• 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

    77,265
    Total Members
    3,093
    Most Online
    Mrs p
    Newest Member
    Mrs p
    Joined
  • 0

    New Insights into Inflammatory Bowel Disease Serology Testing


    Jefferson Adams

    Celiac.com 06/19/2009 - Specialty pharmaceutical and diagnostic company, Prometheus Laboratories Inc., announced results from two recent studies concerning the use of serologic testing to predict inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).


    Ads by Google:




    ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW ADS
    Ads by Google:



    The first study assessed the consistency of biomarkers in patients who received multiple Prometheus IBD Serology 7 tests within a two-year period. Overall levels for repeat testing orders were just 2.2%.  Original and repeat tests showed a high degree of agreement. Average variation in biomarker serum concentrations ran between 2.2 EU/mL and 4.3 EU/mL.

    Results agreed with prior studies suggesting biomarker stability over similar time periods. Further studies are needed to gauge the impact of therapy on biomarker stability over the long term.

    A second, multi-center clinical study of 1,574 subject samples brought the total development cohort of the test to a more heterogeneous 3,626 patient samples.

    Results with this large patient cohort further showed that combining multiple markers with Prometheus' Smart Diagnostic Algorithm permits clinicians to better distinguish IBD vs. non-IBD and Crohn's disease vs. ulcerative colitis, compared to standard cutoff value analysis of the individual markers alone.

    Prometheus IBD Serology 7 combines multiple serologic markers with a proprietary Smart Diagnostic Algorithm, increasing test sensitivity by more than 25% over single marker sensitivity values.

    Source:
    Medical News Today

    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   11 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,042 Guests (See full list)

  • Related Articles

    Scott Adams
    You just need to ask them to check for the DR haplotype. HLA testing is more expensive when you check more haplotypes - there any many to check. Its a poor analogy, but when looking at a car engine, you can just check the oil, or you can also check the radiator, spark plugs and carburetor.
    there are two DR types for each person - one from each parent. If even one of the two is DR3, then the person is at risk for celiac disease. But remember that around 25% of the entire population has DR3, too. If you are a celiac (or your husband), and your child has DR3, then the risk is something like 25%. We have a file on this called CEL-HLA on the main listserv which is available for you to download.
    If the result is DR5 on one side and DR7 on the other, then the child has the same risk as if they simple had one DR3. Its complicated why thats true, you can read it in the above file.
    If the child has NEITHER of the above scenarios, it is very very, very unlikely they will ever get celiac disease.
    Most good commercial labs can run HLA, its much more common of a test than regular celiac testing (endomysial test).

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 03/12/2009 - The latest antihuman tissue transglutaminase (tTG) IgA tests are reported to spot celiac disease with nearly 100% sensitivity and specificity. Also, a new generation of deamidated gliadin peptide (α-DGP) antibody tests is alleged to have sensitivity levels on par with the tTG IgA tests. However, in actual practice, sensitivity and specificity for these tests are often lower than claimed for trial conditions.
    A team of Columbia University researchers recently evaluated sensitivities and specificities of four commercial IgA tTG kits, along with three commercial deamidated gliadin peptide (α-DGP) kits. The team evaluated the results for four tTG IgA assays: A—Inova (Hu red blood cell); B—Binding site (rHu Ag); C—Eurospital (rHu Ag), D—Immco (rHu Ag) and three Inova α-DGP assays, E—α-DGP-IgA, F—α-DGP-IgG, and G—α-DGP-IgA+G.
    The research team was made up of Afzal J. Naiyer, MD; Lincoln Hernandez, MD; Edward J. Ciaccio, PhD; Konstantinos Papadakis, MD; John S. Manavalan, MD; Govind Bhagat, MD; Peter H. R. Green, MD, all associated with the Department of Medicine and Pathology, Columbia University, New York, NY.
    The team used blood samples from four different groups of celiac disease patients and controls: Group 1 consisting of 28 patients with active celiac disease; Group 2 consisting of 54 celiac patients following a gluten-free diet; Group 3 consisting of 40 healthy controls; Group 4 consisting of 57 disease controls—17 with Crohn's disease, and 40 with chronic hepatitis. In each case, the researchers used the manufacturer's own cut-off values. They found that sensitivities and specificities of different kits ranged from 71.4% to 96.4% and 87.5% to 100%, respectively.
    Compared with disease controls, sensitivity for Group 1 stayed the same, while specificity fell. All tests showed higher sensitivities for higher patient villous atrophy. The study showed that overall sensitivity was 90% or less, which is below figures reported in the literature.
    Recombinant and red blood cell antigen-based tTG assays performed similarly, while the α-DGP tests showed lower values. The bottom line was that a number of factors can influence the sensitivity and specificity for these test, and that doctors should keep these facts in mind when evaluating patients.
    Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology: Volume 43 (3) March 2009, pp 225-232


    Scott Adams
    I wrote this response below to address a recent New York Times article: Confirming a Diagnosis of Celiac Disease.
    Celiac.com 01/13/2010 - The problem with current diagnosis criteria for celiac disease is that it takes a certain degree of damage to intestinal villi in order to get a formal diagnosis. Since celiac disease with villi damage are just one manifestation of a much broader and more widespread problem--gluten sensitivity--many people who could still develop serious health problems if they continue to eat gluten, will go undiagnosed under the current definition of celiac disease.
    The reality of gluten sensitivity is that around 7 to 12% of the US population test positive for antibodies which are an indicator that their immune system is mounting a response to gliadin, the part of gluten that causes the reaction in those who are sensitive. Many of these people may never get flattened villi, however, many may end up with other conditions that are triggered by gluten exposure in sensitive individuals, for example nerve damage (ataxia), liver problems, diabetes, thyroid issues, etc..
    In the past 10 years the diagnostic criteria for celiac disease have been changed significantly to include various degrees of villi damage (Marsh Criteria), and as a result, more people are now being properly diagnosed. In the next 10 years I predict that blood tests alone will replace the use of all biopsy results to diagnose celiac disease, as they are a far more sensitive indicator of gluten sensitivity. Once this happens we will finally reach a point where those affected can be properly treated and avoid the risk of the many disorders that have been associated with sensitive individuals who eat gluten, some of which are described here.


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/04/2010 - A team of researchers recently set out to assess the positive predictive value of blood test screening for possible cases of celiac disease.
    The team included Peter Toftedal, Christian Nielsen, Jonas Trolle Madsen, Kjell Titlestad, Steffen Husby, and Søren Thue Lillevang. They are affiliated with the Hans Christian Andersen Children's Hospital, and the Department of Clinical Immunology of Odense University Hospital in Denmark. P. Toftedal and Ch. Nielsen made contributions to the final published article.
    In deciding which possible celiac disease cases might require duodenal biopsy, doctors rely mainly on tests for celiac disease antibodies, such as immunoglobulin A (IgA) anti-tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG), IgA endomysium antibody (EMA), IgA and IgG anti-gliadin antibodies (IgA and IgG AGA).
    For their study, the research team wanted to assess the diagnostic quality of blood testing for possible cases of celiac disease. They did this by performing celiac disease blood tests (IgA and IgG AGA, anti-tTG and EMA) on 11,915 subjects.
    They then combined the serological data with clinical data and duodenal biopsy results using a unique Danish personal identification number.
    They found that positive predictive value (PPV) fluctuated in accordance with various combinations of positive celiac disease antibodies. They found the highest predictive value (97.6%) when results for IgA and IgG AGA, anti-tTG and EMA antibodies were all positive.
    The team used a logistic regression model at initial blood screening to predict the probability of later biopsy-proven celiac disease in relation to concentrations of IgA AGA and anti-tTG.
    They found that anti-tTG concentrations correlated strongly with EMA positivity, number of additional positive antibodies, and higher PPV.
    The anti-tTG concentration upon first blood screening for celiac disease was highly informative in relation to EMA positivity, number of additional celiac disease specific antibodies and PPV.
    Lastly, results for the high-risk patient group showed that
    anti-tTG and IgA AGA concentrations at initial serological screening accurately predicted probability of future biopsy-proven celiac disease.
    Source:

    Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:685–91. DOI: 10.1515/CCLM.2010.136

  • Recent Articles

    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

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/13/2018 - There have been numerous reports that olmesartan, aka Benicar, seems to trigger sprue‐like enteropathy in many patients, but so far, studies have produced mixed results, and there really hasn’t been a rigorous study of the issue. A team of researchers recently set out to assess whether olmesartan is associated with a higher rate of enteropathy compared with other angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs).
    The research team included Y.‐H. Dong; Y. Jin; TN Tsacogianis; M He; PH Hsieh; and JJ Gagne. They are variously affiliated with the Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School in Boston, MA, USA; the Faculty of Pharmacy, School of Pharmaceutical Science at National Yang‐Ming University in Taipei, Taiwan; and the Department of Hepato‐Gastroenterology, Chi Mei Medical Center in Tainan, Taiwan.
    To get solid data on the issue, the team conducted a cohort study among ARB initiators in 5 US claims databases covering numerous health insurers. They used Cox regression models to estimate hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for enteropathy‐related outcomes, including celiac disease, malabsorption, concomitant diagnoses of diarrhea and weight loss, and non‐infectious enteropathy. In all, they found nearly two million eligible patients. 
    They then assessed those patients and compared the results for olmesartan initiators to initiators of other ARBs after propensity score (PS) matching. They found unadjusted incidence rates of 0.82, 1.41, 1.66 and 29.20 per 1,000 person‐years for celiac disease, malabsorption, concomitant diagnoses of diarrhea and weight loss, and non‐infectious enteropathy respectively. 
    After PS matching comparing olmesartan to other ARBs, hazard ratios were 1.21 (95% CI, 1.05‐1.40), 1.00 (95% CI, 0.88‐1.13), 1.22 (95% CI, 1.10‐1.36) and 1.04 (95% CI, 1.01‐1.07) for each outcome. Patients aged 65 years and older showed greater hazard ratios for celiac disease, as did patients receiving treatment for more than 1 year, and patients receiving higher cumulative olmesartan doses.
    This is the first comprehensive multi‐database study to document a higher rate of enteropathy in olmesartan initiators as compared to initiators of other ARBs, though absolute rates were low for both groups.
    Source:
    Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 06/12/2018 - A life-long gluten-free diet is the only proven treatment for celiac disease. However, current methods for assessing gluten-free diet compliance are lack the sensitivity to detect occasional dietary transgressions that may cause gut mucosal damage. So, basically, there’s currently no good way to tell if celiac patients are suffering gut damage from low-level gluten contamination.
    A team of researchers recently set out to develop a method to determine gluten intake and monitor gluten-free dietary compliance in patients with celiac disease, and to determine its correlation with mucosal damage. The research team included ML Moreno, Á Cebolla, A Muñoz-Suano, C Carrillo-Carrion, I Comino, Á Pizarro, F León, A Rodríguez-Herrera, and C Sousa. They are variously affiliated with Facultad de Farmacia, Departamento de Microbiología y Parasitología, Universidad de Sevilla, Sevilla, Spain; Biomedal S.L., Sevilla, Spain; Unidad Clínica de Aparato Digestivo, Hospital Universitario Virgen del Rocío, Sevilla, Spain; Celimmune, Bethesda, Maryland, USA; and the Unidad de Gastroenterología y Nutrición, Instituto Hispalense de Pediatría, Sevilla, Spain.
    For their study, the team collected urine samples from 76 healthy subjects and 58 patients with celiac disease subjected to different gluten dietary conditions. To quantify gluten immunogenic peptides in solid-phase extracted urines, the team used a lateral flow test (LFT) with the highly sensitive and specific G12 monoclonal antibody for the most dominant GIPs and an LFT reader. 
    They detected GIPs in concentrated urines from healthy individuals previously subjected to gluten-free diet as early as 4-6 h after single gluten intake, and for 1-2 days afterward. The urine test showed gluten ingestion in about 50% of patients. Biopsy analysis showed that nearly 9 out of 10 celiac patients with no villous atrophy had no detectable GIP in urine, while all patients with quantifiable GIP in urine showed signs of gut damage.
    The ability to use GIP in urine to reveal gluten consumption will likely help lead to new and non-invasive methods for monitoring gluten-free diet compliance. The test is sensitive, specific and simple enough for clinical monitoring of celiac patients, as well as for basic and clinical research applications including drug development.
    Source:
    Gut. 2017 Feb;66(2):250-257.  doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310148.