EAL

CD: Neurological Outcomes (2006)

Citation:

Addolorato G, Di Giuda D, De Rossi G, Valenza V, Domenicali M, Caputo F, Gasbarrini A, Capristo E, Gasbarrini G. Regional cerebral hypoperfusion in patients with celiac disease. Am J Med 2004;116:312-317.

PubMed ID: 14984816

Study Design:

Case-Control Study

Class:

C - Click here for explanation of classification scheme.

Quality Rating:

POSITIVE: See Quality Criteria Checklist below.

Research Purpose:

To investigate brain perfusion changes in untreated celiac patients, comparing them with treated celiac patients and healthy subjects.

Inclusion Criteria:

Untreated celiac patients affected by classic form of celiac disease, without conditions affecting brain perfusion. Diagnosis of celiac disease based on presence of antigliadin and antiendomysial antibodies, and confirmed by subtotal or total duodenal villous atrophy and increased intraepithelial lymphocytes and crypt hyperplasia.

Exclusion Criteria:

Subjects excluded if they had endocrine disorders, abuse of alcohol or other substances, consumption of psychotropic drugs, and secondary causes of villous atrophy. None had neurological or psychiatric disorders other than anxiety or depression, or had a history of head trauma. Controls had no systemic or metabolic disease, neurological disorder, psychiatric illness, affective disorders, abuse of alcohol and other drugs, or history of head trauma.

Description of Study Protocol:

Recruitment

Patients consecutively enrolled in study during 1 year period. Controls recruited from hospital staff.

Design

Case-Control Study.

Blinding used (if applicable)

Lab testing.

Intervention (if applicable)

All subjects completed questionnaires and underwent cerebral single photon emission CT exam.

Statistical Analysis

Regional cerebral blood flows were compared among the 3 groups with multivariate ANOVA (Hotelling's T squared). The Scheffe test was applied to account for multiple comparisons. Dichotomous variables were analyzed with Yates' corrected chi-squared or Fisher exact test, as appropriate. Two-tailed P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.

Data Collection Summary:

Timing of Measurements

All subjects completed questionnaires and underwent cerebral single photon emission CT exam.

Dependent Variables

State and trait anxiety assessed with State and Trait Anxiety Inventory
Depression assessed with modified version of Zung Self-Rating Depression Scale
Single photon emission CT exam

Independent Variables

Gluten-free diet - all treated celiac patients were symptom-free. Follow-up intestinal biopsies had shown restoration of normal mucosal morphology, laboratory variables, and serum immunoglobulin A and IgG antigliadin titers had returned to normal or decreased considerably

Control Variables

Description of Actual Data Sample:

Initial N: 19 untreated celiac patients, 15 celiac patients on a gluten-free diet for 1 year, 24 healthy volunteers

Attrition (final N): 15 untreated celiac patients (9 women, 6 men), 15 treated celiac patients (9 women, 6 men), 24 volunteers (15 women, 9 men). 4 untreated patients refused to undergo exam due to claustrophobia.

Age: Untreated celiac patients: mean age 37 +/- 9 years, Treated celiac patients: mean age 30 +/- 8 years, Healthy volunteers: mean age 39 +/- 15 years

Ethnicity: Not mentioned

Other relevant demographics: Treated patients on gluten-free diet for almost 1 year (range 1 - 10 years)

Anthropometrics: Volunteers of similar sex and age

Location: Rome, Italy

Summary of Results:

Other Findings

No cerebral perfusion abnormalities were found in healthy controls.

Of 15 untreated celiac patients, 11 (73%) had at least one hypoperfused brain region, compared with only 1 of 15 (7%) treated celiac patients on a gluten-free diet amd none of the controls ( P = 0.01) had hypoperfusion.

Cerebral perfusion was significantly lower (P < 0.05) in untreated celiac patients, compared with healthy controls, in 7 of 26 brain regions.

There were no significant differences in cerebral perfusion between untreated and treated patients, or between celiac patients on a gluten-free diet and healthy controls.

High levels of state anxiety were more common in untreated celiac patients (73%) than in healthy controls (21%, P = 0.003), treated patients were intermediate (33%).

The prevalence of trait anxiety was similar in the 3 groups (untreated celiac: 27%, treated celiac: 20%, healthy controls: 17%).

Depression was more common in untreated celiac patients (67%) and in treated patients (60%) than healthy controls (17%, P < 0.01 for both comparisons).

Cerebral hypoperfusion was lower in the anxious or depressed patients in 5 of 26 regions of interest.

Author Conclusion:

In conclusion, regional cerebral blood flow alterations were present in untreated celiac patients, but not in patients on a gluten-free diet. The explanation for these observations is uncertain. Cerebral hypoperfusion may be related to intestinal hyperemia. Since celiac disease is sometimes associated with autoimmune disorders, it is possible that cerebral hypoperfusion depends on autoimmune or immune-complex related endothelial inflammation, perhaps involving antigliadin antibodies or an unidentified neurotoxic antibody. Further longitudinal studies are needed to confirm our findings and to clarify the possible mechanisms that are involved.

Funding Source:

University/Hospital:

Catholic University (Rome, Italy); University of Bologna (Bologna, Italy)

Not-for-profit

Foundation associated with industry:

Reviewer Comments:

Compliance with gluten-free diet assessed with biopsy and antibody testing. Valid and reliable measurements.

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?	Yes
	3.2.	Were distribution of disease status, prognostic factors, and other factors (e.g., demographics) similar across study groups at baseline?	Yes
	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.)	Yes
	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.)	Yes
	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?	No
	4.4.	Were reasons for withdrawals similar across groups?	No
	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?	Yes
5.	Was blinding used to prevent introduction of bias?		Yes
	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.)	Yes
	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.)	Yes
	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?	Yes
	5.4.	In case control study, was case definition explicit and case ascertainment not influenced by exposure status?	Yes
	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?	Yes
6.	Were intervention/therapeutic regimens/exposure factor or procedure and any comparison(s) described in detail? Were interveningfactors described?		Yes
	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?	Yes
	6.4.	Was the amount of exposure and, if relevant, subject/patient compliance measured?	Yes
	6.5.	Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described?	Yes
	6.5.	Were co-interventions (e.g., ancillary treatments, other therapies) described?	Yes
	6.6.	Were extra or unplanned treatments described?	Yes
	6.6.	Were extra or unplanned treatments described?	Yes
	6.7.	Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups?	Yes
	6.7.	Was the information for 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 assessed the same way for all groups?	Yes
	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?	Yes
7.	Were outcomes clearly defined and the measurements valid and reliable?		Yes
	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?	Yes
	7.4.	Were the observations and measurements based on standard, valid, and reliable data collection instruments/tests/procedures?	Yes
	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