4.3 Article

Pediatric Celiac Disease, Cryptogenic Hypertransaminasemia, and Autoimmune Hepatitis

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e31828dc5c5

关键词

autoimmune hepatitis; celiac disease; children; hypertransaminasemia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The association between celiac disease (CD) and liver disease in pediatrics is widely recognized, but its prevalence is unknown. This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the prevalence of CD in children with cryptogenic persistent hypertransaminasemia (HTS) or autoimmune hepatitis (AIH), and vice versa. Methods: We searched MEDLINE/PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and MD Consult from 1977 to May 2012 for studies reporting either CD and HTS or AIH. Pooled prevalences with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and relative risk (RR) were calculated. Results: Nine studies (2046 patients) were identified. Pooled prevalences of CD in children with mild, nonspecific cryptogenic persistent HTS and vice versa were 12.0% (95% CI 4.17-29.96) and 36.0% (95% CI 32.15-40.11), respectively. A gluten-free diet normalized transaminase levels in 77% to 100% of patients with CD within 4 to 8 months. Pooled prevalences of CD in children with AIH and vice versa were 6.3% (95% CI 3.87-11.73) and 1.4% (95% CI 0.84-2.15), respectively. The RR of HTS in children with CD versus the general population, and of CD in children with HTS was 6.55 (95% CI 5.65-7.60) and 11.59 (95% CI 3.80-35.33), respectively. The corresponding RR of AIH in children with CD was 188.54 (95% CI 92.23-385.43). The RR of CD in children with AIH was 6.63 (95% CI 3.86-11.40). Conclusions: CD is associated with elevated transaminase levels in about one-third of newly diagnosed children. Cryptogenic persistent HTS may signal gluten-dependent nonspecific mild hepatitis (12.0% of cases) or more rarely (6.3%) severe CD-related autoimmune hepatopathy. RRs confirm these trends in the considered associations.

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