Dataset Information

Differences Between Familial and Sporadic Celiac Disease.

ABSTRACT:

Background

It is not known if genetic background, characteristics at diagnosis, physical and psychological well-being, and adherence to a gluten-free diet are comparable between patients with familial or sporadic celiac disease. These issues were investigated in a follow-up study.

Methods

Altogether 1064 patients were analyzed for celiac disease-associated serology, predisposing HLA-DQ, and non-HLA genotypes. Medical data were collected from patient records and supplementary interviews. Current symptoms and quality of life were further evaluated with the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS), the Psychological General Well-Being questionnaire (PGWB), and Short Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaires.

Results

Familial and sporadic groups differed (P < 0.001) in the reason for diagnosis and clinical presentation at diagnosis, familial patients being more often screen-detected (26% vs. 2%, P < 0.001) and having less often gastrointestinal (49% vs. 69%) and severe symptoms (47% vs. 65%). The groups were comparable in terms of histological damage, frequency of malabsorption, comorbidities, childhood diagnoses, and short-term treatment response. At the time of the study, familial cases reported fewer symptoms (21% vs. 30%, P = 0.004) and lower prevalence of all (78% vs. 86%, P = 0.007), neurological (10% vs. 15%, P = 0.013), and dermatological (9% vs. 17%, P = 0.001) comorbidities. Dietary adherence and GSRS scores were comparable, but familial cases had better quality of life according to PGWB and SF-36. High-risk genotype HLA-DQ2.5/DQ2.5 was more frequent among familial cases, and four non-HLA SNPs were associated with familial celiac disease.

Conclusions

Despite the greater proportion of high-risk genotypes, familial cases had milder symptoms at presentation than did sporadic cases. Worse experience of symptoms and poorer quality of life in sporadic disease indicate a need for intensified support.

SUBMITTER: Airaksinen L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8163668 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe possibility to generalize our understandings on treatments and assessments to both familial frontotemporal dementia (f-FTD) and sporadic FTD (s-FTD) is a fundamental perspective for the near future, considering the constant advancement in potential disease-modifying therapies that target particular genetic forms of FTD. We aimed to investigate differences in clinical features, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and blood-based biomarkers between f-FTD and s-FTD.MethodsIn this longitudinal cohort study, we evaluated a consecutive sample of symptomatic FTD patients, classified as f-FTD and s-FTD according to Goldman scores (GS). All patients underwent clinical, behavioral, and neuropsychiatric symptom assessment, CSF biomarkers and serum neurofilament light (NfL) analysis, and brain atrophy evaluation with magnetic resonance imaging.ResultsOf 570 patients with FTD, 123 were classified as f-FTD, and 447 as s-FTD. In the f-FTD group, 95 had a pathogenic FTD mutation while 28 were classified as GS = 1 or 2; of the s-FTD group, 133 were classified as GS = 3 and 314 with GS = 4. f-FTD and s-FTD cases showed comparable demographic features, except for younger age at disease onset, age at diagnosis, and higher years of education in the f-FTD group (all P < .05). f-FTD showed worse behavioral disturbances as measured with Frontal Behavioral Inventory (FBI) negative behaviors (14.0 ± 7.6 vs. 11.6 ± 7.4, P = .002), and positive behaviors (20.0 ± 11.0 vs. 17.4 ± 11.8, P = .031). Serum NfL concentrations were higher in patients with f-FTD (70.9 ± 37.9 pg/mL) compared to s-FTD patients (37.3 ± 24.2 pg/mL, P < .001), and f-FTD showed greater brain atrophy in the frontal and temporal regions and basal ganglia. Patients with f-FTD had significantly shorter survival than those with s-FTD (P = .004).Discussionf-FTD and s-FTD are very similar clinical entities, but with different biological mechanisms, and different rates of progression. The parallel characterization of both f-FTD and s-FTD will improve our understanding of the disease, and aid in designing future clinical trials for both genetic and sporadic forms of FTD.HighlightsDo clinical features and biomarkers differ between patients with familial frontotemporal dementia (f-FTD) and sporadic FTD (s-FTD)?In this cohort study of 570 patients with FTD, f-FTD and s-FTD share similar demographic features, but with younger age at disease onset and diagnosis in the f-FTD group.f-FTD showed higher serum neurofilament light concentrations, greater brain damage, and shorter survival, compared to s-FTD.f-FTD and s-FTD are very similar clinical entities, but with different cognitive reserve mechanisms and different rates of progression.