Jump to content

Important Information

This site places cookies on your device (Cookie settings). Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

  • Sign Up
  • Join our community!

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

  • Member Statistics

    84,894
    Total Members
    4,125
    Most Online
    kristenb1
    Newest Member
    kristenb1
    Joined
  • 0

    So Why Do Celiacs Still Need Biopsy?


    William Dickey, PhD, MD
    • Journal of Gluten Sensitivity Summer 2005 Issue

    So Why Do Celiacs Still Need Biopsy?
    Image Caption: Image: CC--Andy G

    Celiac.com 01/11/2006 - For many years, biopsy of the small bowel demonstrating villous atrophy has been fundamental to the diagnosis of celiac disease. Older celiacs will remember, fondly or otherwise, the Crosby suction biopsy device which was swallowed attached to a long tube and made its way down to the small bowel where, position confirmed by x-rays, it guillotined a small portion of tissue. The procedure was tedious and technical failures common—only identified when the device was hauled up after several hours. Later it became clear that biopsies from the duodenum obtained during endoscopy were just as good, and the biopsy process became a five minute job with no need for X-rays. Nevertheless, many celiacs are reluctant to undergo biopsy and its necessity is increasingly questioned, particularly now that blood tests for celiac-related antibodies are highly sensitive and specific. There are a number of reasons why, in my own practice, biopsies continue to be helpful in celiacs diagnosed in adulthood.

    • Biopsies are necessary when blood tests are negative. While endomysial (EmA) and tissue transglutaminase (TTGA) antibodies are detectable in most cases where villous atrophy is present, 5-10% of patients lack these antibodies1. In this situation, where the story is suggestive of celiac, perhaps with a family history or strongly suggestive symptoms, biopsy is the only way to make the diagnosis. Increasingly, physicians recognize that many patients with gluten sensitivity do not have villous atrophy (Grade III of the Marsh classification) of "classic" celiac disease, but have milder abnormalities such as crypt hyperplasia (Marsh II) or an excess of the inflammatory cells called lymphocytes (Marsh I). Patients in these categories are less likely to have positive serology2.
    • Biopsies are necessary where false positive blood tests may occur. TTGA, particularly where levels are low, may be associated with diseases other than celiac: ulcerative colitis, Crohns disease, arthritis and liver diseases without any evidence of celiac disease have been linked3. Newer TTGA tests have steadily improved in this regard but I still would be reluctant to diagnose celiac on a TTGA test alone. "False positive" EmA is a different issue which I will return to.
    • Biopsies give a baseline for comparison. Suppose a patient starts a gluten-free diet without biopsy—we dont know whether she or he had Marsh I, II or III or even normal histology. A year later, same patient develops new symptoms of diarrhea, weight loss, whatever. Well get a duodenal biopsy as part of the workup, but its going to be difficult to interpret without knowing what things were like before going gluten-free. Specifically, a baseline to look back at tells us whether the small bowel is better, worse or no different, and helps us decide whether we need to focus on celiac disease as the most likely cause of new problems or explore other possibilities involving the rest of the gut. The biggest diagnostic disaster of all, of course, is the gluten-free diet started without any sort of baseline investigation including antibodies, raising the specter of the infamous gluten challenge if a definitive diagnosis is needed.
    • Biopsies provide a "gold standard" assessment of the state of the bowel. There has been much excitement recently about capsule endoscopy, a wireless device the size of a large pill (not to be confused with the Crosby capsule!) which makes its own way down the small bowel taking pictures as it goes. Characteristic abnormalities can be seen in celiac disease, raising the possibility that this device might be useful in diagnosis. If experience with conventional endoscopes is any guide, however, these abnormalities are missing in a sizeable minority of celiacs particularly with mild disease4 (Capsule endoscopy in its present state of development can not take biopsies). Certainly the capsule allows assessment of the bowel beyond the reach of conventional "anaconda-style" endoscopes, but I am not convinced at present that it can replace biopsy.
    • A follow-up biopsy gives an indicator of progress. I offer my patients a repeat biopsy after two years gluten-free and perhaps surprisingly most take up the offer and are keen to hear how things have improved. Ive increased the biopsy interval from one to two years because only 40% of people had complete recovery after 12 months gluten-free5. EmA and TTGA disappearance is only a marker of how successful gluten exclusion has been and is not a reliable indicator of bowel recovery. Does persisting villous atrophy matter if the patient is doing well on a gluten-free diet? Intuitively, one might like to keep a closer eye on the patient with persistently flat biopsies, who could be at greater risk of complications in the future6.
    • The endoscopy not only allows examination and biopsy of the duodenum but also a look at the esophagus and stomach. Sad fact of the ageing process is that you start to collect diseases like trading cards, and just because youre celiac doesnt mean you cant have something else. Its important to have a good look for bleeding lesions in the upper gut even if the blood work for a seventy year old with anemia says celiac (and check out the colon too, but thats a topic for another day).

    On the other hand, we recognize that biopsies are not always the final arbiter in diagnosis. While the jury is still out on what a TTGA positive, biopsy negative result means with regard to gluten sensitivity, there is plenty of evidence that a positive EmA generally does mean that biopsy abnormalities will follow: My own follow-up of EmA positive, biopsy negative patients indicates that they will develop abnormal histology if not treated7. So it makes sense to start EmA positive people on gluten-free without waiting for significant bowel damage—and as already stated, even a normal baseline biopsy will provide a reference for any problems that might arise in the future.

    Sometimes I meet a patient with bad gut symptoms but completely normal blood work up and biopsies and when all else fails I will run a trial of gluten-free. It often works, particularly if there is a family history of celiac. But then again, if it doesnt, we have a baseline normal biopsy to say there is no need to persevere.

    I guess in the future diagnosis of gluten sensitivity will rely on totting up various factors, none individually essential: blood tests, biopsies, family history, genetic testing for the HLA celiac genes. Some researchers are making a case for dropping the biopsy requirement if the antibody blood work checks out in children8, for whom (and for the parents) endoscopy and biopsy is a major issue. In adults however it is quick, straightforward and safe and will remain a key part of my celiac workup.

    William Dickey is a gastroenterologist at Altnagelvin Hospital, Londonderry, Northern Ireland, with over 400 celiac patients attending his clinics. His interest in celiac disease goes back some fourteen years and he has published extensively on the subject. He is an associate member of Coeliac UKs Medical Advisory Council.

    References:

    • Dickey W, McMillan SA, Hughes DF. Sensitivity of serum tissue transglutaminase antibodies for endomysial antibody positive and negative coeliac disease. Scand J Gastroenterol 2001; 36: 511-4.
    • Wahab PJ, Crusius JBA, Meijer JWR, Mulder CJJ. Gluten challenge in borderline gluten-sensitive enteropathy. Am J Gastroenterol 2001; 96: 1464-69.
    • Di Tola M, Sabbatella L, Anania MC, Viscido A, Caprilli R, Pica R, Paoluzi P, Picarelli A. Anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies in inflammatory bowel disease: new evidence. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2004;42(10):1092-7.
    • Oxentenko AS, Grisolano SW, Murray JA, Burgart LJ, Dierkhising RA, Alexander JA. The insensitivity of endoscopic markers in celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2002 Apr;97(4):933-8.
    • Dickey W, Hughes DF, McMillan SA. Disappearance of endomysial antibodies in treated celiac disease does not indicate histological recovery. Am J Gastroenterol 2000; 95: 712-4.
    • Meijer JWR, Wahab PJ, Mulder CJJ. Histologic follow-up of people with celiac disease on a gluten-free diet: slow and incomplete recovery. Am J Clin Pathol 118(3):459-63, 2002 Sep.
    • Dickey W, Hughes DF, McMillan SA. Patients with serum IgA endomysial antibodies and intact duodenal villi: clinical characteristics and management options. Scand J Gastroenterol 2005: in press
    • Barker CC, Mitton C, Jevon G, Mock T.Can tissue transglutaminase antibody titers replace small-bowel biopsy to diagnose celiac disease in select pediatric populations? Pediatrics. 2005 May;115(5):1341-6

     

    Edited by Scott Adams

    0


    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments

    Guest Barbara Filafilo

    Posted

    Hello! I am a 52 year old Canadian of Irish descent with GI symptoms for 20 years. At present I am obese. My TTG is positive, EMA also positive 1:10,biopsy negative. Also I've had fractures X 13 since 1998. My gastroenterologist was certain I had Celiac but can't call it that according to Canadian protocol. I went gluten free for 2 months and I felt better. My GP thinks I'm a nut.The gastroenterologist suggested I stay gluten free in spite of the negative biopsy. 5 years ago I had a biopsy that showed increased IELs but the blood test was not ordered at the time (oversight aka mistake). What do you think? Colonoscopy was also negative for microscopic colitis. Barb

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    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.


  • About Me

    William Dickey is a gastroenterologist at Altnagelvin Hospital, Londonderry, Northern Ireland, with over 400 celiac patients attending his clinics. His interest in celiac disease goes back some fourteen years and he has published extensively on the subject. He is an associate member of Coeliac UK’s Medical Advisory Council.

  • Related Articles

    Scott Adams
    Celiac.com 10/29/2002 - Dr Robert Anderson, Research Fellow at the Nuffield Department of Medicine at the University of Oxford (now based at the Royal Melbourne Hospital in Australia), and colleagues recently announced their intent to begin work on a vaccine that could cure celiac disease. The Australian teams work will be based on Dr. Andersons earlier groundbreaking Oxford research that identified the specific set of protein sequences in gluten that cause damage to the guts of those with celiac disease (see: Nature Medicine 6, 337 - 342 - 01 Mar 2000). In addition to finding a possible cure for celiac disease the teams research could open the door for a specific diagnostic test for the disease, new treatment and prevention strategies, and even the possibility of producing grains that do not contain the harmful sequences. Dr. Andersons future research will focused on proving that a specific "toxic peptide" can be used to desensitize or induce tolerance in people with celiac disease, and any vaccine would likely be the "toxic peptide" itself or a modified form of it.
    The Australian team also announced their agreement for the commercialization of new celiac disease technology developed by the University of Oxford. BTG and Isis will develop diagnostic tests and treatments for gluten intolerance. BTG is a London-based technology transfer company which has bought the rights to the teams discovery, and Isis Innovation Ltd, is Oxford Universitys wholly-owned technology transfer company that was established in 1988 and is a world leader in university technology transfer. Under the terms of the Isis agreement, BTG will have exclusive access to the Universitys technology for use in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of celiac disease. The technology is based on identification of the particular epitopes that cause priming of the immune system in celiac disease. BTG will underwrite all costs associated with the development and commercialization of the technology, and will share any revenue from commercialization of the technology with Isis and the University.


    Scott Adams
    Celiac.com 09/12/2006 – A recent study by researchers at Stanford University has found that barley endoprotease EP-B2 is effective at digesting gluten in rats, and should be studied further as an “adjunct to diet control” in human celiac disease patients. This new finding adds to Stanford’s growing body of work on enzyme therapy as a possible treatment for those with celiac disease, and may one day lead to a effective treatment. Effect of barley endoprotease EP-B2 on gluten digestion in the intact rat.
    J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2006 Sep;318(3):1178-86.
    Gass J, Vora H, Bethune MT, Gray GM, Khosla C.
    Stanford University.

    Abstract:

    "Celiac Sprue is a multi-factorial disease characterized by an intestinal inflammatory response to ingested gluten. Proteolytically resistant gluten peptides from wheat, rye and barley persist in the intestinal lumen, and elicit an immune response in genetically susceptible individuals. Here we demonstrate the in vivo ability of a gluten-digesting protease ("glutenase") to accelerate the breakdown of a gluten-rich solid meal. The proenzyme form of endoprotease B, isoform 2 from Hordeum vulgare (EP-B2) was orally administered to adult rats with a solid meal containing 1 g gluten. Gluten digestion in the stomach and small intestine was monitored as a function of enzyme dose and time by HPLC and mass spectrometry. In the absence of supplementary EP-B2, gluten was solubilized and proteolyzed to a limited extent in the stomach, and was hydrolyzed and assimilated mostly in the small intestine. In contrast, EP-B2 was remarkably effective at digesting gluten in the rat stomach in a dose and time dependent fashion. At a 1:25 EP-B2:gluten dose, the gastric concentration of the highly immunogenic 33-mer gliadin peptide reduced by more than 50-fold within 90 min, with no overt signs of toxicity. Evaluation of EP-B2 as an adjunct to diet control is therefore warranted in celiac patients."

    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 04/15/2009 - A recent clinical study has shown B vitamins to be beneficial for celiac sufferers following gluten-free diets. Vitamin deficiency and less than optimal health are common problems for people with celiac disease, even those who faithfully follow a gluten-free diet. Common problems associated with long-term celiac disease include general malaise, and less than optimal well-being.
    To better understand the benefits of supplemental doses of B vitamins for patients with celia disease, a team of researchers recently set out to evaluate the biochemical and clinical effects of B vitamin supplements in adults with long-term celiac disease. The research was made up of doctors C. Hallert, M. Svensson, J. Tholstrup, and B. Hultberg.
    The team assembled a group of 65 adults with celiac disease for a double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. 61% of the group was female, and each had followed a gluten-free diet for several years.
    For 6 months, patients received daily doses of either a placebo, or of B vitamins in the amount of 0.8 mg folic acid, 0.5 mg cyanocobalamin and 3 mg pyridoxine. At the end of the trial period, doctors gauged vitamin effectiveness by measuring psychological general well-being (PGWB), together with total levels of plasma total homocysteine (tHcy), a reliable indicator of B vitamin status.
    In all, 57 of the 61 enrolled patients completed the trial (88%). Baseline tHcy levels for these patients averaged 11.7 micromoles/L (range = 7.4 to 23.0), which was markedly higher than the 10.2 micromoles/L for the control group (range = 6.7 to 22.6) (P < 0.01).
    After the B vitamin treatment, patient tHcy levels dropped an average of 34% (P < 0.001). Patients experienced substantial improvement in well-being (P < 0.01). Even patients who initially reported poor well-being showed notable improvements in Anxiety (P < 0.05) and Depressed Mood (P < 0.05) .
    These improvements, the normalization of tHcy levels, together with the substantial increase in well-being, led the research team to conclude that people living gluten-free with long-term celiac disease do indeed benefit from daily supplemental doses of vitamin B, and that doctors should consider advising the use of B vitamins supplements for these patients.

    Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2009 Apr 15;29(8):811-6.


    Jefferson Adams
    Celiac.com 10/13/2009 - The standard method of measuring successful observance of a gluten-free diet in patients with celiac disease is through a dietary interview performed by health professional. However, there is currently have no simple, objective method for conducting such a dietary interview.
    To address this discrepancy, a team of researchers recently designed an easy, quick questionnaire based on four simple questions which yield a five-level score (0–IV). The score provides the test individual with an indication of their compliance level.
    The research team was made up of Federico Biagi, Alida Andrealli, Paola Ilaria Bianchi, Alessandra Marchese, Catherine Klersy, and Gino Roberto Corazza.
    The team recently set out to assess the accuracy of the questionnaire. They ran the questions past 168 celiac patients, 126 females and 42 males, with a median age of 42·4 (SD 12·9) years. All subjects were allegedly following a gluten-free diet (median 82, 25th–75th percentile 50–108, range 15–389 months).
    They compared the resulting scores with the persistence of both villous atrophy and endomysial antibodies while on a gluten-free diet.  They also compared patient survival rates. Non-expert personnel interviewed patients by telephone.
    The questionnaire took less than one minute to complete. The lowest results were markedly more common among the patients with a persistence of both villous atrophy and positive endomysial antibodies. Those patients also had significantly higher rates of death overall.
    From these results, the researchers conclude that the questionnaire offers a simple, accurate way to verify compliance with a gluten-free diet for patients with celiac disease.
    Source:
    British Journal of Nutrition (2009), 102, 882–887


  • Popular Contributors

×