevalence of concomitant autoimmune disorders.MethodsOur study involves 61 patients having the Celiac Disease (CD) onset from February 2013 to February 2020. The 32 patients who received diagnosis according “biopsy sparing” criteria were enrolled in group (1) The 29 patients who received diagnosis by duodenal biopsy were enrolled in group (2) Prevalence of comorbidities was analysed through chi-square test.ResultsIn group 1 the prevalence of comorbidities such as Insulin-Dependent Diabetes Mellitus (IDDM) and thyroiditis was of 53%, while in group 2 it was only of 24%. Analysing the IDDM prevalence between the two groups we found a relevant difference. At the same time, the prevalence of thyroiditis was also significantly different. In group 1, male patients, in particular, would seem to have a higher incidence of CD related autoimmune disorders.ConclusionsAn increased prevalence of IDDM, thyroiditis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) in the first group would show that the “biopsy sparing” approach could expose patients to a greater length of disease activity that might be responsible for the onset of such comorbidities. Further studies should be carried out on more numerous samples of patients in order to confirm or not these data.