Digestive Diseases and Sciences

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 796–805 | Cite as

Serologic Testing for Celiac Disease in Young Adults—A Cost–Effect Analysis

  • Yael YagilEmail author
  • Ilan Goldenberg
  • Ronen Arnon
  • Vered Ezra
  • Isaac Ashkenazi


In recent years, there has been a marked increase in the diagnostic workups for celiac disease among military personnel, thereby significantly increasing overall laboratory testing expenditures and burden. We evaluated the serologic testing procedure in symptomatic young adults, using a “cost–effect” approach. We evaluated the serologic screening policy for celiac disease among serologically tested military personnel. The study population was divided into subgroups according to the clinical presentation prior to screening: isolated (low-risk) and combined complaints (high-risk). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values of serologic markers for celiac disease were evaluated. Cost analyses were based on diagnostic expenditures. Cost–effect ratio is expressed as cost per newly diagnosed patients, and cost minimization as cost per screened individuals. Five hundred thirty-eight military personnel were serologically tested for celiac disease. Eight new cases of celiac were diagnosed, all of whom belonged to the high-risk subgroup and tested positive for at least two positive serologic tests (tTG + EMA or tTG + AGA IgG + EMA). EMA Ab measured the highest sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. Average screening expenditure was U.S. $287 per patient. The lowest cost–effect and cost minimization ratios were achieved by implementing a two-step single-marker screening protocol for high-risk subjects and one-step follow-up for low-risk subjects. Among patient population of young adults, selective diagnostic workup could result in cost-minimization without risking quality of diagnosis. From a cost–effect perspective, implemented screening procedures need to be dependent on subgroup: low-risk, clinical follow-up; and high-risk, serological testing for EMA and, only if positive, possibly a small-bowel biopsy.


celiac serologies cost–effect 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Farrell RJ, Kelly CP: Celiac sprue. N Engl J Med 346(3):180–188, 2002CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fasano A, Catassi C: Current approaches to diagnosis and treatment of celiac disease: An evolving spectrum. Gastroenterology 120:636–651, 2001Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    McPherson RA: Commentary: advances in the laboratory diagnosis of celiac disease. J Clin Lab Anal 15:105–107, 2001 (abstr)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McManus R, Kelleher D: Celiac disease—the villain unmasked? N Engl J Med 348(25):2573–2574, 2003Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Isselbacher KJ: Celiac disease: Often underdiagnosed and clinically silent., 2001–2003 (McGraw–Hill)
  6. 6.
    Pruessner TH: Detecting celiac disease in your patients., 1998 (American Academy of Family Physicians)
  7. 7.
    Kelly CP: Use of serum antibodies to diagnose celiac disease., 2003 (UpToDate)
  8. 8.
    Rostami K, Kerckhaert J, Tiemessen R, von Blomberg BM, Meijer JWR, Mulder CJJ: Sensitivity of antiendomysium and antigliadin antibodies in untreated celiac disease: Disappointing in clinical practice. Am J Gastroenterol 94:888–894, 1999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Johnston SD, Watson RGP, McMillan SA, et al.: Coeliac disease detected by screening is not silent—simply unrecognized. Q J Med 91:853–860, 1998Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shamir R, Lerner A, Shinar E, et al.: The use of a single serological marker underestimates the prevalence of celiac disease in Israel: A study of blood donors. Am J Gastroenterol 97:2589–2594, 2002Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gomez JC, Selvaggio G, Pizzaro B, et al.: Value of a screening algorithm for celiac disease using tissue transglutaminase antibodies as first level in a population-based study. Am J Gastroenterol 97:2785–2790, 2002Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Corrao G, Corazza GR, Andeani ML, et al.: Serological screening of coeliac disease: choosing the optimal procedure according to various prevalence values. Gut 35:771–775, 1994Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Harewood GC, Murray J: Diagnostic approach to a patient with suspected celiac disease—A cost analysis. Dig Dis Sci 46:2510–2514, 2001Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ferreira M, Davies S, Butler M, et al.: Endomysial antibody: Is it the best screening test for celiac disease? Gut 33:1633–1637, 1992PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weiss B, Bujanover Y, Avidan B, Fradkin A, Weintraub I, Shainberg B: Positive tissue transglutaminase antibodies with negative endomysial antibodies: Low rate of celiac disease. IMAJ 6:9–12, 2004Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Clemente MG, Musu MP, Frau F, Lucia C, De Virgiliis S: Antitissue transglutaminase antibodies outside celiac disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 34(1):31–34, 2002Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yael Yagil
    • 1
    • 4
    Email author
  • Ilan Goldenberg
    • 1
  • Ronen Arnon
    • 1
  • Vered Ezra
    • 1
    • 2
  • Isaac Ashkenazi
    • 3
  1. 1.Medical Services and Supply Center (MSSC), Medical CorpsIsraeli Defense ForcesIsrael
  2. 2.Department of Family MedicineCentral District, “Clalit” Health ServicesBeer-ShevaIsrael
  3. 3.Ben-Gurion UniversityBeer-ShevaIsrael
  4. 4.Medical Services and Supply Center, Medical CorpsIDFIsrael

Personalised recommendations