Which Tests Can Distinguish Gluten Intolerance From Celiac Disease?

[Joyous]

Can the Entrolab test distinguish between Celiac and gluten intolerance? Could an endoscopy see the difference? Which blood tests can and which can't?

Thanks,

Joy

[Lisa]

Can the Entrolab test distinguish between Celiac and gluten intolerance? Could an endoscopy see the difference? Which blood tests can and which can't?

Thanks,

Joy

Enterolabs can test for sensitivity to gluten and other things. They cannot diagnose Celiac Disease. So, the answer to your first question is no. An endoscopy with blunted villi/or scalloping may be seen and biopsy can diagnose for Celiac, but the sampling may be hit or miss.

A full (5) test Celiac Panel is recommended. There also may be some false negatives, but there are no false positives.

[Joyous]

okay, thanks

[Fiddle-Faddle]

There isn't yet enough known about the grey area betwen gluten intolerance and celiac, and there may be more than one cause for each.

If celiac is only defined as villi damage,t hen presumably one would be considered "only"gluten intolerant if one had all the symptoms of celiac but was biopsied BEFORE villi damage occurred.

Another wrinkle is that the biopsy is such a crapshoot: villi damage is often patchy and only visible

under a microscope, so there is literally less than a .5% chance of biopsying an affected area unless your particular damage happens to be uniform (which would indicate fairly advanced celiac).

So what if you really and truly do have celiac, but choose not to get a biopsy, or have a doctor who missed damage that was there and only biopsied unaffected areas?

Unfortunately, there are those who look down their noses and say that someone without an official celiac diagnosis is "only" gluten intolerant.

There are all kinds of causes of gluten intolerance. Celiac is certainly one cause. But Lyme Disease and mercury toxicity are other causes, and nearly always undiagnosed.

Funny, though--nobody ever asks someone who is allergic to peanuts or shellfish what the root cause of the allergy is, or if they are "only" intolerant...too bad people aren't as accepting of the different causes of gluten intolerance/celiac.

There is even a big push to look at genetics--although there are people who test negative for the genes that are supposed to predispose them for celiac, but they have positive biopsies. Conversely, there are people with DH, which is a definitive celiac diagnosis, who have no apparent intestinal symptoms. Some have villi damage anyway, and some don't.

Obviously, there is much we need to learn.

[Lisa]

There isn't yet enough known about the grey area betwen gluten intolerance and celiac, and there may be more than one cause for each.

If celiac is only defined as villi damage,t hen presumably one would be considered "only"gluten intolerant if one had all the symptoms of celiac but was biopsied BEFORE villi damage occurred.

Another wrinkle is that the biopsy is such a crapshoot: villi damage is often patchy and only visible

under a microscope, so there is literally less than a .5% chance of biopsying an affected area unless your particular damage happens to be uniform (which would indicate fairly advanced celiac).

So what if you really and truly do have celiac, but choose not to get a biopsy, or have a doctor who missed damage that was there and only biopsied unaffected areas?

Unfortunately, there are those who look down their noses and say that someone without an official celiac diagnosis is "only" gluten intolerant.

There are all kinds of causes of gluten intolerance. Celiac is certainly one cause. But Lyme Disease and mercury toxicity are other causes, and nearly always undiagnosed.

Funny, though--nobody ever asks someone who is allergic to peanuts or shellfish what the root cause of the allergy is, or if they are "only" intolerant...too bad people aren't as accepting of the different causes of gluten intolerance/celiac.

There is even a big push to look at genetics--although there are people who test negative for the genes that are supposed to predispose them for celiac, but they have positive biopsies. Conversely, there are people with DH, which is a definitive celiac diagnosis, who have no apparent intestinal symptoms. Some have villi damage anyway, and some don't.

Obviously, there is much we need to learn.

"Unfortunately, there are those who look down their noses and say that someone without an official celiac diagnosis is "only" gluten intolerant.

I really don't understand this statement. Does that mean that those with cancer look down their noses of those with pre-cancer?

I have heard this statement more than once and I have yet to see any substantiation for a comment like that.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

"Unfortunately, there are those who look down their noses and say that someone without an official celiac diagnosis is "only" gluten intolerant.

I really don't understand this statement. Does that mean that those with cancer look down their noses of those with pre-cancer?

I have heard this statement more than once and I have yet to see any substantiation for a comment like that.

Sorry, MommaG, I haven't spent any time on cancer boards(at least, not yet), so I have no idea why you brought up cancer!

But surely you have seen, here, MANY times, posts that tell others that they"only" have gluten intolerance because they have not had a positive biopsyand therefore do not (supposedly) have celiac.

There are far too many people--patients and doctors-- who believe that either lack of a biopsy or lack of a positive biopsy rules out celiac. It doesn't. And the word "only" carries a connotation of "less severe," or "less important." Ironically, NONE of us have any clear idea exactly where gluten intolerance ends and celiac begins. It's obviously not limited to genetics because people without the so-called celiac genes still have positive biopsies. And it's not limited to symptoms, because some people with few or even no intestinal symptoms also have either positive biopsies or DH.

Having been an editor, I tend to be rather sensitive to words and phrases that most people probably don't consciously notice! And, having struggled through the all-too common experience of totally clueless doctors denying that I could possibly have DH/celiac (and it WAS DH), I am also sensitive to anyone telling someone that they don't have celiac.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

"Unfortunately, there are those who look down their noses and say that someone without an official celiac diagnosis is "only" gluten intolerant.

I have heard this statement more than once and I have yet to see any substantiation for a comment like that.

If you really need substantiation, see the first post on this thread:Open Original Shared Link .

[~alex~]

Sorry, MommaG, I haven't spent any time on cancer boards(at least, not yet), so I have no idea why you brought up cancer!

I believe it was an analogy and it made perfect sense to me.

[Joyous]

I had thought the difference between gluten intolrance and Celiac Disease was that gluten intolerance is a negative reaction (don't know why) and Celiac Disease is an autoimmune disorder. I can certainly see how they could be one in the same. It makes me want to see a doctor even less. (Theoretically there could be other stuff wrong though, stuff a doctor needs to check for.)

Why don't doctors order the same tests that Entrolab does if they're both looking for antibodies and the Entrolab test results are more accurate? There wouldn't be a need to start eating gluten again if someone had eaten it within the past year, right?

Also, has anyone shown a doctor their Entrolab test results? What kind of response did they get? Do a lot of doctors dismiss results from lab work that they (or another doctor) didn't order?

[happygirl]

the Entrolab test results are more accurate

This is not necessarily a true statement. His research has not been published, and other studies have not found strong correlations between traditional testing and stool testing.

This is not to say that his testing doesn't have merit in its own right. I think there is a lot we don't know at this point, and all of the testing methods can be in our potential tool kit.

[Lisa]

I had thought the difference between gluten intolrance and Celiac Disease was that gluten intolerance is a negative reaction (don't know why) and Celiac Disease is an autoimmune disorder. I can certainly see how they could be one in the same. It makes me want to see a doctor even less. (Theoretically there could be other stuff wrong though, stuff a doctor needs to check for.)

Why don't doctors order the same tests that Entrolab does if they're both looking for antibodies and the Entrolab test results are more accurate? There wouldn't be a need to start eating gluten again if someone had eaten it within the past year, right?

Also, has anyone shown a doctor their Entrolab test results? What kind of response did they get? Do a lot of doctors dismiss results from lab work that they (or another doctor) didn't order?

Gluten intolerance can develop the same symptoms as Celiac and may be a precurser to Celiac . Celiac (an autoimmune disorder) results in intestinal damage.

The problem is in the accuracy and current research in testing. Antibody Blood Screening, Endoscopy/Biopsy and Positive Dietary Response are the current available tests for Celiac Disease. It is well known that these tests are not always accurate at this time.

I learned about Celiac Disease after my biopsy. I did not have the options available to me as other who frequent this board for testing. Some feel confident with their results from Enterolabs, other have chosen other methods in seeking their answers.

In the end, whether someone has Celiac or a gluten intollerance, I see no difference and I have said that numerous times here on this board. Call it whatever you will.