You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Epidemiology and outcomes
Prevalence of coeliac disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review and meta-analysis
  1. Adonis Sotoodeh1,
  2. Madeleine Nguyen Hoang1,
  3. Karin Hellgren2 and
  4. Anders Forss1,3
  1. 1Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  2. 2Gastroenterology Unit, Department of Gastroenterology, Dermatovenereology and Rheumatology, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
  3. 3Department of Medicine, Solna, Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
  1. Correspondence to Adonis Sotoodeh; adonis.sotoodeh{at}ki.se

Abstract

Background There is some evidence of a higher prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) among patients with SLE than in the general population. However, the prevalence estimates vary substantially.

Objective To investigate the prevalence of CD among patients with SLE through systematic review and meta-analysis.

Methods We performed searches in the databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science Core Collection between 1 January 1990 and 9 July 2023. A total of 2053 publications were rendered in the searches, of which 68 were reviewed in full text and 14 included in the analyses. Primary analysis estimated the pooled prevalence of biopsy-verified CD in patients with SLE. In the secondary analysis, the prevalence of serological markers indicative of CD was investigated. The quality of studies was appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. We conducted meta-regression analyses to investigate associations between the prevalence of CD in individuals with SLE and publication year, study population size, CD prevalence in the general population, proportion of females and quality assessment score.

Results A total of 14 studies met the inclusion criteria, of which 11 were included in the primary analysis of biopsy-verified CD. Among 1238 patients with SLE, 14 had CD. The weighted pooled prevalence of CD was 0.7% (95% CI 0.0 to 1.8). The weighted pooled prevalence of CD serological markers in 1063 patients with SLE was 3.7% (95% CI 1.4 to 6.7). In meta-regression analyses, no associations between CD prevalence and study characteristics, demographics and quality assessment scores were found.

Conclusions In this meta-analysis, we found a weighted pooled prevalence of biopsy-verified CD in patients with SLE comparable with the prevalence in the general population. Our findings do not support routine screening for CD in patients with SLE. However, individual screening could be considered in cases of clinical suspicion and additional risk factors for CD.

PROSPERO registration number CRD42022339594.

  • Antibodies
  • Autoimmune Diseases
  • Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic
  • Prevalence
  • Epidemiology

Data availability statement

All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

https://doi.org/10.1136/lupus-2023-001106

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ON THIS TOPIC

    • SLE has been linked to an increased risk of developing several other autoimmune diseases, including coeliac disease.

    WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

    • In this meta-analysis, the weighted pooled prevalence of biopsy-verified coeliac disease in patients with SLE was similar to that of the general population.

    HOW THIS STUDY MIGHT AFFECT RESEARCH, PRACTICE OR POLICY

    • Our findings do not support the implementation of routine screening for coeliac disease in patients with SLE.

    • Individual screening could be considered in cases of clinical suspicion or additional risk factors for coeliac disease.

    Introduction

    SLE is the prototype of systemic autoimmune disease affecting multiple organ systems, with higher prevalence among females and with a peak onset between 15 and 35 years of age.1 Cutaneous, cardiopulmonary, joint and renal manifestations are the most common presentations, whereas gastrointestinal manifestations are comparatively more rare.2 The global prevalence is estimated to be around 0.1%.3 Although potential triggers of the disease continue to be discovered, the aetiology is still unclear.4 5 The risk factors for SLE consist of both genetic and environmental factors, including ultraviolet light exposure, hormonal factors, some infections and adverse effects from certain DNA-altering medications.4 SLE is a severely disabling condition and patients often experience a considerably reduced health-related quality of life.6 It is also associated with an increased mortality.6 Disease associations have been implied with several other autoimmune conditions such as Sjögren’s syndrome, antiphospholipid syndrome, autoimmune thyroid disease and coeliac disease (CD).7–10

    CD is an autoimmune condition of the intestines characterised by gluten intolerance, believed to be caused by factors related to genetic predisposition and environmental exposures.10 Some of the most well-defined factors contributing to genetic predisposition for CD are the human leucocyte antigen (HLA) genes HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8, which are responsible for antigen presentation to immune cells.11 The genes do not confer an absolute disease risk; however, in the absence of both HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8, it is rare to develop CD.11 Other aetiological factors include environmental triggers and a dysregulated immune system.12 Apart from gluten exposure, possible associations with infections and dietary patterns have been proposed.12 Immunologically, an increased mucosal permeability from a compromised epithelial barrier enables an interaction between gliadin and T lymphocytes, followed by a cascading immune response.12 Approximately 0.5%–2.0% of the global population is affected by CD.13 A systematic review of CD by Singh et al14 presented a pooled prevalence of biopsy-verified CD with regional variances, with the highest prevalence in Europe and Oceania (both 0.8%), followed by Asia (0.6%), North America and Africa (both 0.5%), and the lowest in South America (0.4%). CD was also more prevalent in the paediatric population (0.9%) compared with the global adult population (0.5%).14 Similar to SLE, more females than males are diagnosed with CD.15 Symptoms of CD include malnutrition, chronic diarrhoea, poor weight gain and abdominal pain; however, a sizeable proportion of patients with CD are asymptomatic.16 There are additionally several described extraintestinal manifestations of CD, with common presentations including anaemia, arthralgia, dermatitis herpetiformis, osteoporosis and neuropathy.17 18 While adults may present with diarrhoea and anaemia, children are more likely to exhibit the hallmark signs of CD, including failure to thrive, abdominal distention and malabsorption.19

    To our knowledge, no systematic review and meta-analysis has investigated the pooled prevalence of CD in patients with SLE. We therefore aimed to estimate this prevalence through a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing literature.

    Methods

    This systematic review and meta-analysis was reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.20 A study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (protocol ID: CRD42022339594).

    Search strategy

    We searched the databases of Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science Core Collection from 1 January 1990 to 9 July 2023. Equivalent search strategies were applied for all databases (complete search strategies are presented in online supplemental figure S1). Only publications in the English language were included. Two reviewers, AS and MNH, independently screened the search results. Disagreement on inclusion of studies and interpretation of data was resolved by discussion between the reviewers, and in unresolved cases through mediation by AF. The reference lists of all publications eligible for full-text screening were screened for additional publications not captured by the search strategies.

    Supplemental material

    Identification of patients

    Coeliac disease

    For the diagnosis of CD, we required a reported small intestinal biopsy with Marsh stage II or III. The original Marsh classification system ranges from Marsh stage 0 to stage IV, defined as preinfiltrative (0), infiltrative (I), hyperplastic (II), destructive (III) and irreversible hypoplastic/atrophic lesions (IV).21 However, a modified Marsh classification system which ranges from stage 0 to stage IIIc was developed for diagnostic purposes to distinguish between the extent of villous atrophy (mild, marked and total) and is also widely used as a histopathological classification system for CD.22 In studies where CD was reported as ‘biopsy-verified CD’ or alike, the biopsy was presumed to be Marsh stage II or III. Study participants with reported Marsh stage I were not classified as patients with CD since previous studies in the field suggest that only relying on a stage I biopsy might overestimate the prevalence of CD. In the secondary analysis, we also investigated the prevalence of positive CD serological markers (antitissue transglutaminase antibodies (TTG) IgA/IgG and antiendomysial antibodies (EMA) IgA/IgG). In additional subanalysis, we analysed the prevalence of positive CD serological markers with the addition of antigliadin antibodies (AGA) IgA/IgG, which has a lower sensitivity and specificity for CD.23

    Systemic lupus erythematosus

    For SLE diagnosis, we required information in the studies that international diagnostic classification criteria for SLE, either the American College of Rheumatology,24–26 the Systemic Lupus International Collaborating Clinics27 or the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology,26 were applied. We also included studies where patients had their diagnosis of SLE assigned at specialised rheumatology clinics. Participants of all ages were included, both children and adults. The study characteristics are presented in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Studies included in the meta-analysis of CD in patients with SLE

    Data items and risk of bias

    Data on the following items were retrieved: (1) first author and year of publication, (2) country and region, (3) study population size, (4) proportion of females, (5) Marsh classification, and (6) serological markers of CD (table 1). Because the prevalence of CD in the general population varies globally, we also investigated the prevalence of CD in SLE in relation to the prevalence in each country (table 1) (Brazil,28 Egypt,29 Iran,30 Italy,31 Israel,32 Saudi Arabia,33 Tunisia,34 Turkey35 and USA36). The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool was applied to evaluate the quality of the included publications (online supplemental table S2).37 Possible publication bias was assessed by funnel plot and Egger’s test.

    Statistics

    We used the metaprop statistical command in STATA to conduct the meta-analyses.38 Metaprop is based on the STATA ‘metan’ command, which is used to pool estimates.38 The metaprop command also implements specific measures using binomial distribution to model the variability within studies or the Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation to stabilise variances, and is therefore expedient for conducting analyses with proportions close to or at the limits (0.0% and 100.0%).38 Heterogeneity between studies was analysed using Cochran’s Q test and denoted as I2. We defined I2 >50.0% as substantial heterogeneity. We anticipated a large heterogeneity among the included studies and consequently used a random effects model to estimate the weighted pooled prevalence. Statistical significance was set at p value <0.05.

    To evaluate the robustness of our results, we conducted subgroup analyses stratified by study population size (<100 vs ≥100), Marsh stage III (yes/no) and region (Asia: Iran, Israel and Saudi Arabia; Europe: Italy and Turkey; North Africa: Egypt and Tunisia; North America: USA; South America: Brazil). We also performed meta-regression analyses to investigate associations between the prevalence of CD in individuals with SLE and publication year, study population size, CD prevalence in the general population, proportion of females and quality assessment score of the studies. These variables were chosen because they were presumed to potentially have an impact on the prevalence of CD when comparing studies. The meta-regression analyses were restricted to studies investigating the prevalence of biopsy-verified CD.

    All analyses were performed using STATA V.17. Data extraction and compilation was conducted using Microsoft Excel (V.16.77.1, 2023; Microsoft, USA).

    Patient and public involvement

    Patients and the public were not involved in the design, conduct, reporting or dissemination of this research.

    Results

    In this study, titles and abstracts of 2053 publications were screened (online supplemental figure S1). Of these, 68 publications were eligible for a full-text review. No additional publications were added after screening the reference lists of these publications. A total of 54 publications were excluded. The reasons for exclusion were as follows: insufficient definition of outcome or exposure (n=48),39–86 overlapping study populations (n=3)87–89 and not in English language (n=3).90–92 The remaining 14 included publications (11 in the primary analysis and additionally 3 in the secondary analysis) comprised a total of 1344 patients with SLE (table 1).

    Prevalence of CD in SLE

    A total of 11 articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria for biopsy-verified CD diagnosis and were included in the primary analysis.93–103 The mean study population for the included studies was 113 (range 24–281), with eight studies having a study population of ≥100 patients with SLE (table 1). Seven studies reported biopsy-verified cases of CD with prevalence estimates between 0.4% and 6.0%.93 95 97–100 103 The remaining four studies reported no cases of CD (study populations: n=115, n=194, n=103 and n=50).94 96 101 102 Among a total of 1238 patients with SLE included in the primary analysis, CD was found in 14 patients, rendering an unweighted prevalence of 1.1% (table 1). Four studies (n=430) reported Marsh stage III biopsy-verified CD cases (n=9), yielding an unweighted prevalence of 2.1%.93 98 100 103

    The weighted pooled prevalence of biopsy-verified CD was 0.7% (95% CI 0.0 to 1.8) (figure 1). The heterogeneity between studies was substantial (I2=55.0%, p=0.01). Stratified by study population size <100 (n=3) vs ≥100 (n=8),93–103 the weighted pooled prevalence was 1.1% (95% CI 0.0 to 5.0) compared with 0.7% (95% CI 0.0 to 2.0). Restricted to studies reporting Marsh stage III biopsy-verified CD, the estimated weighted pooled prevalence of Marsh stage III cases was 1.8% (95% CI 0.3 to 4.2) (online supplemental figure S2). In comparison by region, North Africa (n=2) showed the highest weighted pooled estimate (5.2%; 95% CI 1.7 to 10.2).97 103 Asia (n=3) had the second highest (0.8%; 95% CI 0.0 to 2.8),93 96 98 followed by Europe (n=2) (0.5%; 95% CI 0.0 to 2.7)100 102 and South America (n=3) (0.1%; 95% CI 0.0 to 1.2)95 99 101 (online supplemental figure S3). North America was represented by one study which reported no case of biopsy-verified CD.94 Meta-regression analyses of the association between CD prevalence in patients with SLE and publication year (p=0.58), study population size (p=0.26), prevalence of CD in the general population (p=0.78), proportion of females (p=0.66) and quality assessment score (p=0.84) showed no significant associations (online supplemental figure S4A–E). We found no significant publication bias in the funnel plot (figure 2) and Egger’s test (p=0.25).

    Figure 1
    Figure 1

    Prevalence of biopsy-verified coeliac disease in patients with SLE. ES denotes effect size. I2 indicates heterogeneity.

    Figure 2
    Figure 2

    Funnel plot of studies investigating biopsy-verified coeliac disease in patients with SLE.

    Prevalence of serological markers of CD in patients with SLE

    The prevalence of antibodies indicative of CD (TTG and EMA) was studied in the secondary analysis of 13 publications of this meta-analysis.93–98 100–106 One study did not report the prevalence of positive serological markers and was therefore not included in the analysis.99 Out of 1063 patients with SLE included in the secondary analysis, 4.5% (n=48) were positive for any of the serological markers TTG and EMA (online supplemental table S1). The weighted pooled prevalence was 3.7% (95% CI 1.4 to 6.7, I2=74.2%, p<0.01) (figure 3). One study reported a prevalence of >20.0%.104 When excluding that study, the weighted pooled prevalence was 3.1% (95% CI 1.4 to 5.2, I2=59.6%, p<0.01). With a broader definition of CD seropositivity, including a positive test for any of TTG, EMA and AGA, the pooled prevalence was 11.6% (95% CI 5.9 to 18.7, I2=89.3%, p<0.01) (online supplemental figure S5). When excluding studies which reported a prevalence of >20.0% (n=4),94 97 104 106 the weighted pooled prevalence was estimated to be 5.5% (95% CI 3.1 to 8.4, I2=59.2%, p=0.01).

    Figure 3
    Figure 3

    Prevalence of coeliac disease antibodies (antitissue transglutaminase and antiendomysial antibodies) in patients with SLE. ES denotes effect size. I2 indicates heterogeneity.

    Discussion

    This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated the prevalence of biopsy-verified CD in patients with SLE along with the association between CD prevalence and demographic and study-related factors. In a total of 1238 patients with SLE, we found a pooled weighted prevalence of biopsy-verified CD of 0.7%. This is equal to 1 in 149 patients with SLE diagnosed with CD. To our knowledge, this is the first meta-analysis to investigate the prevalence of CD in patients with SLE.

    We report a weighted pooled prevalence of 0.7% for biopsy-verified CD in patients with SLE that is similar to the global prevalence of CD. The prevalence of biopsy-verified CD in the 11 included studies ranged from 0.0% to 6.0%. The reported prevalence of CD in patients with other autoimmune diseases varies substantially. A recent meta-analysis reported a pooled prevalence of 0.4% (95% CI 0.0 to 1.2) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and 1.4% (95% CI 0.7 to 2.2) in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis.107 Another meta-analysis of CD in patients with autoimmune thyroid disease showed a pooled prevalence of 1.6% (95% CI 1.3 to 1.9).108 The differences in the reported prevalence suggest that immunopathogenic factors associated with CD may vary by type of autoimmune disease.

    The underlying mechanisms associating CD with SLE are likely multifactorial and are not fully understood. The HLA risk genes HLA-B8 and HLA-DR3 are shared between CD and SLE109 and may play a role, independently or synergistically, in the pathophysiology of both diseases. The HLA-DR3 haplotype is often present together with the DQ2 allele, which is seen in the vast majority of individuals with CD. Moreover, it is estimated that two out of three individuals with SLE carry the HLA-DR2 or HLA-DR3 haplotypes.110

    Moreover, activation of the innate immune system through toll-like receptors (TLRs) and subsequent production of interferons could indicate a potential common pathophysiological mechanism for CD and SLE. In a recent review by Talipova et al111, TLRs were introduced as possible genetic factors in the aetiology of CD due to their potential role in the interaction between the host immune system and certain external factors, such as viral infections and gut microbiota. The most extensively studied TLRs in the setting of CD seem to be TLR2 and TLR4, but current evidence of their exact role in the pathogenesis is limited.111 TLRs have also been linked to the regulation of B cells in SLE, specifically TLR7 and TLR9; however, further investigations are warranted to understand the dynamics of this link.112 Finally, healthy controls with high titres of ANA, which are highly frequent in patients with SLE, showed upregulation of a gene that encodes for the CD transglutaminase autoantigen 2.113 Speculatively, this could be interpreted as an association between gliadin autoreactivity and incomplete forms of SLE.

    Investigating the opposite relationship, a large Swedish population-based cohort study by Ludvigsson et al10 found a threefold increased risk of SLE in patients with Marsh stage III biopsy-verified CD compared with the general population. We found a weighted pooled prevalence of Marsh stage III biopsy-verified CD of 1.8%. Except from the opposite outcome, the study design and study population in our study are not directly comparable with the Swedish study. Moreover, when comparing our estimate of 1.8% with the CD prevalence in the general population of the four studies reporting Marsh stage III (population prevalence ranged between 0.4% and 1.0%), we found a twofold to fourfold increased CD prevalence in patients with SLE.

    When interpreting our results, some methodological aspects should be taken into consideration. First, in our study, we required the diagnosis of CD to be biopsy-verified. Several patients with positive CD serological markers in studies included in the primary analysis declined or for other reasons did not undergo endoscopic examination with biopsy and were therefore classified as patients without CD. Second, we excluded studies in our analysis which included patients with a prior diagnosis of CD, and several of the included studies likewise excluded patients with a prior diagnosis of CD from their study populations. Third, testing for IgA deficiency was conducted in only 5 out of 14 studies. Previous studies showed that the presence of IgA deficiency reduces the sensitivity of serological screening for CD.114 This could potentially lead to undetected cases and underestimation of the true CD prevalence. Finally, several patients in the included studies were asymptomatic and were therefore less likely to test positive for CD serological markers or show villous atrophy on endoscopic examination with biopsy.

    The threefold increased prevalence of SLE in patients previously diagnosed with biopsy-verified CD reported by Ludvigsson et al10 indicates that the temporal relationship between the two diseases could play a role. From a clinical perspective, gastrointestinal symptoms in a patient without SLE would be more likely to be interpreted as symptoms of a primary gastrointestinal disease, while the same symptoms in a patient with SLE would perhaps be interpreted as related to SLE itself or to SLE medication, thus less likely to lead to a diagnostic investigation of CD. This aspect may also influence the differences between our studies.

    We also investigated the seroprevalence of CD markers in patients with SLE. The global seroprevalence of CD markers in the general population was reported in a meta-analysis to be 1.4%.14 Several studies have reported an increased seroprevalence in patients with autoimmune diseases.94 96 107 Our pooled estimate of 3.7% (among those with any positive TTG or EMA) is higher than the prevalence of biopsy-verified CD and markedly higher than the prevalence globally. However, our included studies showed a substantial heterogeneity (I2=74.2%). When excluding studies that reported a remarkably high seroprevalence (>20.0%), our pooled estimate was 3.1%. However, we noted a considerably higher pooled prevalence of CD (11.6%) when defining CD seropositivity as a positive serology of any of TTG, EMA and AGA. Common antibodies in SLE include ANA, which is present in nearly all patients diagnosed with SLE. This finding suggests that seropositivity with ANA might be correlated with a higher prevalence of seropositivity with AGA without positive serology for any of TTG or EMA. Given the lower specificity of AGA for CD, the association of seropositivity of solely AGA as a CD serological marker seems less supportive of an association of CD in patients with SLE.23 Altogether, our estimates of the seroprevalence of CD markers in patients with SLE seem higher than in the general population, although they have to be interpreted with caution due to a general increase in the prevalence of autoantibodies and the significant variability in range among patients with SLE.115

    Publications included in our study differed substantially in methodology. Differences were seen in the classification of biopsy-verified CD, testing of CD serological markers and cut-off points for serological markers. Furthermore, the included publications cover an extensive period of time (2001–2021) during which various guidelines for detecting CD have been used and the availability of endoscopic examinations varied. Also, the diagnostic criteria for SLE have changed during this time period.116 These factors may have influenced our results. In addition, the study population varied in age, size, comorbidities, genetics, ethnicity and disease severity of SLE. Data on ongoing treatment for SLE were reported only in three studies included in the primary analysis. These study characteristics and disease-related aspects need to be accounted for when interpreting our results. To further investigate the heterogeneity between studies, we performed several meta-regression analyses but found no significant associations.

    We also observed a difference in the prevalence of CD in patients with SLE by region, with the highest pooled weighted estimates for the studies from North Africa, followed by Asia, Europe and South America. It is well known that ethnicity is of importance not only in the development but also in the course and prognosis of an SLE disease, where patients from Africa, East Asia, South Asia and South America are more likely to develop a more severe disease.117 Although our findings might be explained by various study designs and selection of study populations in the different studies, one might speculate if the characteristics of the SLE population could affect the association between the two conditions, that is, whether a stronger association might be observed in patients with SLE with a more severe disease.

    Currently, there are no leading gastroenterological societies that advocate routine screening of CD in patients with SLE. General guidelines from the American College of Gastroenterology propose screening for CD when individual clinical signs and symptoms are suggestive of the disease and recommends small bowel biopsies regardless of the outcome of serological tests among both adults and children.118 They acknowledge, however, that this case-by-case approach may not be sufficient to identify all patients with CD and that no consensus exists on the associated diseases that necessitate screening for CD. The European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology Hepatology and Nutrition proposes testing for CD in certain cases, such as autoimmune conditions, listing type 1 diabetes mellitus, thyroid disease and autoimmune liver disease as examples, and without any explicit reference to SLE.119 Our findings of a CD prevalence comparable with that of the general population do not support standardised screening for CD in patients with SLE. Nonetheless, it is essential to acknowledge overlapping clinical manifestations of CD and SLE. Although CD is characterised by diarrhoea and abdominal pain, it may also present with various extraintestinal manifestations such as arthralgia, thus resembling rheumatological conditions, including SLE. Patients with SLE may likewise be afflicted by the aforementioned symptoms, with roughly half of them experiencing gastrointestinal symptoms.93 To what extent overlapping symptoms lead to a higher proportion of undiagnosed CD in patients with SLE is not known but could indeed be the case. Moreover, it may be that symptoms related to an underlying CD are interpreted as symptoms related to immunomodulating medications used in SLE and thus potentially mask or delay a diagnosis of CD, whereas the opposite seems less likely. Patients with SLE have a reduced health-related quality of life and a considerable disease burden with sometimes disabling symptoms.6 This overlap of symptoms, together with the disease burden of SLE, may suggest a need for increased vigilance among healthcare professionals of signs consistent with CD in patients with SLE and warrants a low threshold for CD diagnostic screening. However, we do not believe our results support the introduction of routine screening for CD in this patient population. Instead, screening with serological markers of CD followed by a small bowel biopsy in seropositive patients could be warranted when there is clinical suspicion of CD or in the presence of additional risk factors for CD. More studies with larger study populations from different regions are necessary to further investigate and develop modalities of potential diagnostic algorithms for CD in patients with SLE.

    This meta-analysis has several strengths. First, four major databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane and Web of Science Core Collection) were used to identify relevant studies, enabling a comprehensive screening of existing literature related to the research question. Second, the primary analysis was restricted to histologically confirmed cases of CD to increase internal validity since diagnosis of CD exclusively based on serological markers could overestimate the true prevalence. Third, we performed several meta-regression analyses to explore potential associations between study characteristics and CD prevalence in SLE that could shed light on our findings. Finally, we conducted a meta-analysis of serological markers of CD in patients with SLE to compare the results of our primary analysis of histologically confirmed CD.

    We acknowledge some limitations to our study. First, we lacked data on CD in patients with SLE from large parts of the world, including East Asia, Oceania and Sub-Saharan Africa. Second, we did not have data on the ethnicity of the included patients on an individual level. Our results should therefore be inferred with caution to different ethnic populations. Third, the included studies did not allow analysis of cases without biopsy-verified CD. Fourth, our results might underestimate the true prevalence of CD since several study participants with elevated serological markers of CD did not undergo an endoscopic examination with biopsy and were therefore classified as patients without CD in our primary analysis. Finally, data on immunosuppressive treatment were scarce in the included studies and not accounted for in our analysis. This should be considered when interpreting the results.

    Conclusions

    In conclusion, through a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found a prevalence of biopsy-verified CD in patients with SLE similar to the prevalence in the general population. Currently, no major gastroenterology or rheumatology society advocates routine screening of CD in patients with SLE. Our results do not support the implementation of routine screening in patients with SLE. However, given the risk of underestimation of the prevalence in this study and the clinical resemblance between the conditions, individual screening could be considered in patients with SLE in cases of clinical suspicion or additional risk factors for CD.

    Data availability statement

    All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.

    Ethics statements

    Patient consent for publication

    Ethics approval

    This was a study of existing literature and therefore ethical approval was not required.

    Acknowledgments

    To Love Strandberg at Karolinska Institute University Library for support in elaborating the database search strategies.

    References

    1. ↵
      1. Tsokos GC
      . Systemic lupus erythematosus. N Engl J Med 2011;365:2110–21. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1100359
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    2. ↵
      1. Cojocaru M,
      2. Cojocaru IM,
      3. Silosi I, et al
      . Manifestations of systemic lupus erythematosus. Maedica (Bucur) 2011;6:330–6.
      OpenUrl
    3. ↵
      1. Rees F,
      2. Doherty M,
      3. Grainge MJ, et al
      . The worldwide incidence and prevalence of systemic lupus erythematosus: a systematic review of epidemiological studies. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2017;56:1945–61. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kex260
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    4. ↵
      1. Kaul A,
      2. Gordon C,
      3. Crow MK, et al
      . Systemic lupus erythematosus. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2016;2:16039. doi:10.1038/nrdp.2016.39
      OpenUrl
    5. ↵
      1. Putterman C,
      2. Caricchio R,
      3. Davidson A, et al
      . Systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Dev Immunol 2012;2012:e437282. doi:10.1155/2012/437282
    6. ↵
      1. Gergianaki I,
      2. Bortoluzzi A,
      3. Bertsias G
      . Update on the epidemiology, risk factors, and disease outcomes of systemic lupus erythematosus. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 2018;32:188–205. doi:10.1016/j.berh.2018.09.004
      OpenUrlPubMed
    7. ↵
      1. Szanto A,
      2. Szodoray P,
      3. Kiss E, et al
      . Clinical, serologic, and genetic profiles of patients with associated Sjögren’s syndrome and systemic lupus erythematosus. Hum Immunol 2006;67:924–30. doi:10.1016/j.humimm.2006.06.006
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. ↵
      1. Gezer S
      . Antiphospholipid syndrome. Dis Mon 2003;49:696–741. doi:10.1016/j.disamonth.2003.10.001
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. ↵
      1. Klionsky Y,
      2. Antonelli M
      . Thyroid disease in lupus: an updated review. ACR Open Rheumatol 2020;2:74–8. doi:10.1002/acr2.11105
      OpenUrl
    10. ↵
      1. Ludvigsson JF,
      2. Rubio-Tapia A,
      3. Chowdhary V, et al
      . Increased risk of systemic lupus erythematosus in 29,000 patients with biopsy-verified celiac disease. J Rheumatol 2012;39:1964–70. doi:10.3899/jrheum.120493
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    11. ↵
      1. Kupfer SS,
      2. Jabri B
      . Pathophysiology of celiac disease. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2012;22:639–60. doi:10.1016/j.giec.2012.07.003
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. ↵
      1. Parzanese I,
      2. Qehajaj D,
      3. Patrinicola F, et al
      . Celiac disease: from pathophysiology to treatment. World J Gastrointest Pathophysiol 2017;8:27–38. doi:10.4291/wjgp.v8.i2.27
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. ↵
      1. Catassi C,
      2. Verdu EF,
      3. Bai JC, et al
      . Coeliac disease. Lancet 2022;399:2413–26. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(22)00794-2
      OpenUrl
    14. ↵
      1. Singh P,
      2. Arora A,
      3. Strand TA, et al
      . Global prevalence of celiac disease: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2018;16:823–36. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.037
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. ↵
      1. Lebwohl B,
      2. Rubio-Tapia A
      . Presentation, and diagnosis of celiac disease. Gastroenterology 2021;160:63–75. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2020.06.098
      OpenUrl
    16. ↵
      1. Glissen Brown JR,
      2. Singh P
      . Coeliac disease. Paediatr Int Child Health 2019;39:23–31. doi:10.1080/20469047.2018.1504431
      OpenUrl
    17. ↵
      1. Lebwohl B,
      2. Sanders DS,
      3. Green PHR
      . Coeliac disease. Lancet 2018;391:70–81. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31796-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. ↵
      1. Therrien A,
      2. Kelly CP,
      3. Silvester JA
      . Celiac disease: extraintestinal manifestations and associated conditions. J Clin Gastroenterol 2020;54:8–21. doi:10.1097/MCG.0000000000001267
      OpenUrl
    19. ↵
      1. Reilly NR,
      2. Green PHR
      . Epidemiology and clinical presentations of celiac disease. Semin Immunopathol 2012;34:473–8. doi:10.1007/s00281-012-0311-2
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. ↵
      1. Page MJ,
      2. McKenzie JE,
      3. Bossuyt PM, et al
      . The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
    21. ↵
      1. Marsh MN
      . Gluten, major histocompatibility complex, and the small intestine: a molecular and immunobiologic approach to the spectrum of gluten sensitivity ('celiac sprue'). Gastroenterology 1992;102:330–54.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    22. ↵
      1. Oberhuber G,
      2. Granditsch G,
      3. Vogelsang H
      . The histopathology of coeliac disease: time for a standardized report scheme for pathologists. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 1999;11:1185–94. doi:10.1097/00042737-199910000-00019
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    23. ↵
      1. Hill ID
      . What are the sensitivity and specificity of serologic tests for celiac disease? Do sensitivity and specificity vary in different populations. Gastroenterology 2005;128(4 Suppl 1):S25–32. doi:10.1053/j.gastro.2005.02.012
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    24. ↵
      1. Tan EM,
      2. Cohen AS,
      3. Fries JF, et al
      . The 1982 revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1982;25:1271–7. doi:10.1002/art.1780251101
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    25. ↵
      1. Hochberg MC
      . Updating the American college of rheumatology revised criteria for the classification of systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 1997;40:1725. doi:10.1002/art.1780400928
    26. ↵
      1. Aringer M,
      2. Costenbader K,
      3. Daikh D, et al
      . European league against rheumatism/American college of rheumatology classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Ann Rheum Dis 2019;78:1151–9. doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2018-214819
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    27. ↵
      1. Petri M,
      2. Orbai A-M,
      3. Alarcón GS, et al
      . Derivation and validation of systemic lupus international collaborating clinics classification criteria for systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:2677–86. doi:10.1002/art.34473 Available: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/15290131/64/8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    28. ↵
      1. Alencar ML,
      2. Ortiz-Agostinho CL,
      3. Nishitokukado L, et al
      . Prevalence of celiac disease among blood donors in SãO PAULO – the most populated city in Brazil. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2012;67:1013–8. doi:10.6061/clinics/2012(09)05
      OpenUrl
    29. ↵
      1. Abu-Zekry M,
      2. Kryszak D,
      3. Diab M, et al
      . Prevalence of celiac disease in Egyptian children disputes the East-West agriculture-dependent spread of the disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2008;47:136–40. doi:10.1097/MPG.0b013e31815ce5d1
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    30. ↵
      1. Bahari A,
      2. Karimi M,
      3. Sanei-Moghaddam I, et al
      . Prevalence of celiac disease among blood donors in Sistan and Balouchestan province, southeastern Iran. Arch Iran Med 2010;13:301–5.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    31. ↵
      1. Fabiani E,
      2. Peruzzi E,
      3. Mandolesi A, et al
      . Anti-human versus anti-guinea pig tissue transglutaminase antibodies as the first-level serological screening test for coeliac disease in the general population. Dig Liver Dis 2004;36:671–6. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2004.05.008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. ↵
      1. Shamir R,
      2. Lerner A,
      3. 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 2002;97:2589–94. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2002.06028.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    33. ↵
      1. Al-Hussaini A,
      2. Troncone R,
      3. Khormi M, et al
      . Mass screening for celiac disease among school-aged children: toward exploring celiac iceberg in Saudi Arabia. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2017;65:646–51. doi:10.1097/MPG.0000000000001681
      OpenUrl
    34. ↵
      1. Hariz MB,
      2. Laadhar L,
      3. Kallel-Sellami M, et al
      . 'Celiac disease in Tunisian children: a second screening study using a 'new generation' rapid test'. Immunol Invest 2013;42:356–68. doi:10.3109/08820139.2013.770012
      OpenUrl
    35. ↵
      1. Demirçeken FG,
      2. Kansu A,
      3. Kuloğlu Z, et al
      . Human tissue transglutaminase antibody screening by Immunochromatographic line immunoassay for early diagnosis of celiac disease in Turkish children. Turk J Gastroenterol Off J Turk Soc Gastroenterol 2008;19:14–21.
      OpenUrl
    36. ↵
      1. Rubio-Tapia A,
      2. Ludvigsson JF,
      3. Brantner TL, et al
      . The prevalence of celiac disease in the United States. Am J Gastroenterol 2012;107:1538–44. doi:10.1038/ajg.2012.219
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    37. ↵
      1. Munn Z,
      2. Moola S,
      3. Lisy K, et al
      . Chapter 5: systematic reviews of prevalence and incidence. In: Aromataris E, Munn Z, eds. JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. JBI, 2020.
    38. ↵
      1. Nyaga VN,
      2. Arbyn M,
      3. Aerts M
      . Metaprop: a STATA command to perform meta-analysis of binomial data. Arch Public Health 2014;72:39. doi:10.1186/2049-3258-72-39
    39. ↵
      1. AlAhmed O,
      2. Sivaraman V,
      3. Moore-Clingenpeel M, et al
      . Autoimmune thyroid diseases, autoimmune hepatitis, celiac disease and type 1 diabetes mellitus in pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus: results from the CARRA legacy registry. Lupus 2020;29:1926–36. doi:10.1177/0961203320961469
      OpenUrl
    40. ↵
      1. Alcobendas RM,
      2. Murias S,
      3. Remesal A, et al
      . Epidemiology, clinical characteristics and therapy approaches of a retrospective cohort of pediatric systemic lupus erythematosus in a tertiary centre. Pediatr Rheumatol 2017;15:P141.
      OpenUrl
    41. ↵
      1. Aletaha D,
      2. Epstein AJ,
      3. Skup M, et al
      . Risk of developing additional immune-mediated manifestations: a retrospective matched cohort study. Adv Ther 2019;36:1672–83. doi:10.1007/s12325-019-00964-z
      OpenUrl
    42. ↵
      1. Altay D,
      2. Kisaarslan AP,
      3. Arslan D
      . Gastrointestinal endoscopic findings of autoimmune and autoinflammatory diseases in pediatric rheumatology patients. North Clin Istanb 2023;10:228–36. doi:10.14744/nci.2021.62713
      OpenUrl
    43. ↵
      1. Bartoloni E,
      2. Bistoni O,
      3. Alunno A, et al
      . Celiac disease prevalence is increased in primary Sjögren’s syndrome and diffuse systemic sclerosis: lessons from a large multi-center study. J Clin Med 2019;8:540. doi:10.3390/jcm8040540
    44. ↵
      1. Basida SD,
      2. Nagadia U,
      3. Basida B, et al
      . S1569 gender-based association of celiac disease with systemic lupus erythematosus and other rheumatologic conditions: analysis from national inpatient database. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117:e1120. doi:10.14309/01.ajg.0000862916.98808.9d
    45. ↵
      1. Basu P,
      2. Shah NJ,
      3. Kavali L, et al
      . Mo1361 low titer endomysial antibody (EMA) in non-celiac population segregated from a community with immune mediated vasculitis. An observational study. Gastrointest Endosc 2016;83:AB469. doi:10.1016/j.gie.2016.03.637
    46. ↵
      1. Bonaci-Nikolic B,
      2. Andrejevic S,
      3. Radlovic N, et al
      . Serological and clinical comparison of children and adults with anti-endomysial antibodies. J Clin Immunol 2007;27:163–71. doi:10.1007/s10875-006-9062-y
      OpenUrlPubMed
    47. ↵
      1. Calzolari C,
      2. Ghiselli A,
      3. Vincenzi F, et al
      . Pp9 how is celiac disease changed in the last decade? A retrospective study. Dig Liver Dis 2011;43:S414. doi:10.1016/S1590-8658(11)60652-X
    48. ↵
      1. Conrad N,
      2. Misra S,
      3. Verbakel JY, et al
      . Incidence, prevalence, and co-occurrence of autoimmune disorders over time and by age, sex, and socioeconomic status: a population-based cohort study of 22 million individuals in the UK. Lancet 2023;401:1878–90. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00457-9
      OpenUrl
    49. ↵
      1. Conti L,
      2. Lahner E,
      3. Galli G, et al
      . Risk factors associated with the occurrence of autoimmune diseases in adult coeliac patients. Gastroenterol Res Pract 2018;2018:3049286. doi:10.1155/2018/3049286
    50. ↵
      1. Conti V,
      2. Leone MC,
      3. Casato M, et al
      . High prevalence of gluten sensitivity in a cohort of patients with undifferentiated connective tissue disease. Eur Ann Allergy Clin Immunol 2015;47:54–7.
      OpenUrl
    51. ↵
      1. Cooper GS,
      2. Bynum MLK,
      3. Somers EC
      . Recent insights in the epidemiology of autoimmune diseases: improved prevalence estimates and understanding of clustering of diseases. J Autoimmun 2009;33:197–207. doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2009.09.008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    52. ↵
      1. Costa LP,
      2. Bonfá E,
      3. Carvalho F, et al
      . Absence of anti-endomisium antibodies in juvenile onset systemic lupus erythematosus patients. J Clin Rheumatol 2010;16(3 Suppl):S17.
    53. ↵
      1. Dahan S,
      2. Shor D-A,
      3. Comaneshter D, et al
      . All disease begins in the gut: celiac disease co-existence with SLE. Autoimmun Rev 2016;15:848–53. doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2016.06.003
      OpenUrl
    54. ↵
      1. Dima A,
      2. Jurcut C,
      3. Balanescu E, et al
      . Immune and autoimmune gluten-related phenomenon in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2017;26:1235–6. doi:10.1177/0961203317700483
      OpenUrl
    55. ↵
      1. Eaton WW,
      2. Rose NR,
      3. Kalaydjian A, et al
      . Epidemiology of autoimmune diseases in Denmark. J Autoimmun 2007;29:1–9. doi:10.1016/j.jaut.2007.05.002
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. ↵
      1. Feighery L,
      2. Collins C,
      3. Feighery C, et al
      . Anti-Transglutaminase antibodies and the serological diagnosis of Coeliac disease. Br J Biomed Sci 2003;60:14–8. doi:10.1080/09674845.2003.11783671
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    57. ↵
      1. Ferreira M,
      2. Davies SL,
      3. Butler M, et al
      . Endomysial antibody: is it the best screening test for coeliac disease. Gut 1992;33:1633–7. doi:10.1136/gut.33.12.1633
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    58. ↵
      1. Ghannouchi N,
      2. Bel Haj L,
      3. Atig A, et al
      . What other autoimmune diseases can be associated with systemic lupus erythematosus. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2015;33:SUPPL 90.
    59. ↵
      1. Gupta V,
      2. Singh A,
      3. Makharia GK
      . Prevalence of auto-antibodies and autoimmune disorders in patients with celiac disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2020;55:785. doi:10.1080/00365521.2020.1785544
    60. ↵
      1. Haider M,
      2. Tariq R,
      3. Aljaras R, et al
      . S1573 incidence and risk of diseases of the musculoskeletal systems and connective tissues in celiac disease patients. Am J Gastroenterol 2022;117:e1121–2. doi:10.14309/01.ajg.0000862932.78419.6a
      OpenUrl
    61. ↵
      1. Hakem D,
      2. Hamadane A,
      3. Salah SS, et al
      . Unusual manifestationsof SLE observed in internal medicine cohort. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2015;33:SUPPL. 90.
      OpenUrl
    62. ↵
      1. Hakem D,
      2. Salah SS,
      3. Benidir M, et al
      . Autoimmune diseases and systemic lupus erythematosa: fortuitous association or continuum? Clin Exp Rheumatol 2015;33:SUPPL 90.
    63. ↵
      1. Harris L,
      2. Chopra R,
      3. Rosenthal AK, et al
      . Elevated transglutaminase levels on microparticles from systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Arthritis Rheum 2012;64:S1–1216.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    64. ↵
      1. Hassan E,
      2. Magdy N
      . Ab0230B study of celiac disease antibodies in patients with juvenile onset Rheumatological disorders. Annual European Congress of Rheumatology, EULAR 2019, Madrid, 12–15 June 2019; June 2019:1572 doi:10.1136/annrheumdis-2019-eular.848
    65. ↵
      1. Inamo J
      . Association between celiac disease and systemic lupus erythematosus: a mendelian randomization study. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2020;59:2642–4. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keaa071
      OpenUrl
    66. ↵
      1. Iqbal T,
      2. Zaidi MA,
      3. Wells GA, et al
      . Celiac disease arthropathy and autoimmunity study. J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2013;28:99–105. doi:10.1111/j.1440-1746.2012.07272.x
      OpenUrl
    67. ↵
      1. Koehne V de B,
      2. Bahia M,
      3. Lanna CCD, et al
      . Prevalence of serological markers for celiac disease (IgA and IgG class antigliadin antibodies and IgA class antiendomysium antibodies) in patients with autoimmune rheumatologic diseases in. Arq Gastroenterol 2010;47:250–6. doi:10.1590/s0004-28032010000300008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    68. ↵
      1. Lorber M,
      2. Gershwin ME,
      3. Shoenfeld Y
      . The coexistence of systemic lupus erythematosus with other autoimmune diseases: the kaleidoscope of autoimmunity. Semin Arthritis Rheum 1994;24:105–13. doi:10.1016/s0049-0172(05)80004-6
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    69. ↵
      1. Luft LM,
      2. Barr SG,
      3. Martin LO, et al
      . Autoantibodies to tissue transglutaminase in Sjögren’s syndrome and related rheumatic diseases. J Rheumatol 2003;30:2613–9.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    70. ↵
      1. Malagón C,
      2. Gomez MDP,
      3. Mosquera C, et al
      . Juvenile polyautoimmunity in a rheumatology setting. Autoimmun Rev 2019;18:369–81. doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2018.11.006
      OpenUrlPubMed
    71. ↵
      1. Missoum H,
      2. Alami M,
      3. Bachir F, et al
      . Prevalence of autoimmune diseases and clinical significance of autoantibody profile: data from National Institute of hygiene in Rabat, Morocco. Hum Immunol 2019;80:523–32. doi:10.1016/j.humimm.2019.02.012
      OpenUrl
    72. ↵
      1. Natter MD,
      2. Ong MS,
      3. Mandl KD, et al
      . Comorbidity patterns in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus: the childhood arthritis and rheumatology research alliance Registry. Arthritis Rheumatol 2014;66:S1–1402. doi:10.1002/art.38593
      OpenUrl
    73. ↵
      1. Nijhawan S,
      2. Katiyar P,
      3. Nagaich N, et al
      . Prevalence of associated disorders in Indian patients with celiac disease. Indian J Gastroenterol 2013;32:330–4. doi:10.1007/s12664-013-0345-y
      OpenUrl
    74. ↵
      1. Philippou E,
      2. Nikiphorou E
      . Gluten or no gluten for rheumatic diseases? Jt Bone Spine 2022;89:105453. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2022.105453
      OpenUrl
    75. ↵
      1. Poddighe D,
      2. Romano M,
      3. Dossybayeva K, et al
      . Celiac disease in juvenile idiopathic arthritis and other pediatric rheumatic disorders. J Clin Med 2022;11:1089. doi:10.3390/jcm11041089
    76. ↵
      1. Reunala T,
      2. Collin P
      . Diseases associated with dermatitis herpetiformis. Br J Dermatol 1997;136:315–8.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    77. ↵
      1. Sánchez D,
      2. Tucková L,
      3. Sebo P, et al
      . Occurrence of IgA and IgG autoantibodies to calreticulin in coeliac disease and various autoimmune diseases. J Autoimmun 2000;15:441–9. doi:10.1006/jaut.2000.0452
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    78. ↵
      1. Saxena A,
      2. Romero AG,
      3. Izmirly PM, et al
      . CE-40 long-term development of autoimmune disease in children with neonatal lupus and their unaffected siblings. Lupus Sci Med 2016;3:Supplement 1.
    79. ↵
      1. Setoue DN,
      2. Pitta AC,
      3. Fiorot FJ, et al
      . Symptomatic polyautoimmunity at diagnosis of 1463 childhood-onset lupus: a Brazilian multicenter study. Autoimmun Rev 2018;17:836–9. doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2018.03.009
      OpenUrl
    80. ↵
      1. Sherman Y,
      2. Karanicolas R,
      3. DiMarco B, et al
      . Unrecognized celiac disease in children presenting for rheumatology evaluation. Pediatrics 2015;136:e68–75. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-2379
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    81. ↵
      1. Shields BE,
      2. Latour E,
      3. Fett NM
      . Characteristics of patients with celiac disease and connective tissue disease overlap. Int J Dermatol 2020;59:e309–12. doi:10.1111/ijd.14892
      OpenUrl
    82. ↵
      1. Shor DB-A,
      2. Orbach H,
      3. Boaz M, et al
      . Gastrointestinal-associated autoantibodies in different autoimmune diseases. Am J Clin Exp Immunol 2012;1:49–55.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    83. ↵
      1. Tanay A,
      2. Brickman CM,
      3. Gas S, et al
      . TG or not TG: IgG-anti-tissue transglutaminase in systemic lupus erythematosus: new role for an old enzyme. Isr Med Assoc J IMAJ 2002;4:878–9.
      OpenUrl
    84. ↵
      1. Tejera Segura B,
      2. Altabás González I,
      3. Rúa-Figueroa I, et al
      . Relevance of gastrointestinal manifestations in a large Spanish cohort of patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: what do we know. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2021;60:5329–36. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/keab401
      OpenUrl
    85. ↵
      1. Vives M-J,
      2. Esteve M,
      3. Mariné M, et al
      . Prevalence and clinical relevance of enteropathy associated with systemic autoimmune diseases. Dig Liver Dis 2012;44:636–42. doi:10.1016/j.dld.2012.02.013
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    86. ↵
      1. Zheng J,
      2. Ni R,
      3. Zou G, et al
      . Celiac disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus: an analysis of nationwide inpatient sample. Arthritis Rheumatol 2022;74.
    87. ↵
      1. Bizzaro N,
      2. Villalta D,
      3. Tonutti E, et al
      . Iga and IgG tissue transglutaminase antibody prevalence and clinical significance in connective tissue diseases, inflammatory bowel disease, and primary biliary cirrhosis. Dig Dis Sci 2003;48:2360–5. doi:10.1023/b:ddas.0000007875.72256.e8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    88. ↵
      1. Bizzaro N,
      2. Villalta D,
      3. Tonutti E, et al
      . Association of celiac disease with connective tissue diseases and autoimmune diseases of the digestive tract. Autoimmun Rev 2003;2:358–63. doi:10.1016/s1568-9972(03)00055-7
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    89. ↵
      1. Villalta D,
      2. Bizzaro N,
      3. Tonutti E, et al
      . Igg anti-transglutaminase autoantibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus and Sjögren syndrome. Clin Chem 2002;48:1133.
    90. ↵
      1. Kamaeva OI,
      2. Reznikov IP,
      3. Pimenova NS, et al
      . Antigliadin antibodies in the absence of celiac disease. Klin Med (Mosk) 1998;76:33–5.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    91. ↵
      1. Mercié P,
      2. Viallard JF,
      3. Faure I, et al
      . [Association of celiac disease and lupus]. Presse Med 1999;28:532.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    92. ↵
      1. Rodríguez GR,
      2. Zazzetti F,
      3. da Representaçao SR, et al
      . Serum anti endomysial and anti transglutaminase antibodies in patients with connective tissue diseases. Rev Med Chil 2014;142:1510–6. doi:10.4067/S0034-98872014001200003
      OpenUrl
    93. ↵
      1. Soltani Z,
      2. Baghdadi A,
      3. Nejadhosseinian M, et al
      . Celiac disease in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Reumatologia 2021;59:85–9. doi:10.5114/reum.2021.105416
      OpenUrl
    94. ↵
      1. Rensch MJ,
      2. Szyjkowski R,
      3. Shaffer RT, et al
      . The prevalence of celiac disease autoantibodies in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96:1113–5. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03753.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    95. ↵
      1. Aikawa NE,
      2. Jesus AA,
      3. Liphaus BL, et al
      . Organ-specific autoantibodies and autoimmune diseases in juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus and juvenile dermatomyositis patients. Clin Exp Rheumatol 2012;30:126–31.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    96. ↵
      1. AlEnzi F,
      2. Yateem M,
      3. Shaikh M, et al
      . The value of screening for celiac disease in systemic lupus erythematosus: a single experience of a tertiary medical center. Rheumatol Ther 2020;7:649–56. doi:10.1007/s40744-020-00223-6
      OpenUrl
    97. ↵
      1. Ben Abdelghani K,
      2. Mouelhi L,
      3. Hriz A, et al
      . Systemic lupus erythematosus and celiac disease. Jt Bone Spine 2012;79:202–3. doi:10.1016/j.jbspin.2011.07.010
      OpenUrl
    98. ↵
      1. Elhami E,
      2. Zakeri Z,
      3. Sadeghi A, et al
      . Prevalence of celiac disease in Iranian patients with rheumatologic disorders. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench 2018;11:239–43.
      OpenUrl
    99. ↵
      1. Linzmeyer GFA,
      2. Miyake FK,
      3. Santos T, et al
      . Serum immunoglobulin a deficiency and autoimmune Comorbidities: a crossectional study in 281 patients with systemic lupus erythematosus. Rev Assoc Med Bras (1992) 2020;66:752–6. doi:10.1590/1806-9282.66.6.752
      OpenUrl
    100. ↵
      1. Marai I,
      2. Shoenfeld Y,
      3. Bizzaro N, et al
      . Iga and IgG tissue transglutaminase antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus. Lupus 2004;13:241–4. doi:10.1191/0961203304lu1004oa
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    101. ↵
      1. Picceli VF,
      2. Skare TL,
      3. Nisihara R, et al
      . Spectrum of autoantibodies for gastrointestinal autoimmune diseases in systemic lupus erythematosus patients. Lupus 2013;22:1150–5. doi:10.1177/0961203313503911
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    102. ↵
      1. Şahin Y,
      2. Şahin S,
      3. Adrovic A, et al
      . Serological screening for celiac disease in children with systemic lupus erythematosus. Eur J Rheumatol 2019;6:142–5. doi:10.5152/eurjrheum.2019.18130
      OpenUrl
    103. ↵
      1. Shamseya AM,
      2. Elsayed EH,
      3. Donia HM
      . Study of serology and genetics of celiac disease in patients with juvenile systemic lupus erythematosus ‘celiac in juvenile systemic lupus. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2020;32:1322–7. doi:10.1097/MEG.0000000000001865
      OpenUrl
    104. ↵
      1. Gheita TA,
      2. Fawzy SM,
      3. Nour El-Din AM, et al
      . Asymptomatic celiac sprue in juvenile rheumatic diseases children. Int J Rheum Dis 2012;15:220–6. doi:10.1111/j.1756-185X.2011.01681.x
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    105. ↵
      1. Caio G,
      2. De Giorgio R,
      3. Ursini F, et al
      . Prevalence of celiac disease serological markers in a cohort of Italian rheumatological patients. Gastroenterol Hepatol Bed Bench 2018;11:244–9.
      OpenUrl
    106. ↵
      1. Mader R,
      2. Adawi M,
      3. Mussel Y, et al
      . Celiac disease antibodies in systemic lupus erythematosus. Arthritis Rheum 2003;48:S586.
    107. ↵
      1. Forss A,
      2. Sotoodeh A,
      3. van Vollenhoven RF, et al
      . Prevalence of Coeliac disease in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and juvenile idiopathic arthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Exp Rheumatol October 25, 2023. doi:10.55563/clinexprheumatol/b92b8a
    108. ↵
      1. Roy A,
      2. Laszkowska M,
      3. Sundström J, et al
      . Prevalence of celiac disease in patients with autoimmune thyroid disease: a meta-analysis. Thyroid 2016;26:880–90. doi:10.1089/thy.2016.0108
      OpenUrlPubMed
    109. ↵
      1. Zhernakova A,
      2. Withoff S,
      3. Wijmenga C
      . Clinical implications of shared genetics and pathogenesis in autoimmune diseases. Nat Rev Endocrinol 2013;9:646–59. doi:10.1038/nrendo.2013.161
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    110. ↵
      1. Graham RR,
      2. Ortmann W,
      3. Rodine P, et al
      . Specific combinations of HLA-Dr2 and Dr3 class II haplotypes contribute graded risk for disease susceptibility and autoantibodies in human SLE. Eur J Hum Genet 2007;15:823–30. doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201827
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    111. ↵
      1. Talipova D,
      2. Smagulova A,
      3. Poddighe D
      . Toll-like receptors and celiac disease. Int J Mol Sci 2022;24:265. doi:10.3390/ijms24010265
    112. ↵
      1. Wen L,
      2. Zhang B,
      3. Wu X, et al
      . Toll-like receptors 7 and 9 regulate the proliferation and differentiation of B cells in systemic lupus erythematosus. Front Immunol 2023;14:1093208. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2023.1093208
    113. ↵
      1. Li Q-Z,
      2. Karp DR,
      3. Quan J, et al
      . Risk factors for ANA positivity in healthy persons. Arthritis Res Ther 2011;13:R38. doi:10.1186/ar3271
    114. ↵
      1. Nazario E,
      2. Lasa J,
      3. Schill A, et al
      . Iga deficiency is not systematically ruled out in patients undergoing celiac disease testing. Dig Dis Sci 2022;67:1238–43. doi:10.1007/s10620-021-06939-x
      OpenUrl
    115. ↵
      1. Dema B,
      2. Charles N
      . Autoantibodies in SLE: Specificities, isotypes and receptors. Antibodies (Basel) 2016;5:2. doi:10.3390/antib5010002
    116. ↵
      1. Petri M,
      2. Goldman DW,
      3. Alarcón GS, et al
      . Comparison of the 2019 European alliance of associations for rheumatology/American college of rheumatology systemic lupus erythematosus classification criteria with two sets of earlier systemic lupus erythematosus classification criteria. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) 2021;73:1231–5. doi:10.1002/acr.24263 Available: https://acrjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/toc/21514658/73/9
      OpenUrl
    117. ↵
      1. Lewis MJ,
      2. Jawad AS
      . The effect of ethnicity and genetic ancestry on the epidemiology, clinical features and outcome of systemic lupus erythematosus. Rheumatology (Oxford) 2017;56(suppl_1):i67–77. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/kew399
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    118. ↵
      1. Rubio-Tapia A,
      2. Hill ID,
      3. Semrad C, et al
      . American college of gastroenterology guidelines update: diagnosis and management of celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2023;118:59–76. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000002075
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    119. ↵
      1. Husby S,
      2. Koletzko S,
      3. Korponay-Szabó I, et al
      . European society paediatric gastroenterology, hepatology and nutrition guidelines for diagnosing coeliac disease 2020. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2020;70:141–56. doi:10.1097/MPG.0000000000002497
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed

    Supplementary materials

    • Supplementary Data

      This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

    Footnotes

    • AS and MNH contributed equally.

    • Contributors AS and MNH are guarantors of the article and had unrestricted access to the data; each takes full responsibility for data integrity and accuracy of the analyses. AS: data collection and review of publications, analysis and interpretation of collected data, statistical analysis, and drafting of the manuscript. MNH: data collection and review of publications, interpretation of data, and drafting of the manuscript. KH: interpretation of data, drafting and critical revision of the manuscript. AF: study concept and design, study protocol, study supervision, interpretation and analysis of data, and critical revision of the manuscript.

    • Funding The study received funding from Bengt Ihre Foundation/Ihre Fellowship (SLS-974469).

    • Competing interests AF served as speaker and advisory board member for Janssen and Tillotts Pharma.

    • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.