Jump to content
  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.




  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):



    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):


  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Support Our Content
    eNewsletter
    Donate

Update from GI Dr


JJav123412

Recommended Posts

JJav123412 Rookie

So my husband had a celiac panel done (family history).  He has basically no gut symptoms.

His Gliaden Iga & Igg were negative.  His ttg Iga was negative.  However, his ttg Igg was elevated (28, normal less then 20).

He went to the GI dr who told him that having an elevated ttg Igg alone was no indication of celiac and that he does not have the disease.  He said that some people just have elevated ttg Igg for no reason.  There has to be a reason for the elevation, correct?  His cbc bloodwork was all normal. Dr said there is no need for further testing (ie, EMA, vitamin deficiencies or genetic testing).  Do you agree?


Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



Jmg Mentor
51 minutes ago, JJav123412 said:

He said that some people just have elevated ttg Igg for no reason

This is what a well respected celiac centre says:

Open Original Shared Link

but also see:

Open Original Shared Link

Maybe seek a second opinion? The EMA test seems like University of Chicago's preferred route. 

Best of luck to you both!

 

 

RMJ Mentor

I just saw a paper on this today:

Open Original Shared Link

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Support Celiac.com:
    Join eNewsletter
    Donate

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):
    Celiac.com Sponsor (A17):





    Celiac.com Sponsors (A17-M):




  • Recent Activity

    1. - Scott Adams replied to HAUS's topic in Gluten-Free Foods, Products, Shopping & Medications
      7

      Sainsbury's Free From White Sliced Bread - Now Egg Free - Completely Ruined It

    2. - Scott Adams replied to deanna1ynne's topic in Celiac Disease Pre-Diagnosis, Testing & Symptoms
      13

      Inconclusive results

    3. - deanna1ynne replied to deanna1ynne's topic in Celiac Disease Pre-Diagnosis, Testing & Symptoms
      13

      Inconclusive results

    4. - cristiana replied to HAUS's topic in Gluten-Free Foods, Products, Shopping & Medications
      7

      Sainsbury's Free From White Sliced Bread - Now Egg Free - Completely Ruined It


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      132,439
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Lillian Steele
    Newest Member
    Lillian Steele
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      121.5k
    • Total Posts
      1m

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • Scott Adams
      In the U.S., most regular wheat breads are required to be enriched with certain B-vitamins and iron, but gluten-free breads are not required to be. Since many gluten-free products are not enriched, we usually encourage people with celiac disease to consider a multivitamin.  In the early 1900s, refined white flour replaced whole grains, and people began developing serious vitamin-deficiency diseases: Beriberi → caused by a lack of thiamin (vitamin B1) Pellagra → caused by a lack of niacin (vitamin B3) Anemia → linked to low iron and lack of folate By the 1930s–40s, these problems were common in the U.S., especially in poorer regions. Public-health officials responded by requiring wheat flour and the breads made from it to be “enriched” with thiamin, riboflavin, niacin, and iron. Folic acid was added later (1998) to prevent neural-tube birth defects. Why gluten-free bread isn’t required to be enriched? The U.S. enrichment standards were written specifically for wheat flour. Gluten-free breads use rice, tapioca, corn, sorghum, etc.—so they fall outside that rule—but they probably should be for the same reason wheat products are.
    • Scott Adams
      Keep in mind that there are drawbacks to a formal diagnosis, for example more expensive life and private health insurance, as well as possibly needing to disclose it on job applications. Normally I am in favor of the formal diagnosis process, but if you've already figured out that you can't tolerate gluten and will likely stay gluten-free anyway, I wanted to at least mention the possible negative sides of having a formal diagnosis. While I understand wanting a formal diagnosis, it sounds like she will likely remain gluten-free either way, even if she should test negative for celiac disease (Approximately 10x more people have non-celiac gluten sensitivity than have celiac disease, but there isn’t yet a test for NCGS. If her symptoms go away on a gluten-free diet, it would likely signal NCGS).        
    • JoJo0611
    • deanna1ynne
      Thank you all so much for your advice and thoughts. We ended up having another scope and more bloodwork last week. All serological markers continue to increase, and the doc who did the scope said there villous atrophy visible on the scope — but we just got the biopsy pathology report back, and all it says is, “Duodenal mucosa with patchy increased intraepithelial lymphocytes, preserved villous architecture, and patchy foveolar metaplasia,” which we are told is still inconclusive…  We will have her go gluten free again anyway, but how soon would you all test again, if at all? How valuable is an official dx in a situation like this?
    • cristiana
      Thanks for this Russ, and good to see that it is fortified. I spend too much time looking for M&S gluten-free Iced Spiced Buns to have ever noticed this! That's interesting, Scott.  Have manufacturers ever said why that should be the case?  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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