Celiac Disease & Gluten-free Diet Information at Celiac.com - http://www.celiac.com
Positive Antigliadin Antibody (AGA) is a Poor Marker for Celiac Disease
http://www.celiac.com/articles/1042/1/Positive-Antigliadin-Antibody-AGA-is-a-Poor-Marker-for-Celiac-Disease/Page1.html
Scott Adams

In 1994 I was diagnosed with celiac disease, which led me to create Celiac.com in 1995. I created this site for a single purpose: To help as many people as possible with celiac disease get diagnosed so they can begin to live happy, healthy gluten-free lives. Celiac.com was the first site on the Internet dedicated solely to celiac disease. In 1998 I created The Gluten-Free Mall, Your Special Diet Superstore!, and I am the co-author of the book Cereal Killers, and founder and publisher of Journal of Gluten Sensitivity.

 
By Scott Adams
Published on 08/14/2006
 
Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;18:503-506. Celiac.com 08/14/2006 – A team of German researc

Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006;18:503-506.

Celiac.com 08/14/2006 – A team of German researchers led by Dr. Martin W. Laass of the Childrens Hospital in Dresden have determined that antigliadin antibody (AGA) positivity disappears in over 50% of cases, and is therefore a poor marker for celiac disease. The researchers did follow up AGA testing on 69 adults and 47 children who participated in a much larger study conducted four years ago and found that only 26 of the adults and 21 of the children still had detectable levels of AGA in their blood samples, and none of them were positive for IgA-class anti-endomysial antibodies. Additionally no correlation was found in the subjects between their serum and fecal AGA.

The researchers conclude that the appearance of AGA should be interpreted as a non-specific “immunomodulation phenomenon” that has low specificity as a diagnostic marker for celiac disease. The researchers emphasize that it is still unknown why the AGA markers are transient, but various conditions might account for it, including a change in the sensitivity of the test that was used in the original study conducted four years ago versus the one used in this study.