Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.




  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):


  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Help Celiac.com:
    eNewsletter
    Donate
  • Record is Archived

    This article is now archived and is closed to further replies.

    Scott Adams
    Scott Adams

    Effectiveness of Stool Testing in the Diagnosis of Celiac Disease in Children: With Comments by Dr. Kenneth Fine

    Reviewed and edited by a celiac disease expert.

    Celiac.com 02/27/2006 - Kappler M, Krauss-Etschmann S, Diehl V, Zeilhofer H, Koletzko S. Detection of secretory IgA antibodies against gliadin and human tissue transglutaminase in stool to screen for celiac disease in children: validation study. BMJ. 2006 January 28; 332(7535): 213-14.

    Celiac.com Sponsor (A12):
    Study Abstract:

    Objective:

    To evaluate two commercial stool tests for detection of secretory IgA antibodies against gliadin and human tissue transglutaminase for diagnosis of celiac disease in children with symptoms.

    Setting:
    Tertiary care childrens hospital.

    Participants:
    Coded stool samples from 20 children with newly diagnosed celiac disease and 64 controls. Six children with celiac disease had stool tests every two weeks for three months after starting a gluten-free diet.

    Main Outcome Measures:
    Secretory IgA antibodies against gliadin and human tissue transglutaminase in stool samples, determined in duplicate by using recommended cut-off limits.

    Results:
    Sensitivity of fecal antibodies against human tissue transglutaminase was 10% (95% confidence interval 1% to 32%), and specificity was 98% (91% to 100%). For antibodies against gliadin, sensitivity was 6% (0% to 29%) and specificity was 97% (89% to 100%). Optimisation of cut-off limits by receiver operating characteristic analysis and use of results of both tests increased sensitivity to 82%, but specificity decreased to 58%. All follow-up stool tests remained negative, except for two positive anti-gliadin results in one patient, six and 10 weeks after the gluten-free diet was started.

    Conclusions:
    Neither stool test was suitable for screening for celiac disease in children with symptoms.

    Dr. Kenneth Fine Comments on this Study:

    Dont Throw the Baby Out With the Bath Water!

    Letter to the Editor BMJ

    Kamran Rostami, M.D., Ph.D. Department of Medicine, Gloucestershire Royal Hospital Gloucester, UK
    Kenneth Fine, M.D. The Intestinal Health Institute, Dallas, Texas, USA

    We have read with interest the article by Kappler et al recently published in your journal (1) and feel several issues deserve mention. This article is very timely in light of the growing worldwide awareness of immunologic sensitivity to dietary gluten and celiac disease, as well as appreciation of its high prevalence; these facts are driving the need for more widely available, low cost, non-invasive screening tests. Stool testing for these disorders holds great promise for screening because it does not require any invasion of body tissues, is of relatively low cost, and could be widely available combining medical care delivery of such tests with home testing.

    While our first criticism of this study is its small cohort size (20 patients), the results are intriguing, but in our opinion have been misinterpreted by the authors. First, there is a potential methodological flaw in this study whereby a serologic method was apparently transferred intact to analyze stool. The aspects of a serologic ELISA method possibly requiring modification for use in stool include but are not limited to: degree to which the sample is diluted prior to analysis; technique and amount of washing of plates during ELISA analysis (because of greater solid contaminant of fecal fluid vs. serum); mathematical conversion of detected optical density to a Unit; and how that calculated Unit is interpreted relative to a normal vs. abnormal cutoff. Utilizing fecal antigliadin and antitissuetransglutaminase IgA antibody testing in this way were reported to be very insensitive (6-10%) but highly specific (97-98%) for celiac disease. Such results should be interpreted as possibly possessing either a misassigned cutoff value (i.e., one that was too high), or possibly introduction of an artificial element that drove fecal antibody concentrations down (such as over-diluting the stool, improper handling or storage of specimens allowing ex vivo destruction of antibody, or centrifuging the stool at the wrong speed driving antibody into the pellet; the authors mentioned destruction of antibody during transit within the GI tract, but antibody is very stable within the GI tract, and has been detected in stool by many authors). Nevertheless, as performed in this study, such a highly specific stool test for celiac disease could be used as a pre-screening test of sorts, able to specifically and non-invasively detect celiac disease, perhaps with a home collected stool specimen. At the worst, 6-10% of celiac patients could be identified even before presenting to a medical institution.

    The authors went on to correct a potential cutoff error, using optimization of cut-off limits by receiver operating characteristic analysis, and found that resetting the cut-off value and combining the tests could possess an 82% sensitivity and 58% specificity. Again the authors discounted these findings, in our opinion failing to grasp their importance. Although they did not report the corrected accuracy results of antigliadin test alone, their stool test may have outperformed serum antigliadin antibody, the serologic test in longest use in screening for celiac disease. Many investigators have lost confidence in the presumed lack of specificity of antigliadin antibody alone as a screening test for celiac disease because of the paradigm within which it has been applied, that is, villous atrophic celiac disease. It is also known that its sensitivity is highly dependent on the degree of small intestinal villous atrophy present (2). Most importantly today however, in our opinion, with the wealth of expanding knowledge on the broadening clinical spectrum of gluten-sensitive disorders (3), it should at least have been considered and/or discussed by Kappler et al that in their optimized cut-off analysis, a positive fecal antigliadin antibody may have been a true sign of immunologic sensitivity to gluten either in an evolutionary phase before the onset of villous atrophic celiac disease (4), or in gluten sensitive individuals who may never develop classic celiac disease but who suffer symptoms and associated autoimmune disorders nevertheless. When interpreted in this context, the authors results may have been clinically important. We feel further study of this method with improved attention to methodological issues pertaining to stool, and broader clinical application beyond classic celiac disease is warranted.

    References:

    1. Kappler M, Krauss-Etschmann S, Diehl V, Zeilhofer H, Koletzko S. Detection of secretory IgA antibodies against gliadin and human tissue transglutaminase in stool to screen for celiac disease in children: validation study. BMJ. 2006 January 28; 332(7535): 213-14.

    2. Rostami K, Kerckhaert J, Tiemessen R, von Blomberg BM, Meijer JW, Mulder CJ. Sensitivity of antiendomysium and antigliadin antibodies in untreated celiac disease: disappointing in clinical practice. Am J Gastroenterol. 1999 Apr;94(4):888-94.

    3. Ferguson A, Arranz E, OMahony S. Clinical and pathological spectrum of celiac disease--active, silent, latent, potential. Gut. 1993 Feb;34(2):150-1.

    4. Arranz E, Ferguson A. Jejunal fluid antibodies and mucosal gamma/delta IEL in latent and potential celiac disease. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1995;371B:1345-8.



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    There are no comments to display.



    Guest
    This is now closed for further comments

  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Help Celiac.com:
    Donate
  • About Me

    Scott Adams

    Scott Adams was diagnosed with celiac disease in 1994, and, due to the nearly total lack of information available at that time, was forced to become an expert on the disease in order to recover. In 1995 he launched the site that later became Celiac.com to help as many people as possible with celiac disease get diagnosed so they can begin to live happy, healthy gluten-free lives.  He is co-author of the book Cereal Killers, and founder and publisher of the (formerly paper) newsletter Journal of Gluten Sensitivity. In 1998 he founded The Gluten-Free Mall which he sold in 2014. Celiac.com does not sell any products, and is 100% advertiser supported.


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):
    Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):





    Celiac.com Sponsors (A17-M):




  • Related Articles

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/03/2010 - Clinical presentation of celiac disease can vary considerably from patient to patient. Most patients with celiac disease present atypical symptoms. Moreover, most patients who present abdominal symptoms in primary care do not have celiac disease, and so diagnostic tests for celiac disease are not necessary and should be avoided.
    A team of researchers recently conducted a systematic review of diagnostic testing for celiac disease among patients with abdominal symptoms.
    The team included Daniëlle A. W. M. van der Windt, PhD; Petra Jellema, PhD; Chris J. Mulder, MD, PhD; C. M. Frank Kneepkens, MD, PhD; and Henriëtte E. van der Horst, MD, PhD. Their article appears in the Journal of the American Medical Association.
    The goal of the research was to review a...


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 01/11/2012 - In an effort to understand how delayed celiac disease diagnosis became the norm for most patients over the last few decades, a research team conducted a study to assess the issue. Their study also looked at how delayed diagnosis affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for those with celiac disease, and considered differences with respect to sex and age.
    For the study, the team collaborated with the Swedish Society for Coeliacs to send a questionnaire to 1,560 randomly-chosen members, divided equally by age and sex. A total of 1,031 members (66%) responded. The team first measured HRQoL using the EQ-5D descriptive system, then translated the results to quality-adjusted life year (QALY) scores.
    The team then compared the results against the results...


  • Recent Activity

    1. - CatherineWang replied to B1rdL0ver's topic in Related Issues & Disorders
      40

      Dealing with constant nausea and just feeling awful.

    2. - cristiana replied to BunnyBrown's topic in Related Issues & Disorders
      3

      Recently had my esophagus dilated

    3. - cristiana replied to twe0708's topic in Post Diagnosis, Recovery & Treatment of Celiac Disease
      54

      How Long Do Celiac Patients Live?

    4. - Exchange Students replied to Exchange Students's topic in Parents, Friends and Loved Ones of Celiacs
      2

      Exchange Students who are celiac in need of host

    5. - Scott Adams replied to Exchange Students's topic in Parents, Friends and Loved Ones of Celiacs
      2

      Exchange Students who are celiac in need of host


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      120,167
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Usedtolovebread
    Newest Member
    Usedtolovebread
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      120.2k
    • Total Posts
      1m

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Popular Now

    • Sunflowers06
      6
    • Momkaren
      10
    • Elizabeth M Blair
      5
    • B1rdL0ver
    • twe0708
      54
  • Popular Articles

    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
    • Scott Adams
  • Upcoming Events

×
×
  • Create New...