Increased CD8+ intraepithelial lymphocyte infiltration and reduced surface area to volume ratio in the duodenum of patients with ulcerative colitis.

OBJECTIVE: Recent evidence suggests the involvement of the upper gastrointestinal tract in ulcerative colitis (UC). By conducting a prospective controlled study, we explored the immunological abnormalities in the duodenal mucosa of UC patients. METHODS: Duodenal and colonic biopsies were collected from 24 corticosteroid-free UC patients and 21 controls. Colonization by Helicobacter pylori and positivity for anti-endomysial antibodies was an exclusion criteria. The severity of duodenal and colonic inflammation was determined by endoscopic and histologic scores. Morphometry was performed to measure the surface area to volume ratio (SV). Duodenal CD3(+) and CD8(+) intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs) and lamina propria mononuclear cells (LPMCs) were detected by immunohistochemistry. RESULTS: Fifteen UC patients and 14 controls were Helicobacter pylori and anti-endomysial antibody negative and were thus included in the study. Microscopic duodenitis was reported in 4 of the 15 UC patients (26.6%), and in none of the controls. A significantly higher number of CD3(+) and CD8(+) IELs and LPMCs was found in UC patients than in controls. A significant positive correlation between the percentage of both CD3(+) and CD8(+) IELs and disease activity was found in UC patients. SV was significantly reduced in UC patients compared to controls, and inversely correlated with the percentage of CD8(+) IELs. CONCLUSIONS: The duodenum of UC patients is infiltrated by a higher number of CD8(+) IELs which correlates with the degree of villous flattening and disease activity, but not with extent of the colonic lesions. Further studies are needed to clarify whether the duodenum is a target organ in UC.

Defining a proper setting for endoscopy in coeliac disease.

OBJECTIVE: As it has been demonstrated that a careful duodenal inspection during upper gastrointestinal endoscopy may be useful in predicting coeliac disease, we tried to define the usefulness of endoscopy in detecting unsuspected coeliac patients. DESIGN AND METHODS: We considered all the first diagnoses of coeliac disease from 1992 to 2001, i.e. 110 patients with a biopsy-proven diagnosis of coeliac disease. From 1992 to 1997, neither of the endoscopists paid careful attention to the endoscopic features of coeliac disease in the course of the examinations performed for indications other than coeliac disease. From 1998 to 2001, the same endoscopists looked very carefully at these endoscopic features, regardless of the indication for the procedure. RESULTS: Over the first period, 22/16,081 patients endoscoped for the first time had a histological diagnosis of coeliac disease, with a prevalence of 1/731. In all 22 patients the indication for the examination was the suspicion of coeliac disease. The endoscopic appearance of the duodenum was indicative in 16/22 (72.7%) patients. Over the second period, the diagnosis of coeliac disease was made in 88/10,410 patients endoscoped for the first time. The prevalence of the disease was 1/118 examinations performed. The endoscopic appearance of the duodenum was indicative in 70/88 (79.5%) patients. In 13/88 patients, the diagnosis of coeliac disease was presumed because of the macroscopic appearance of duodenum, lacking a past history suggestive of coeliac disease. CONCLUSIONS: Despite a still open controversy on the accuracy of endoscopic markers in the diagnosis of coeliac disease, we have found that in subjects not suspected for coeliac disease and undergoing an upper gastrointestinal endoscopy for other reasons, attention to the endoscopic pattern could facilitate the identification of a relevant number of cases.