Tag Archives: duodenitis

Nonspecific Duodenal Histologic Findings Common in Children with Trisomy 21

Posted on by

E Alexander et al. JPGN 2023; 77: 184-190. The Spectrum of Duodenal Histologic Findings in Patients With Trisomy 21: A Multicenter Study

This retrospective study of patients with trisomy 21 (T21) who underwent EGD between 2000-2020. Key findings:

  • Among 836 patients with T21, 419 (50.1%) of whom had duodenal histologic abnormalities.
  • 290 of 419 had villous atrophy (VA) and of those, 172 of 290 met celiac disease (CD) diagnostic criteria, while 118 of 290 did not meet CD criteria (nonspecific VA).
  • Only one of the 118 with nonspecific VA had markedly abnormal celiac serology (TTG IGA >10 times ULN) but had no IELs on biopsy and did not respond to GFD. Four patients with nonspecific VA were later diagnosed with celiac disease over a median of 2.5 years with conversion to abnormal celiac serology.
  • Among the 129 with duodenitis without villous atrophy, 38 (29%) had increased intraepithelial lymphocytes and two patients were diagnosed with CD many years later (development of VA and positive celiac serology.

The authors offer an algorithm (Figure 2) to assist clinical approach based on biopsy results in this population.

  • In those with no villous atrophy, if Marsh score of 0/1, biopsies not consistent with celiac disease. In those with Marsh score of 2 (which is rare), consider as consistent with celiac disease (see next bullet point).
  • In those with villous atrophy consistent with celiac disease, assess response to gluten free diet (GFD). In those without a response, consider RD consult to evaluate exposures and HLA-typing as next steps.
  • In those with villous atrophy NOT consistent with celiac disease, obtain serology (TTG IgA, EMA, IgA, DGP IgG). If serology is negative, consider peptic duodenitis or SIBO treatments and assess/discontinue medications for potential for mucosal damage. If serology is positive, consider HLA-typing, review pathology slides, assess for competing disorders, and could need f/u endoscopy.

My take: Overall, ~20% of patients with T21 undergoing endoscopy, will have pathology consistent with celiac disease; this represents ~40% of those with abnormal histology. In the other 60% with abnormal histology, many have alternative explanations for the histologic findings (like peptic duodenitis). Some will evolve to meeting the diagnostic criteria for CD with time indicating need for ongoing monitoring. This study highlights the diagnostic uncertainty in those with potential for seronegative celiac disease.

Related blog posts:

Extent of Disease: Microscopic or Endoscopic Classification?

Posted on by

Several recent articles highlight the divergence between microscopic and endoscopic classification of disease.

  • Verstraete et al. JPGN 2016; 62: 242-5.
  • Asthon et al. JPGN 2016; 62: 246-51.
  • Pashankar et al. JPGN 2016; 62: 314-16.

The first two references describe histology in comparison to endoscopic extent of disease in pediatric Crohn’s and the 3rd reference provides information on the finding of “duodenitis.”

Verstraete et al selected 60 patients  randomly from their cohort for retrospective review.  Two physicians independently reviewed the patients.  In describing extent of disease, the extent of disease (Paris Classification) was discordant in 34 (56.6%) when comparing  macroscopic disease (imaging and endoscopy) to macroscopic/microscopic combined.  In addition, there was high interobserver variability of the physicians when the physicians reviewed just macroscopic findings (κ= 0.53).

Asthton et al examined data from 172 pediatric patients with inflammatory bowel disease.  They found that histologic disease was more extensive than endoscopic findings.  For example, among those with ileal biopsies, 49% had endoscopic findings compared with 71.3% having histologic disease.

Currently, the Paris classification relies on endoscopic findings; however, together these two studies suggest that the microscopic findings need to be considered as well. How often areas with microscopic disease will eventually develop endoscopic lesions is not clear.

Pashankar et al, reviewed pathology reports over a 5-year periods with 2772 children (mean age 10.6 years).  They identified duodenitis in 352 with a prevalence rate of 12.7%. Gastritis was seen in 64% of children with duodenitis. Interestingly, 63% of the cases with histologic duodenitis had normal endoscopic appearance. Reported reasons for duodenitis:

  • Celiac disease 32%
  • Crohn’s disease 13%
  • Ulcerative colitis 3%
  • Helicobacter pylori infection 6%
  • Functional dyspepsia 7%

The remaining children (36%) were considered to have nonspecific duodenitis.  The authors state: “this finding is similar to the high percentage of nonspecific duodenitis (60%) in adults.”

My take: It is difficult to know how important microscopic findings are in many cases.  With inflammatory bowel disease, whether/how to incorporate microscopic findings in classification is unclear.  With regard to the finding of microscopic duodenitis, when a specific etiology has not been identified, this leads to lots of questions:

  • How important is this finding?
  • How should this be treated?
  • How much additional workup and followup is needed?
  • How helpful is your pathologist –is the threshold for abnormality too low histologically?

Related blog posts:

marriage colonoscopy