Reliability of antitransglutaminase antibodies as predictors of gluten-free diet compliance in adult celiac disease.

OBJECTIVE: Strict lifelong compliance to a gluten-free diet (GFD) minimizes the long-term risk of mortality, especially from lymphoma, in adult celiac disease (CD). Although serum IgA antitransglutaminase (IgA-tTG-ab), like antiendomysium (IgA-EMA) antibodies, are sensitive and specific screening tests for untreated CD, their reliability as predictors of strict compliance to and dietary transgressions from a GFD is not precisely known. We aimed to address this question in consecutively treated adult celiacs. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, 95 non-IgA deficient adult (median age: 41 yr) celiacs on a GFD for at least 1 yr (median: 6 yr) were subjected to 1) a dietician-administered inquiry to pinpoint and quantify the number and levels of transgressions (classified as moderate or large, using as a cutoff value the median gluten amount ingested in the overall noncompliant patients of the series) over the previous 2 months, 2) a search for IgA-tTG-ab and -EMA, and 3) perendoscopic duodenal biopsies. The ability of both antibodies to discriminate celiacs with and without detected transgressions was described using receiver operating characteristic curves and quantified as to sensitivity and specificity, according to the level of transgressions. RESULTS: Forty (42%) patients strictly adhered to a GFD, 55 (58%) had committed transgressions, classified as moderate (< or = 18 g of gluten/2 months; median number 6) in 27 and large (>18 g; median number 69) in 28. IgA-tTG-ab and -EMA specificity (proportion of correct recognition of strictly compliant celiacs) was 0.97 and 0.98, respectively, and sensitivity (proportion of correct recognition of overall, moderate, and large levels of transgressions) was 0.52, 0.31, and 0.77, and 0.62, 0.37, and 0.86, respectively. IgA-tTG-ab and -EMA titers were correlated (p < 0.001) to transgression levels (r = 0.560 and R = 0.631, respectively) and one to another (p < 0.001) in the whole patient population (r = 0.834, N = 84) as in the noncompliant (r = 0.915, N = 48) group. Specificity and sensitivity of IgA-tTG-ab and IgA-EMA for recognition of total villous atrophy in patients under a GFD were 0.90 and 0.91, and 0.60 and 0.73, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In adult CD patients on a GFD, IgA-tTG-ab are poor predictors of dietary transgressions. Their negativity is a falsely secure marker of strict diet compliance.

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.