Search

Background: In recent decades some studies described the frequent co-occurrence of celiac disease autoimmunity and overt celiac disease in patients with autism. Therefore, it was suggested that celiac disease could play a possible role in the etiopathogenesis of autism spectrum disorder. However, several other studies have not confirmed this association. The aim of the present study was to elucidate the potential association between autism spectrum disorder and celiac disease., Methods: We prospectively collected data from an Italian cohort of 223 children at the time of their clinical diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder in the 2019-2020 period. A serological celiac disease screening was performed and data were available for 196 patients; male (M):female (F) ratio = 4.4:1; median age = 3.6 years; age range = 1.6-12.8 years. Full-blown celiac disease was established according to the diagnostic algorithm of the European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) 2012 or 2019 guidelines. Fisher's exact test was used to compare the celiac disease seroprevalence and prevalence in our autism spectrum disorder cohort and in the Italian healthy pediatric population studied by Gatti et al. to highlight the possible differences between the two groups., Results: A not statistically significant difference between the celiac disease seroprevalence in our autism spectrum disorder cohort (4.08%) and Gatti's Italian healthy group (2.22%) was found, p = 0.0810; OR = 1.871. A similar result emerged for overt celiac disease prevalences (2.24% versus 1.58%, respectively), p = 0.2862; OR = 1.431., Conclusions: Our data validates a weakness of association between autism spectrum disorder and celiac disease. On the basis of our results, a regular screening for CD in patients with ASD is not recommended to a greater extent than in the general population., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: The Surprise Question (SQ) "would I be surprised if this patient were to die in the next 12 months?" has been suggested to help clinicians, and especially General Practitioners (GPs), identify people who might benefit from palliative care. The prognostic accuracy of this approach is unclear and little is known about how GPs use this tool in practice. Are GPs consistent, individually and as a group? Are there international differences in the use of the tool? Does including the alternative Surprise Question ("Would I be surprised if the patient were still alive after 12 months?") alter the response? What is the impact on the treatment plan in response to the SQ? This study aims to address these questions., Methods: An online study will be completed by 600 (100 per country) registered GPs. They will be asked to review 20 hypothetical patient vignettes. For each vignette they will be asked to provide a response to the following four questions: (1) the SQ [Yes/No]; (2) the alternative SQ [Yes/No]; (3) the percentage probability of dying [0% no chance - 100% certain death]; and (4) the proposed treatment plan [multiple choice]. A "surprise threshold" for each participant will be calculated by comparing the responses to the SQ with the probability estimates of death. We will use linear regression to explore any differences in thresholds between countries and other clinician-related factors, such as years of experience. We will describe the actions taken by the clinicians and explore the differences between groups. We will also investigate the relationship between the alternative SQ and the other responses. Participants will receive a certificate of completion and the option to receive feedback on their performance., Discussion: This study explores the extent to which the SQ is consistently used at an individual, group, and national level. The findings of this study will help to understand the clinical value of using the SQ in routine practice., Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT03697213 (05/10/2018). Prospectively registered.