Do gastroenterologists have medical inertia towards coeliac disease? A UK multicentre secondary care study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess if there is secondary care medical inertia towards coeliac disease (CD). DESIGN: Group (1): Time from primary care presentation to diagnostic endoscopy was quantified in 151 adult patients with a positive endomysial antibody test and compared with 92 adult patients with histologically proven inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Group (2): Across four hospitals, duodenal biopsy reports for suspected CD were reviewed (n=1423). Group (3): Clinical complexity was compared between known CD (n=102) and IBD (n=99) patients at their respective follow-up clinic appointments. Group (4): 50 gastroenterologists were questioned about their perspective on CD and IBD. RESULTS: Group (1): Suspected coeliac patients waited significantly longer for diagnostic endoscopy following referral (48.5 (28-89) days) than suspected patients with IBD (34.5 (18-70) days; p=0.003). Group (2): 1423 patients underwent diagnostic endoscopy for possible CD, with only 40.0% meeting guidelines to take four biopsies. Increased diagnosis of CD occurred if guidelines were followed (10.1% vs 4.6% p<0.0001). 12.4% of newly diagnosed CD patients had at least one non-diagnostic gastroscopy in the 5 years prior to diagnosis. Group (4): 32.0% of gastroenterologists failed to identify that CD has greater prevalence in adults than IBD. Moreover, 36.0% of gastroenterologists felt that doctors were not required for the management of CD. CONCLUSION: Prolonged waiting times for endoscopy and inadequacies in biopsy technique were demonstrated suggesting medical inertia towards CD. However, this has to be balanced against rationalising care accordingly. A Coeliac UK National Patient Charter may standardise care across the UK.

Cost and availability of gluten-free food in the UK: in store and online.

OBJECTIVE: Coeliac disease (CD) is a lifelong condition requiring strict adherence to a gluten-free (GF) diet and good availability of GF foods is critical to this. Patients with CD from lower socioeconomic groups are recognised to have higher treatment burden and higher food costs may impact this. Therefore, we aimed to assess the availability and cost of GF food in supermarkets and via the internet. DESIGN: Supermarkets and internet shops delivering to homes in a single city (UK) were analysed between February and March 2014. Stores were identified with comprehensive internet searches. Ten commonly purchased items were analysed for cost and compared with standard non-GF alternatives. Direct measurement of the number of GF foods available was compared between stores which were categorised according to previously published work. SETTING: Supermarkets covering the whole of Sheffield, UK. RESULTS: None of the budget supermarkets surveyed stocked any GF foods. Quality and regular supermarkets stocked the greatest range, each stocking a median of 22 (IQR 39) items (p<0.0001). All GF foods were at least four times more expensive than non-GF alternatives (p<0.0001). GF products are prevalent online, but 5/10 of the surveyed products were significantly more expensive than equivalents in supermarkets. CONCLUSIONS: There is good availability of GF food in regular and quality supermarkets as well as online, but it remains significantly more expensive. Budget supermarkets which tend to be frequented by patients from lower socioeconomic classes stocked no GF foods. This poor availability and added cost is likely to impact on adherence in deprived groups.