Celiac Disease & Gluten-free Diet Information at Celiac.com - http://www.celiac.com
Anti-transglutaminase (tTG) and Anti-endomysium (EMA) Antibodies not Useful in Determining Histologic Recovery in Celiac Disease
http://www.celiac.com/articles/719/1/Anti-transglutaminase-tTG-and-Anti-endomysium-EMA-Antibodies-not-Useful-in-Determining-Histologic-Recovery-in-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, and since then it has become an invaluable resource to people worldwide who seek information about celiac disease and the gluten-free diet.

In 1998 I created The Gluten-Free Mall, Your Special Diet Superstore! which was also another Internet first—it was the first gluten-free food site to offer a shopping cart-style interface, and the ability for people to order gluten-free products manufactured by many different companies at a single Web site.

I am also co-author of the book Cereal Killers, and founder and publisher of Journal of Gluten Sensitivity.

 
By Scott Adams
Published on 11/18/2003
 
J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003 Nov-Dec;37(5):387-91 Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Giorgetti GM. Celiac.com

J Clin Gastroenterol. 2003 Nov-Dec;37(5):387-91
Tursi A, Brandimarte G, Giorgetti GM.

Celiac.com 11/18/2003 - According to the results of an Italian study neither anti-transglutaminase (tTG) nor Anti-endomysium (EMA) antibody levels should be used to determine the state of recovery of gluten-free celiacs. The study looked at 42 consecutively biopsy and blood antibody diagnosed celiac disease patients who went on gluten-free diets, and were then evaluated at 6, 12, and 18 months using anti-transglutaminase (tTG) antibodies and EGDscopy (multiple bioptic samples). For comparison sorbitol H2-breath tests (H2-BT) and anti-endomysium (EMA) antibody tests were also carried out. The results:

(A)nti-tTG and EMA were ineffective in assessing the histologic recovery at each follow-up visit (P = NS), while sorbitol H2-BT seems more effective than anti-tTG and EMA in this field (P < 0.0001 sorbitol H2-BT versus anti-tTG and versus EMA at 18 months after gluten withdrawal). Thirty-eight of 42 (90.47%) patients adhered to a strict GFD. Four patients were found to have occasional dietary transgression, and in all we noted a progressive decreasing of anti-tTG after 6 months of GFD and negative anti-tTG after 12 months of GFD, but sorbitol H2-BT persisted being positive during the entire follow-up. Intestinal damage persisted during the follow-up, despite anti-tTG and EMA negativity, and worsened in the presence of dietary lapses. Anti-tTG does not seem effective to assess histologic recovery in the follow-up of celiac patients after they have started GFD due to its poor correlation with histologic damage.

These results indicate that the biopsy is still the best method to determine recovery from celiac disease, and surprisingly the non-invasive sorbitol H2-breath test was better than both anti-tTG and EMA serology testing in this regard.