Comparative evaluation of serologic tests for celiac disease: a European initiative toward standardization.

BACKGROUND: Serologic methods have been used widely to test for celiac disease and have gained importance in diagnostic definition and in new epidemiologic findings. However, there is no standardization, and there are no reference protocols and materials. METHODS: The European working group on Serological Screening for Celiac Disease has defined robust noncommercial test protocols for immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgA gliadin antibodies and for IgA autoantibodies against endomysium and tissue transglutaminase. Standard curves were linear in the decisive range, and intra-assay variation coefficients were less than 5% to 10%. Calibration was performed with a group reference serum. Joint cutoff limits were used. Seven laboratories took part in the final collaborative study on 252 randomized sera classified by histology (103 pediatric and adult patients with active celiac disease, 89 disease control subjects, and 60 blood donors). RESULTS: IgA autoantibodies against endomysium and tissue transglutaminase rendered superior sensitivity (90% and 93%, respectively) and specificity (99% and 95%, respectively) over IgA and IgG gliadin antibodies. Tissue transglutaminase antibody testing showed superior receiver operating characteristic performance compared with gliadin antibodies. The K values for interlaboratory reproducibility showed superiority for IgA endomysium (0.93) in comparison with tissue transglutaminase antibodies (0.83) and gliadin antibodies (0.82 for IgG, 0.62 for IgA). CONCLUSIONS: Basic criteria of standardization and quality assessment must be fulfilled by any given test protocol proposed for serologic investigation of celiac disease. The working group has produced robust test protocols and reference materials available for standardization to further improve reliability of serologic testing for celiac disease.

Patient-centred screening for primary immunodeficiency: a multi-stage diagnostic protocol designed for non-immunologists.

Efficient early identification of primary immunodeficiency disease (PID) is important for prognosis, but is not an easy task for non-immunologists. The Clinical Working Party of the European Society for Immunodeficiencies (ESID) has composed a multi-stage diagnostic protocol that is based on expert opinion, in order to increase the awareness of PID among doctors working in different fields. The protocol starts from the clinical presentation of the patient; immunological skills are not needed for its use. The multi-stage design allows cost-effective screening for PID within the large pool of potential cases in all hospitals in the early phases, while more expensive tests are reserved for definitive classification in collaboration with an immunologist at a later stage. Although many PIDs present in childhood, others may present at any age. The protocols presented here are therefore aimed at both adult physicians and paediatricians. While designed for use throughout Europe, there will be national differences which may make modification of this generic algorithm necessary.

Strategy for serological screening of celiac disease

SCOPUS: ar.j

Guidelines on artificial nutrition versus hydration in terminal cancer patients

Whether a terminally ill cancer patient should be actively fed or simply hydrated through subcutaneous or intravenous infusion of isotonic fluids is a matter of ongoing controversy among clinicians involved in the care of these patients. Under the auspices of the European Association for Palliative Care, a committee of experts developed guidelines to help clinicians make a reasonable decision on what type of nutritional support should be provided on a case-by-case basis. It was acknowledged that part of the controversy related to the definition of the terminal cancer patient, since this is a heterogeneous group of patients with different needs, expectations, and potential for a medical intervention. A major difficulty is the prediction of life expectancy and the patient's likely response to vigorous nutritional support. In an attempt to reach a decision on the type of treatment support (artificial nutrition vs. hydration) which would best meet the needs and expectations of the patient, we propose a three-step process: Step I: define the eight key elements necessary to reach a decision: Step II: make the decision; and Step III: reevaluate the patient and the proposed treatment at specified intervals. Step I involves assessing the patient concerning the following: 1) oncological/clinical condition; 2) symptoms; 3) expected length of survival; 4) hydration and nutritional status; 5) spontaneous or voluntary nutrient intake; 6) psychological profile; 7) gut function and potential route of administration; and 8) need for special services based on type of nutritional support prescribed. Step II involves the overall assessment of pros and cons, based on information determined in Step I, in order to reach an appropriate decision based on a well-defined end point (i.e. improvement of quality of life; maintaining patient survival; attaining rehydration). Step III involves the periodic reevaluation of the decision made in Step II based on the proposed goal and the attained result.

Quality of care for cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: Development of key interventions and outcome indicators using a two-round Delphi approach

Purpose: Clear recommendations on how to guide patients with cancer on home parenteral nutrition (HPN) are lacking as the use of HPN in this population remains a controversial issue. Therefore, the aims of this study were to rank treatment recommendations and main outcome indicators to ensure high-quality care and to indicate differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Methods: Treatment recommendations, identified from published guidelines, were used as a starting point for a two-round Delphi approach. Comments and additional interventions proposed in the first round were reevaluated in the second round. Ordinal logistic regression with SPSS 2.0 was used to identify differences in care concerning benign versus malignant patients. Results: Twenty-seven experts from five European countries completed two Delphi rounds. After the second Delphi round, the top three most important outcome indicators were (1) quality of life (QoL), (2) incidence of hospital readmission and (3) incidence of catheter-related infections. Forty-two interventions were considered as important for quality of care (28/42 based on published guidelines; 14/42 newly suggested by Delphi panel). The topics 'Liver disease' and 'Metabolic bone disease' were considered less important for cancer patients, together with use of infusion pumps (p = 0.004) and monitoring of vitamins and trace elements (p = 0.000). Monitoring of QoL is considered more important for cancer patients (p = 0.03). Conclusion: Using a two-round Delphi approach, we developed a minimal set of 42 interventions that may be used to determine quality of care in HPN patients with malignancies. This set of interventions differs from a similar set developed for benign patients. © 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

The prognosis of incurable cachectic cancer patients on home parenteral nutrition: A multi-centre observational study with prospective follow-up of 414 patients

Background: The role of home parenteral nutrition (HPN) in incurable cachectic cancer patients unable to eat is extremely controversial. The aim of this study is to analyse which factors can influence the outcome. Patients and methods: We studied prospectively 414 incurable cachectic (sub)obstructed cancer patients receiving HPN and analysed the association between patient or clinical characteristics and surviving status. Results: Median weight loss, versus pre-disease and last 6-month period, was 24% and 16%, respectively. Median body mass index was 19.5, median KPS was 60, median life expectancy was 3 months. Mean/median survival was 4.7/3.0 months; 50.0% and 22.9% of patients survived 3 and 6 months, respectively. At the multivariable analysis, the variables significantly associated with 3- and 6-month survival were Glasgow Prognostic Score (GPS) and KPS, and GPS, KPS and tumour spread, respectively. By the aggregation of the significant variables, it was possible to dissect several classes of patients with different survival probabilities. Conclusions: The outcome of cachectic incurable cancer patients on HPN is not homogeneous. It is possible to identify groups of patients with a ≥6-month survival (possibly longer than that allowed in starvation). The indications for HPN can be modulated on these clinical/biochemical indices. © The Author 2013. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society for Medical Oncology. All rights reserved.