UK Study: Mortality for Untreated Celiac Disease Same as General Population

One wonders how the research team was able to accurately compare "people with undiagnosed celiac" (who were actually diagnosed with celiac, just diagnosed rather late in life) with the general population (significant portions of which may have had truly undiagnosed celiac).

It is unclear whether those with "undetected celiac" were symptomatic or not. Were they screened because of symptoms, or were all patients in the study screened?

Did those with "undetected celiac" actually have villi damage, or were they in the early stages of celiac disease? This is an important question; previously, it was thought that celiac was solely a childhood-onset disease, but we are now seeing more and more adult-onset cases of celiac, where there has NOT been a lifetime of intestinal and other damage--but a half a lifetime of damage can certainly follow adult-onset celiac.

There is also no mention of whether those whose celiac was discovered via the endomysial antibody screening actually changed their diet, nor whether that improved their health.

The only circulatory disease associated with celiac is Reynaud's Syndrome, which is considered mild in its primary form, not something that would cause death. Secondary Reynaud's is more serious, but that is because it appears concurrently with other, more serious autoimmune disorders. So why do these researchers feel that it is important that there was no increase in deaths from circulatory causes, when that has never been a concern with celiac disease?

The study concludes that there is no increased risk of cancer death amongst undiagnosed celiacs, but that is not necessarily in contradiction to previous studies. What is important to note, though, is that previous studies note a strong link to cancer OCCURRENCE. The death rate from cancer is uniformly high, whether a patient has celiac or not.

I would like to see Mr. Adams write an article that analyzes and compares these studies, their outcomes, and their possible flaws, rather than just summarizing the studies. I am certainly grateful that he wrote this particular article, and that it is posted here to inform us.

However, the study itself is useless.

Remarkable findings. Perhaps these untreated celiac patients did not have very strong allergic reactions, which would also account for their being untreated. Patients who have strong overt symptoms, but simply don't realize it's celiac and continue eating gluten, might not be so lucky and might still have higher mortality rates than the general population.