• Join our community!

    Do you have questions about celiac disease or the gluten-free diet?

  • Ads by Google:
     




    Get email alerts Subscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter

    Ads by Google:



       Get email alertsSubscribe to Celiac.com's FREE weekly eNewsletter

  • Member Statistics

    77,473
    Total Members
    3,093
    Most Online
    hayley stan
    Newest Member
    hayley stan
    Joined
  • 0

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


    Scott Adams


    Ads by Google:




    ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADS
    Ads by Google:



    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.

    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.

    0


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    There are no comments to display.



    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Popular Contributors

  • Ads by Google:

  • Who's Online   5 Members, 0 Anonymous, 205 Guests (See full list)

  • 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 and summarize evidence on the performance of diagnostic tests for spotting celiac disease in adults who present abdominal symptoms in primary care or similar settings.
    To obtain initial data, the team search MEDLINE (from January 1966  through December 2009, and EMBASE from January 1947 through December 2009. They also conducted a physical search of references for additional relevant studies.
    The team chose cohort or nested case-control diagnostic studies which included adults presenting non-acute abdominal symptoms, which featured celiac disease prevalence of 15% or less, and in which the tests included gastrointestinal symptoms or serum antibody screens.
    Two independent reviewers conducted studies tool and data extraction. They then calculated sensitivities and specificities for each study and computed pooled estimates using bivariate analysis where there was clinical and statistical homogeneity.
    In all, the team included sixteen studies encompassing 6085 cases in their review.
    Specificity, sensitivity, and confidence intervals for predicting celiac disease varied with abdominal symptoms.  For patients presenting with classic diarrhea, for example, predictive sensitivity ranged from 0.27 to 0.86, while specificity ranged from 0.21 to 0.86.
    Pool estimates for 8 studies on IgA antiendomysial antibodies were 0.90, with a 95% confidence interval [CI] (0.80-0.95) for sensitivity and 0.99, with a 95% CI (0.98-1.00) for specificity, with a positive likelihood ratio [LR] of 171 and negative LR of 0.11.
    Pool estimates for IgA antitissue transglutaminase antibodies (7 studies) were 0.89, with a 95% CI (0.82-0.94) and 0.98 at 95% CI (0.95-0.99), respectively, with a positive LR of 37.7 and negative LR of 0.11.
    IgA and IgG antigliadin antibodies showed variable results, especially for sensitivity, which ranged from 0.46-0.87 for IgA, and from 0.25-0.93 for IgG.
    One recent study using deamidated gliadin peptides showed good specificity (0.94), but the target population offered limited supporting evidence.
    For adults who present abdominal symptoms in primary care or other unscreened settings, IgA antitissue transglutaminase antibodies and IgA antiendomysial antibodies offer high sensitivity and specificity for diagnosing celiac disease.
    SOURCE:  JAMA. 2010;303(17):1738-1746. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.549


    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 from a survey of the general population. There was some good news and some bad news.
    The good news is that, while the average QALY score during the year before treatment was 0.66, it improved after diagnosis and treatment to 0.86, which is  better than that the score of 0.79 for the general population.
    The bad news is that they found the average person with celiac disease faced a delay in diagnosis of 9.7 years from the first symptoms, and 5.8 years from the first doctor visit.
    The team concede that the delay has been reduced over time for some age groups, but contend that it still remains unacceptably long for large numbers of people.
    Untreated celiac disease results in poor HRQoL, which improves or exceeds that of  the general population if diagnosed and treated. Reducing the delay in diagnosing celiac disease will go a long way toward reducing the burden of celiac disease.
    To do so, they say it is necessary to raise awareness of celiac disease as a common health problem, and to intensify diagnosis practices. This may, the note, make mass-screening for celiac disease an desirable option in the future.
    Authors: Fredrik Norstrom, Lars Lindholm, Olof Sandstrom, Katrina Nordyke, Anneli Ivarsson
    Source:

    BMC Gastroenterology 2011, 11:118. doi:10.1186/1471-230X-11-118

  • Recent Articles

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/19/2018 - Could baking soda help reduce the inflammation and damage caused by autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, and celiac disease? Scientists at the Medical College of Georgia at Augusta University say that a daily dose of baking soda may in fact help reduce inflammation and damage caused by autoimmune diseases like rheumatoid arthritis, and celiac disease.
    Those scientists recently gathered some of the first evidence to show that cheap, over-the-counter antacids can prompt the spleen to promote an anti-inflammatory environment that could be helpful in combating inflammatory disease.
    A type of cell called mesothelial cells line our body cavities, like the digestive tract. They have little fingers, called microvilli, that sense the environment, and warn the organs they cover that there is an invader and an immune response is needed.
    The team’s data shows that when rats or healthy people drink a solution of baking soda, the stomach makes more acid, which causes mesothelial cells on the outside of the spleen to tell the spleen to go easy on the immune response.  "It's most likely a hamburger not a bacterial infection," is basically the message, says Dr. Paul O'Connor, renal physiologist in the MCG Department of Physiology at Augusta University and the study's corresponding author.
    That message, which is transmitted with help from a chemical messenger called acetylcholine, seems to encourage the gut to shift against inflammation, say the scientists.
    In patients who drank water with baking soda for two weeks, immune cells called macrophages, shifted from primarily those that promote inflammation, called M1, to those that reduce it, called M2. "The shift from inflammatory to an anti-inflammatory profile is happening everywhere," O'Connor says. "We saw it in the kidneys, we saw it in the spleen, now we see it in the peripheral blood."
    O'Connor hopes drinking baking soda can one day produce similar results for people with autoimmune disease. "You are not really turning anything off or on, you are just pushing it toward one side by giving an anti-inflammatory stimulus," he says, in this case, away from harmful inflammation. "It's potentially a really safe way to treat inflammatory disease."
    The research was funded by the National Institutes of Health.
    Read more at: Sciencedaily.com

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/18/2018 - Celiac disease has been mainly associated with Caucasian populations in Northern Europe, and their descendants in other countries, but new scientific evidence is beginning to challenge that view. Still, the exact global prevalence of celiac disease remains unknown.  To get better data on that issue, a team of researchers recently conducted a comprehensive review and meta-analysis to get a reasonably accurate estimate the global prevalence of celiac disease. 
    The research team included P Singh, A Arora, TA Strand, DA Leffler, C Catassi, PH Green, CP Kelly, V Ahuja, and GK Makharia. They are variously affiliated with the Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Lady Hardinge Medical College, New Delhi, India; Innlandet Hospital Trust, Lillehammer, Norway; Centre for International Health, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway; Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts; Gastroenterology Research and Development, Takeda Pharmaceuticals Inc, Cambridge, MA; Department of Pediatrics, Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy; Department of Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; USA Celiac Disease Center, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York; and the Department of Gastroenterology and Human Nutrition, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India.
    For their review, the team searched Medline, PubMed, and EMBASE for the keywords ‘celiac disease,’ ‘celiac,’ ‘tissue transglutaminase antibody,’ ‘anti-endomysium antibody,’ ‘endomysial antibody,’ and ‘prevalence’ for studies published from January 1991 through March 2016. 
    The team cross-referenced each article with the words ‘Asia,’ ‘Europe,’ ‘Africa,’ ‘South America,’ ‘North America,’ and ‘Australia.’ They defined celiac diagnosis based on European Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition guidelines. The team used 96 articles of 3,843 articles in their final analysis.
    Overall global prevalence of celiac disease was 1.4% in 275,818 individuals, based on positive blood tests for anti-tissue transglutaminase and/or anti-endomysial antibodies. The pooled global prevalence of biopsy-confirmed celiac disease was 0.7% in 138,792 individuals. That means that numerous people with celiac disease potentially remain undiagnosed.
    Rates of celiac disease were 0.4% in South America, 0.5% in Africa and North America, 0.6% in Asia, and 0.8% in Europe and Oceania; the prevalence was 0.6% in female vs 0.4% males. Celiac disease was significantly more common in children than adults.
    This systematic review and meta-analysis showed celiac disease to be reported worldwide. Blood test data shows celiac disease rate of 1.4%, while biopsy data shows 0.7%. The prevalence of celiac disease varies with sex, age, and location. 
    This review demonstrates a need for more comprehensive population-based studies of celiac disease in numerous countries.  The 1.4% rate indicates that there are 91.2 million people worldwide with celiac disease, and 3.9 million are in the U.S.A.
    Source:
    Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jun;16(6):823-836.e2. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.037.

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/16/2018 - Summer is the time for chips and salsa. This fresh salsa recipe relies on cabbage, yes, cabbage, as a secret ingredient. The cabbage brings a delicious flavor and helps the salsa hold together nicely for scooping with your favorite chips. The result is a fresh, tasty salsa that goes great with guacamole.
    Ingredients:
    3 cups ripe fresh tomatoes, diced 1 cup shredded green cabbage ½ cup diced yellow onion ¼ cup chopped fresh cilantro 1 jalapeno, seeded 1 Serrano pepper, seeded 2 tablespoons lemon juice 2 tablespoons red wine vinegar 2 garlic cloves, minced salt to taste black pepper, to taste Directions:
    Purée all ingredients together in a blender.
    Cover and refrigerate for at least 1 hour. 
    Adjust seasoning with salt and pepper, as desired. 
    Serve is a bowl with tortilla chips and guacamole.

    Dr. Ron Hoggan, Ed.D.
    Celiac.com 06/15/2018 - There seems to be widespread agreement in the published medical research reports that stuttering is driven by abnormalities in the brain. Sometimes these are the result of brain injuries resulting from a stroke. Other types of brain injuries can also result in stuttering. Patients with Parkinson’s disease who were treated with stimulation of the subthalamic nucleus, an area of the brain that regulates some motor functions, experienced a return or worsening of stuttering that improved when the stimulation was turned off (1). Similarly, stroke has also been reported in association with acquired stuttering (2). While there are some reports of psychological mechanisms underlying stuttering, a majority of reports seem to favor altered brain morphology and/or function as the root of stuttering (3). Reports of structural differences between the brain hemispheres that are absent in those who do not stutter are also common (4). About 5% of children stutter, beginning sometime around age 3, during the phase of speech acquisition. However, about 75% of these cases resolve without intervention, before reaching their teens (5). Some cases of aphasia, a loss of speech production or understanding, have been reported in association with damage or changes to one or more of the language centers of the brain (6). Stuttering may sometimes arise from changes or damage to these same language centers (7). Thus, many stutterers have abnormalities in the same regions of the brain similar to those seen in aphasia.
    So how, you may ask, is all this related to gluten? As a starting point, one report from the medical literature identifies a patient who developed aphasia after admission for severe diarrhea. By the time celiac disease was diagnosed, he had completely lost his faculty of speech. However, his speech and normal bowel function gradually returned after beginning a gluten free diet (8). This finding was so controversial at the time of publication (1988) that the authors chose to remain anonymous. Nonetheless, it is a valuable clue that suggests gluten as a factor in compromised speech production. At about the same time (late 1980’s) reports of connections between untreated celiac disease and seizures/epilepsy were emerging in the medical literature (9).
    With the advent of the Internet a whole new field of anecdotal information was emerging, connecting a variety of neurological symptoms to celiac disease. While many medical practitioners and researchers were casting aspersions on these assertions, a select few chose to explore such claims using scientific research designs and methods. While connections between stuttering and gluten consumption seem to have been overlooked by the medical research community, there is a rich literature on the Internet that cries out for more structured investigation of this connection. Conversely, perhaps a publication bias of the peer review process excludes work that explores this connection.
    Whatever the reason that stuttering has not been reported in the medical literature in association with gluten ingestion, a number of personal disclosures and comments suggesting a connection between gluten and stuttering can be found on the Internet. Abid Hussain, in an article about food allergy and stuttering said: “The most common food allergy prevalent in stutterers is that of gluten which has been found to aggravate the stutter” (10). Similarly, Craig Forsythe posted an article that includes five cases of self-reporting individuals who believe that their stuttering is or was connected to gluten, one of whom also experiences stuttering from foods containing yeast (11). The same site contains one report of a stutterer who has had no relief despite following a gluten free diet for 20 years (11). Another stutterer, Jay88, reports the complete disappearance of her/his stammer on a gluten free diet (12). Doubtless there are many more such anecdotes to be found on the Internet* but we have to question them, exercising more skepticism than we might when reading similar claims in a peer reviewed scientific or medical journal.
    There are many reports in such journals connecting brain and neurological ailments with gluten, so it is not much of a stretch, on that basis alone, to suspect that stuttering may be a symptom of the gluten syndrome. Rodney Ford has even characterized celiac disease as an ailment that may begin through gluten-induced neurological damage (13) and Marios Hadjivassiliou and his group of neurologists and neurological investigators have devoted considerable time and effort to research that reveals gluten as an important factor in a majority of neurological diseases of unknown origin (14) which, as I have pointed out previously, includes most neurological ailments.
    My own experience with stuttering is limited. I stuttered as a child when I became nervous, upset, or self-conscious. Although I have been gluten free for many years, I haven’t noticed any impact on my inclination to stutter when upset. I don’t know if they are related, but I have also had challenges with speaking when distressed and I have noticed a substantial improvement in this area since removing gluten from my diet. Nonetheless, I have long wondered if there is a connection between gluten consumption and stuttering. Having done the research for this article, I would now encourage stutterers to try a gluten free diet for six months to see if it will reduce or eliminate their stutter. Meanwhile, I hope that some investigator out there will research this matter, publish her findings, and start the ball rolling toward getting some definitive answers to this question.
    Sources:
    1. Toft M, Dietrichs E. Aggravated stuttering following subthalamic deep brain stimulation in Parkinson’s disease--two cases. BMC Neurol. 2011 Apr 8;11:44.
    2. Tani T, Sakai Y. Stuttering after right cerebellar infarction: a case study. J Fluency Disord. 2010 Jun;35(2):141-5. Epub 2010 Mar 15.
    3. Lundgren K, Helm-Estabrooks N, Klein R. Stuttering Following Acquired Brain Damage: A Review of the Literature. J Neurolinguistics. 2010 Sep 1;23(5):447-454.
    4. Jäncke L, Hänggi J, Steinmetz H. Morphological brain differences between adult stutterers and non-stutterers. BMC Neurol. 2004 Dec 10;4(1):23.
    5. Kell CA, Neumann K, von Kriegstein K, Posenenske C, von Gudenberg AW, Euler H, Giraud AL. How the brain repairs stuttering. Brain. 2009 Oct;132(Pt 10):2747-60. Epub 2009 Aug 26.
    6. Galantucci S, Tartaglia MC, Wilson SM, Henry ML, Filippi M, Agosta F, Dronkers NF, Henry RG, Ogar JM, Miller BL, Gorno-Tempini ML. White matter damage in primary progressive aphasias: a diffusion tensor tractography study. Brain. 2011 Jun 11.
    7. Lundgren K, Helm-Estabrooks N, Klein R. Stuttering Following Acquired Brain Damage: A Review of the Literature. J Neurolinguistics. 2010 Sep 1;23(5):447-454.
    8. [No authors listed] Case records of the Massachusetts General Hospital. Weekly clinicopathological exercises. Case 43-1988. A 52-year-old man with persistent watery diarrhea and aphasia. N Engl J Med. 1988 Oct 27;319(17):1139-48
    9. Molteni N, Bardella MT, Baldassarri AR, Bianchi PA. Celiac disease associated with epilepsy and intracranial calcifications: report of two patients. Am J Gastroenterol. 1988 Sep;83(9):992-4.
    10. http://ezinearticles.com/?Food-Allergy-and-Stuttering-Link&id=1235725 
    11. http://www.craig.copperleife.com/health/stuttering_allergies.htm 
    12. https://www.celiac.com/forums/topic/73362-any-help-is-appreciated/
    13. Ford RP. The gluten syndrome: a neurological disease. Med Hypotheses. 2009 Sep;73(3):438-40. Epub 2009 Apr 29.
    14. Hadjivassiliou M, Gibson A, Davies-Jones GA, Lobo AJ, Stephenson TJ, Milford-Ward A. Does cryptic gluten sensitivity play a part in neurological illness? Lancet. 1996 Feb 10;347(8998):369-71.

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/14/2018 - Refractory celiac disease type II (RCDII) is a rare complication of celiac disease that has high death rates. To diagnose RCDII, doctors identify a clonal population of phenotypically aberrant intraepithelial lymphocytes (IELs). 
    However, researchers really don’t have much data regarding the frequency and significance of clonal T cell receptor (TCR) gene rearrangements (TCR-GRs) in small bowel (SB) biopsies of patients without RCDII. Such data could provide useful comparison information for patients with RCDII, among other things.
    To that end, a research team recently set out to try to get some information about the frequency and importance of clonal T cell receptor (TCR) gene rearrangements (TCR-GRs) in small bowel (SB) biopsies of patients without RCDII. The research team included Shafinaz Hussein, Tatyana Gindin, Stephen M Lagana, Carolina Arguelles-Grande, Suneeta Krishnareddy, Bachir Alobeid, Suzanne K Lewis, Mahesh M Mansukhani, Peter H R Green, and Govind Bhagat.
    They are variously affiliated with the Department of Pathology and Cell Biology, and the Department of Medicine at the Celiac Disease Center, New York Presbyterian Hospital/Columbia University Medical Center, New York, USA. Their team analyzed results of TCR-GR analyses performed on SB biopsies at our institution over a 3-year period, which were obtained from eight active celiac disease, 172 celiac disease on gluten-free diet, 33 RCDI, and three RCDII patients and 14 patients without celiac disease. 
    Clonal TCR-GRs are not infrequent in cases lacking features of RCDII, while PCPs are frequent in all disease phases. TCR-GR results should be assessed in conjunction with immunophenotypic, histological and clinical findings for appropriate diagnosis and classification of RCD.
    The team divided the TCR-GR patterns into clonal, polyclonal and prominent clonal peaks (PCPs), and correlated these patterns with clinical and pathological features. In all, they detected clonal TCR-GR products in biopsies from 67% of patients with RCDII, 17% of patients with RCDI and 6% of patients with gluten-free diet. They found PCPs in all disease phases, but saw no significant difference in the TCR-GR patterns between the non-RCDII disease categories (p=0.39). 
    They also noted a higher frequency of surface CD3(−) IELs in cases with clonal TCR-GR, but the PCP pattern showed no associations with any clinical or pathological feature. 
    Repeat biopsy showed that the clonal or PCP pattern persisted for up to 2 years with no evidence of RCDII. The study indicates that better understanding of clonal T cell receptor gene rearrangements may help researchers improve refractory celiac diagnosis. 
    Source:
    Journal of Clinical Pathologyhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jclinpath-2018-205023