EAL

CD: Bone Density (2006)

Citation:

Walters JR, Banks LM, Butcher GP, Fowler CR. Detection of low bone mineral density by dual energy x ray absorptiometry in unsuspected suboptimally treated celiac disease. Gut 1995; 37(2):220-224.

PubMed ID: 7557572

Study Design:

Non-Randomized Crossover Trial

Class:

C - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.

Quality Rating:

NEUTRAL: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.

Research Purpose:

To determine the prevalence of osteopenia in healthy, treated adult celiac disease patients under long term follow-up in our clinic.

Inclusion Criteria:

Group of treated patients had celiac disease diagnosed more than 2 years previously by proximal small intestine biopsy and had shown clinical and histological improvement on gluten withdrawal. They reported no current symptoms attributable to celiac disease and all claimed to be strictly adhering to a gluten-free diet.

Exclusion Criteria:

None specifically mentioned.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

50 unselected outpatients under follow up invited to participate.

Design

Nonrandomized Clinical Trial, Cross-Sectional

Blinding used (if applicable)

No blinding used.

Intervention (if applicable)

Gluten free diet for at least 2 years.

Statistical Analysis

Bone mineral density measurements expressed both in terms of absolute areal bone mineral density values (g/cm2) and as Z scores corrected for age, sex, ethnic origin, and weight using normal British standard values.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

Bone mineral density measurements performed and questionnaire completion. Small bowel biopsy specimens had been obtained within 2 years from 5 patients, others invited to have a repeat biopsy, which were obtained by 12 more patients.

Dependent Variables

Bone mineral density measurements made by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry in the total body, lumbar spine (L2 - L4), femoral neck, and Ward's triangle
Total body fat and lean tissue also obtained by DEXA
Questionnaire asked about symptoms, menopausal status, diet, milk intake, calcium supplements, vitamin D, HRT with estrogen, exercise, smoking and medication.

Independent Variables

Gluten-free diet assessed through questionnaire, results not presented.

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: 50 patients invited to participate. 46 agreed to have bone mineral density measurements performed. 2 patients were not analyzed further (1 Asian, 1 amputee).

Attrition (final N): 44 total patients, 34 asymptomatic treated celiac disease patients (29 female, 5 male) and 10 newly diagnosed (within 2 years)/untreated patients.

Age: Not mentioned.

Ethnicity: White

Anthropometrics: Age- and sex-matched controls

Location: Gastroenterology Unit, Royal Postgraduate Medical School, London.

Summary of Results:

Other Findings

The 10 recently diagnosed/untreated patients had low bone mineral density in all regions. Mean age adjusted Z scores were low in both men and women at all sites with the reduction in total body mineral density being the most noticeable. All reductions were highly significant (p < 0.001 for total body, lumbar spine and femoral neck, p < 0.01 for Ward's triangle). Some of these patients had hypocalcemia, reduced serum 25-hydroxy-vitamin D and increased parathyroid hormone concentrations suggesting biochemical osteomalacia.

In the 29 treated female celiac disease patients, overall mean values for age-adjusted bone mineral density expressed as Z scores were normal although there were many patients with low values, particularly of the lumbar spine and total body.

Significantly lower Z scores for total body and lumbar spine mineral density were found in the postmenopausal patients compared with premenopausal women (p = 0.02 and 0.03, respectively). Low mean Z scores (below -1) were found in the 5 treated male patients.

No correlations were apparent with reported calcium intake, smoking or exercise.

The subjects who had reduced bone mineral density could not be predicted clinically but despite being asymptomatic were more likely to have subtotal or partial villous atrophy on small intestinal biopsy (p < 0.0275).

Author Conclusion:

In this study of bone mineral density in coeliac disease using DEXA, osteopenia has been shown in many asymptomatic celiac patients receiving treatment with a gluten-free diet, although overall, the mean values did not differ from age- and sex-matched controls. Low bone mineral density was confirmed in a group of newly diagnosed or non-compliant adult celiac disease patients, but most importantly, we showed that the treated patients with low bone mineral density had persistently abnormal small intestine biopsies presumably reflecting suboptimal treatment. In conclusion, although many treated celiac disease patients have normal bone mineral density, suboptimally treated and newly diagnosed or untreated patients have osteopenia. To reduce the risk of osteoporotic fractures, it is recommended that bone mineral density be measured in all treated celiac disease patients and those with osteopenia have a repeat intestinal biopsy to assess disease activity.

Funding Source:

Government:

Hammersmith & Queen Charlotte Special Health Authority

Reviewer Comments:

Gluten free diet for at least 2 years, but intake not reported. Small number of untreated/newly diagnosed subjects studied.

Quality Criteria Checklist: Primary Research
Relevance Questions
	1.	Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)	Yes
	1.	Would implementing the studied intervention or procedure (if found successful) result in improved outcomes for the patients/clients/population group? (Not Applicable for some epidemiological studies)	Yes
	2.	Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?	Yes
	2.	Did the authors study an outcome (dependent variable) or topic that the patients/clients/population group would care about?	Yes
	3.	Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice?	Yes
	3.	Is the focus of the intervention or procedure (independent variable) or topic of study a common issue of concern to dieteticspractice?	Yes
	4.	Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)	Yes
	4.	Is the intervention or procedure feasible? (NA for some epidemiological studies)	Yes

Validity Questions
	1.	Was the research question clearly stated?	Yes
1.	Was the research question clearly stated?		Yes
	1.1.	Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified?	Yes
	1.1.	Was (were) the specific intervention(s) or procedure(s) [independent variable(s)] identified?	Yes
	1.2.	Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated?	Yes
	1.2.	Was (were) the outcome(s) [dependent variable(s)] clearly indicated?	Yes
	1.3.	Were the target population and setting specified?	Yes
	1.3.	Were the target population and setting specified?	Yes
	2.	Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?	Yes
2.	Was the selection of study subjects/patients free from bias?		Yes
	2.1.	Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study?	Yes
	2.1.	Were inclusion/exclusion criteria specified (e.g., risk, point in disease progression, diagnostic or prognosis criteria), and with sufficient detail and without omitting criteria critical to the study?	Yes
	2.2.	Were criteria applied equally to all study groups?	Yes
	2.2.	Were criteria applied equally to all study groups?	Yes
	2.3.	Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described?	Yes
	2.3.	Were health, demographics, and other characteristics of subjects described?	Yes
	2.4.	Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population?	Yes
	2.4.	Were the subjects/patients a representative sample of the relevant population?	Yes
	3.	Were study groups comparable?	Yes
3.	Were study groups comparable?		Yes
	3.1.	Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT)	Yes
	3.1.	Was the method of assigning subjects/patients to groups described and unbiased? (Method of randomization identified if RCT)	Yes
	3.2.	Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline?	N/A
	3.2.	Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline?	N/A
	3.3.	Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.)	Yes
	3.3.	Were concurrent controls or comparisons used? (Concurrent preferred over historical control or comparison groups.)	Yes
	3.4.	If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis?	N/A
	3.4.	If cohort study or cross-sectional study, were groups comparable on important confounding factors and/or were preexisting differences accounted for by using appropriate adjustments in statistical analysis?	N/A
	3.5.	If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.)	N/A
	3.5.	If case control study, were potential confounding factors comparable for cases and controls? (If case series or trial with subjects serving as own control, this criterion is not applicable.)	N/A
	3.6.	If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")?	N/A
	3.6.	If diagnostic test, was there an independent blind comparison with an appropriate reference standard (e.g., "gold standard")?	N/A
	4.	Was method of handling withdrawals described?	Yes
4.	Was method of handling withdrawals described?		Yes
	4.1.	Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups?	Yes
	4.1.	Were follow-up methods described and the same for all groups?	Yes
	4.2.	Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.)	Yes
	4.2.	Was the number, characteristics of withdrawals (i.e., dropouts, lost to follow up, attrition rate) and/or response rate (cross-sectional studies) described for each group? (Follow up goal for a strong study is 80%.)	Yes
	4.3.	Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for?	Yes
	4.3.	Were all enrolled subjects/patients (in the original sample) accounted for?	Yes
	4.4.	Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups?	Yes
	4.4.	Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups?	Yes
	4.5.	If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study?	N/A
	4.5.	If diagnostic test, was decision to perform reference test not dependent on results of test under study?	N/A
	5.	Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?	N/A
5.	Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?		N/A
	5.1.	In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate?	N/A
	5.1.	In intervention study, were subjects, clinicians/practitioners, and investigators blinded to treatment group, as appropriate?	N/A
	5.2.	Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.)	N/A
	5.2.	Were data collectors blinded for outcomes assessment? (If outcome is measured using an objective test, such as a lab value, this criterion is assumed to be met.)	N/A
	5.3.	In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded?	N/A
	5.3.	In cohort study or cross-sectional study, were measurements of outcomes and risk factors blinded?	N/A
	5.4.	In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status?	N/A
	5.4.	In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status?	N/A
	5.5.	In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results?	N/A
	5.5.	In diagnostic study, were test results blinded to patient history and other test results?	N/A
	6.	Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?	???
6.	Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?		???
	6.1.	In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied?	Yes
	6.1.	In RCT or other intervention trial, were protocols described for all regimens studied?	Yes
	6.2.	In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described?	N/A
	6.2.	In observational study, were interventions, study settings, and clinicians/provider described?	N/A
	6.3.	Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect?	Yes
	6.3.	Was the intensity and duration of the intervention or exposure factor sufficient to produce a meaningful effect?	Yes
	6.4.	Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured?	???
	6.4.	Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured?	???
	6.5.	Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described?	N/A
	6.5.	Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described?	N/A
	6.6.	Were extra or unplanned treatments described?	N/A
	6.6.	Were extra or unplanned treatments described?	N/A
	6.7.	Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups?	N/A
	6.7.	Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups?	N/A
	6.8.	In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient?	N/A
	6.8.	In diagnostic study, were details of test administration and replication sufficient?	N/A
	7.	Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?	???
7.	Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?		???
	7.1.	Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question?	Yes
	7.1.	Were primary and secondary endpoints described and relevant to the question?	Yes
	7.2.	Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern?	Yes
	7.2.	Were nutrition measures appropriate to question and outcomes of concern?	Yes
	7.3.	Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur?	Yes
	7.3.	Was the period of follow-up long enough for important outcome(s) to occur?	Yes
	7.4.	Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures?	???
	7.4.	Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures?	???
	7.5.	Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision?	Yes
	7.5.	Was the measurement of effect at an appropriate level of precision?	Yes
	7.6.	Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes?	Yes
	7.6.	Were other factors accounted for (measured) that could affect outcomes?	Yes
	7.7.	Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups?	Yes
	7.7.	Were the measurements conducted consistently across groups?	Yes
	8.	Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?	Yes
8.	Was the statistical analysis appropriate for the study design and type of outcome indicators?		Yes
	8.1.	Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately?	Yes
	8.1.	Were statistical analyses adequately described and the results reported appropriately?	Yes
	8.2.	Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated?	Yes
	8.2.	Were correct statistical tests used and assumptions of test not violated?	Yes
	8.3.	Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals?	Yes
	8.3.	Were statistics reported with levels of significance and/or confidence intervals?	Yes
	8.4.	Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)?	N/A
	8.4.	Was "intent to treat" analysis of outcomes done (and as appropriate, was there an analysis of outcomes for those maximally exposed or a dose-response analysis)?	N/A
	8.5.	Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)?	Yes
	8.5.	Were adequate adjustments made for effects of confounding factors that might have affected the outcomes (e.g., multivariate analyses)?	Yes
	8.6.	Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported?	Yes
	8.6.	Was clinical significance as well as statistical significance reported?	Yes
	8.7.	If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error?	N/A
	8.7.	If negative findings, was a power calculation reported to address type 2 error?	N/A
	9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?	Yes
9.	Are conclusions supported by results with biases and limitations taken into consideration?		Yes
	9.1.	Is there a discussion of findings?	Yes
	9.1.	Is there a discussion of findings?	Yes
	9.2.	Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed?	Yes
	9.2.	Are biases and study limitations identified and discussed?	Yes
	10.	Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely?	Yes
10.	Is bias due to study's funding or sponsorship unlikely?		Yes
	10.1.	Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described?	Yes
	10.1.	Were sources of funding and investigators' affiliations described?	Yes
	10.2.	Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest?	Yes
	10.2.	Was the study free from apparent conflict of interest?	Yes