How Well Do Blood Tests Show Accidental Gluten Ingestion?

[dilettantesteph]

It looks like not very well.

 

In this study: Open Original Shared Link

13 biopsy proven celiacs were given 50 mg a day of gluten for 3 months.  Damage was observed by biopsy, but blood tests were negative.

 

The title of this study gives away the conclusions of this study: Open Original Shared Link

"Disappearance of endomysial antibodies in treated celiac disease does not indicate histological recovery."

 

In this study: Open Original Shared Link

25 celiac adults were given between 1 and 5 g of gluten a day for 12 weeks.  67% showed biopsy damage, but only 43% had positive blood tests.

 

This is discussed here: Open Original Shared Link

 

 

I don't want to overly concern anyone, but false assurances can lead to ongoing damage.  When I experience symptoms I want to know what I might try to do about it.

 

 

[Gemini]

Most people who are diagnosed, or those who are not diagnosed but highly symptomatic, would most likely know if they were ingesting gluten because they would become symptomatic

again, over time.  Yes, there are those who are totally asymptomatic but that's another problem in and of itself.  I would imagine there would not be healing going on if someone were to be continually or even, accidentally, exposed to gluten in their diet on a regular basis.  For people like me, who were diagnosed via blood work, repeat blood work will give a good indication of whether you are doing a good job with your diet....especially if you were highly symptomatic and now are not.  That is why they do repeat blood work.  We also have the newer version of blood work, the DGP, which is pretty sensitive. Are you saying that people should not trust the current methods of testing for compliance to the diet?  This will not be an issue for the many who did not trip the blood work or can't be tested using blood work....and I think there are rmany of them out there, as evidenced by the posts on this forum.