0
fox23

Could Someone Please Help With Entrolab Results?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hello! Im very new to all of this and honestly feeling overwhelmed. Just received my results from Entrolab and was wondering if someone with more experience in all this wouldn't mind helping me analyze what exactly they mean. Any help/advice is very much appreciated! :) Here are my results:

B-1) Gluten Sensitivity Stool Panel

Fecal Anti-gliadin IgA 191 Units (Normal Range is less than 10 Units)

Fecal Anti-tissue Transglutaminase IgA 59 Units (Normal Range is less than 10 Units)

Quantitative Microscopic Fecal Fat Score 1048 Units (Normal Range is less than 300 Units)

TEST INTERPRETATION(S):

Interpretation of Fecal Anti-gliadin IgA: The level of intestinal anti-gliadin IgA antibody was elevated, indicative of active dietary gluten sensitivity. For optimal health; resolution or improvement of gluten-induced syndromes (mainly falling into six categories abbreviated as NAAAGS – neuropsychiatric, autoimmune, asthma, abdominal, glandular deficiencies/hyperactivity or skin diseases); resolution of symptoms known to be associated with gluten sensitivity (such as abdominal symptoms - pain, cramping, bloating, gas, diarrhea and/or constipation, chronic headaches, chronic sinus congestion, depression, arthritis, chronic skin problems/rashes, fibromyalgia, and/or chronic fatigue); and prevention of small intestinal damage and malnutrition, osteoporosis, and damage to other tissues (like nerves, brain, joints, muscles, thyroid, pancreas, other glands, skin, liver, spleen, among others), it is recommended that you follow a strict and permanent gluten free diet. As gluten sensitivity is a genetic syndrome, you may want to have your relatives screened as well.

For additional information on result interpretation, as well as educational information on the subject of gluten sensitivity, please see the "FAQ Result Interpretation," "FAQ Gluten/Food Sensitivity," and "Research & Education" links on our EnteroLab.com website.

Interpretation of Fecal Anti-tissue Transglutaminase IgA: The level of intestinal anti-tissue transglutaminase IgA antibody was elevated, indicative of an autoimmune reaction to the human enzyme tissue transglutaminase. This is almost always due to clinically significant gluten sensitivity. In rare cases, anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody appears in the absence of clinically significant gluten sensitivity, either as a marker of latent gluten sensitivity, as a consequence of an autoimmune reaction to a different stimulus (either dietary or otherwise), or possibly from liver disease. Tissue transglutaminase is an intracellular enzyme present in virtually all human tissues and organs, and is secreted extracellularly in response to tissue damage (such as occurs with trauma, surgery, pregnancy, infections, or inflammation-induced tissue damage). It is this extracellular release that allows the enzyme to become antigenic, especially when underlying gluten sensitivity is present. The fact that dietary gluten sensitivity so often induces a subsequent and secondary autoimmune reaction to this important human enzyme explains why autoimmune reactions and diseases so often accompany clinically significant gluten sensitivity.

Interpretation of Quantitative Microscopic Fecal Fat Score: A fecal fat score greater than or equal to 300 Units indicates that an abnormally high amount of dietary fat has passed undigested and/or unabsorbed into the stool. Malabsorption of dietary fat almost always is associated with malabsorption of all other nutrients as well (protein, carbohydrates, vitamins, etc.). When associated with gluten sensitivity, elevated fecal fat usually is due to gluten-induced small intestinal functional damage and subsequent malabsorption; this does not require there be villous atrophy present. However, deficient production of enzymes by the pancreas can also be associated with celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity with autoimmune attack on the pancreas, causing maldigestion and malabsorption of dietary fat and other nutrients. Some other causes of exocrine pancreatic insufficiency include chronic pancreatitis from any cause (alcoholism being the most common), pancreatic resection, pancreatic cancer, or common bile duct obstruction. Pancreatic insufficiency as the primary cause of fat malabsorption usually causes significant elevations of fecal fat values, usually into the moderate (600-1000 Units) or severe (>1000 Units) ranges.

To distinguish between small intestinal malabsorption and pancreatic maldigestion, a fecal pancreatic elastase test is necessary, which is now available from our laboratory.

Other possible causes of elevated fecal fat (steatorrhea) include - another inflammatory bowel disease (such as Crohn’s disease which can be associated with gluten sensitivity); deficiency in the production or secretion of bile salts; overgrowth of bacteria in the small intestine; diarrhea from any cause which can, in turn, cause dietary fat to rush through the intestine unabsorbed; consuming very large amounts of dietary fat; eating unabsorbable synthetic dietary fat substitutes; or taking “fat blockers;” and resection of the small intestine causing “short bowel syndrome” (if you have had an intestinal resection).

Any elevated fecal fat value should be rechecked in one year after treatment to ensure that it does not persist, because chronic fat malabsorption is associated with osteoporosis and other nutritional deficiency syndromes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ads by Google:
Ads by Google:


I am sorry to tell you this, but Enterolab does not test for Celiac Disease. No leading celiac specialists or research centers use this lab or endorse/validate them. :(

 

Currently, there are no valid tests for "gluten sensitivity"

 

so I do not interpret anything from those results, except the suggestion to purchase more "tests"

 

and  I see a boatload of "possible OTHER diagnoses"  mentioned--because simply, these test results are not definitive at all.

 

You may well have something going on, but I am not sure this lab is going to give you the answers.None of us know your health history and none of us are doctors

 

Have you had a full celiac panel done?

 

See, this tells me they just want to sell you something more...

 

To distinguish between small intestinal malabsorption and pancreatic maldigestion, a fecal pancreatic elastase test is necessary, which is now available from our laboratory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing that the tests say is that you have much higher than normal levels of the antibody to gliadin in you stool sample.  Fecal Anti-gliadin IgA 191 Units (Normal Range is less than 10 Units)

Gliadin is the part of gluten that celiacs react to which initiates the autoimmune response and makes them sick.

 

The validity of Enterolabs tests is disputed on this forum, but they are "a registered and fully accredited* clinical laboratory ".  I think I've heard that you can call them to discuss results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 "a registered and fully accredited* clinical laboratory "

 

This may be true, but it does not validate their testing for "gluten sensitivity" or "gluten sensitivity genes", at least according to

celiac researchers. I am just going by the Univ. of Chicago Celiac Center's FAQ section:

 

Why don’t you recognize tests (stool tests or otherwise) for non-celiac gluten sensitivity that are currently available through companies like Enterolab or Cyrex?

We only embrace tests that have endured rigorous scientific evaluations. So far, these tests have received no evidence-based support.

Enterolab has never successfully published anything on the accuracy of stool tests (nor have any other stool test manufacturers, to our knowledge) making it difficult to confirm the research results. Because of this, we must make our decisions based on what has been published; Harvard, UCSD, and the American College of Gastroenterology all agree that stool tests are simply not sensitive or specific enough methods in screening for celiac disease.

We can say therefore with confidence that the test currently being used by these labs is not good enough. In fact, while it is true that about 40% of people with proven gluten sensitivity have elevated AGA-IgG, it is also true that about 15-25% of the healthy individuals who have absolutely nothing wrong also have elevated AGA-IgG. Hence, about 60% of gluten sensitive people do not have elevated AGA-IgG (making the test not sensitive enough); and about 20% of normal, non-gluten sensitive people have elevated AGA-IgG for no apparent reason (making the test not specific enough).

Further reading: “Detection of secretory IgA antibodies against gliadin and human tissue transglutaminase in stool to screen for coeliac disease in children: validation study” at BMJ.com.

 

and I should probably also state that any opinions I have about Enterolab are based on those kinds of sources and do not reflect the opinions of "the forum" or the admin. :) It's just me. Feel free to disregard.

I have no idea how everyone else feels about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Irishheart, you comments are valid.  I am really on the fence about this.  This test does not test for celiac disease.  They get many more positives than are obtained with intestinal biopsy.  They think that the reason for that is that they are catching the disease before it has progressed enough to be able to be detected by biopsy.  I really don't know.  It is something that would be unethical to try to prove with a double blind study.  There is more fecal testing done in Europe and interested people can research it further.  

 

Here is a link to start with: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15481630

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ads by Google:


You are right about European studies and as far as I can see from all the reading I do, Europe is way ahead of us in every arena regarding celiac and AI disease research.

 

I hope this trend continues so less people fall through the diagnostic cracks. It's not working as it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would  not entirely dismiss enterolab results.  they may not be proven, but they are not disproven either.  I recommend appropriate testing before going gluten free, so you can get an official diagnosis for appropriate care and follow-up.

See guidelines below:

 

Posted by Living Without editor Alicia Woodward at 03:04PM in blog - Comments: (0)

August 28, 2013

The American College of Gastroenterology released its first clinical guidelines to help doctors diagnose and manage their patients who have celiac disease. Dr. David A. Johnson, chief of gastroenterology at Eastern Virginia Medical School in Norfolk, Virginia, commented extensively online about the guidelines. His advice to his fellow physicians: “Beyond a little bloating and diarrhea, think outside the box. Celiac disease is grossly under-diagnosed, and we can all do better.”

Dr. Johnson provides the following synopsis of the ACG’s guidelines on celiac disease, suggesting that his medical colleagues take away these important points: 

1. Antigliadin antibody testing is no longer part of celiac screening. It should not be part of a doctor’s diagnostic testing for celiac disease.

2. IgA TTG testing should now be used - but NOT for patients who are IgA-deficient.

3. In patients who are IgA-deficient, doctors need to consider other testing, such as the DGP or the IgG TTG antibody. These test strategies are available in commercial laboratories.

4. Test results (blood tests and biopsy) can be misleading if the patient has been on a gluten-free diet. For these people, genetic testing and a gluten challenge are most helpful.

5. Genetic testing (HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8) is helpful in select circumstances. If the patient is HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8 negative, doctos can exclude the diagnosis of celiac disease.

6. Celiac disease has a high (10%) prevalence in Down syndrome. If a patient with Down syndrome is HLA-DQ2/8 negative, doctors can dismiss the diagnosis of celiac disease.

7. When doing a diagnostic endoscopy, multiple biopsies are key to diagnosis. Doctors should now biopsy the duodenal bulb, in addition to 4 or more biopsies from the second and third portions of the duodenum.

8. In some patients, abnormal liver enzymes may be the only manifestation of celiac disease apparent on routine testing. These patients are typically very responsive to a gluten-free diet (95 percent will resolve).

9. Doctors should involve a dietitian. Celiac patients need lifelong monitoring for vitamin and micronutrient deficiencies (iron, vitamin B12, vitamin D, folate, vitamin B6, and a variety of other micronutrients, such as copper, zinc and carnitine).

Source: Celiac Disease: New Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management. Medscape. David A. Johnson, MD. August 21, 2013.

 

good luck!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone here posted about two-three years ago and was angry he later got diagnosed with microscopic colitis. His Enterolab tests had been positive for gluten sensitivity....and he could see no connection.

We answered, that is what the tests initially were developed for. But that Fine also saw that the tests were positive for many others. He could not dismiss the tests altogether, so he offered them to people. But they only test for gluten sensitivity. (and microscopic colitis)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet, every leading celiac disease center says:

 

"Currently, there are no valid tests for gluten sensitivity"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
0

  • Who's Online   14 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1,208 Guests (See full list)

  • Top Posters +

  • Recent Articles

    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

    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