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.
Celiac.com 01/11/2007 – Researchers in Finland have determined that many patients with untreated celiac disease show the presence of intestinal endomysial autoantibodies (EmA), even in the 10-20% of cases where their serum EmA is negative. The researchers also believe that the negative serum EmA test in these cases is an indication of more advanced and long-standing celiac disease. Normally positive serum EmA is close to 100% accurate, however there is a subset of around 10-20% of patients where the test is negative even though they do have the disease. Dr. Katri Kaukinen and colleagues at the University of Tampere looked at 177 celiac disease patients and found that 22 were serum EmA-negative. A common theme among the 22 serum EmA-negative patients was that they were older and had more abdominal symptoms and other complications that indicated a more advanced stage of celiac disease than their serum EmA-positive counterparts. The research team found that even though the EmA antibodies could not be detected in the blood of these 22 patients, they could be detected in the small bowel mucosa in all of them, and none were detected in 20 control patients. Dr. Kaukinen and colleagues believe that the use of intestinal EmA antibody detection should be used in seronegative individuals who are suspected to have celiac disease.
This study further supports Dr. Kenneth Fines use of IgA antigliadin antibodies in the stool to detect gluten sensitivity, and one has to wonder if the EmA antibodies, if detectable in the small bowel mucosa, would not also be detectable in the patient’s stool, and if so would that not be a much better and more cost-effective way to perform such a screening?