Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×
  • 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

Biopsy And Lymphocyte Count


ginnym

Recommended Posts

ginnym Newbie

I had an endoscopy in March which reported "no convincing villous atrophy" but also said that the "intraepithelial lymphocytes are towards the upper normal range and the chronic inflammatory cells are also towards the upper range".

After lots of asking, I've finally got the patholgist to do an IEL count on the sample and have been told that it was 35-40. I think I've seen articles which have said that Coeliac was previously diagnosed if the count was over 40 but that a count of over 25 is now regarded as low grade Coeliac, even without villous atrophy. This would obviously put me into the Coeliac group (my bloods were negative but a gluten-free diet is working wonders).

Does anyone have any experience of IEL counts who could confirm whether or not 35-40 is high enough to be considered early stage Coeliac?

In some respects it doesn't matter as I know that a gluten free diet is helping but I can't get foods on prescription without a formal diagnosis, plus I'd like to understand what's going on.

  • 5 years later...

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



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



Cboogy Newbie

I had an endoscopy in March which reported "no convincing villous atrophy" but also said that the "intraepithelial lymphocytes are towards the upper normal range and the chronic inflammatory cells are also towards the upper range".

After lots of asking, I've finally got the patholgist to do an IEL count on the sample and have been told that it was 35-40. I think I've seen articles which have said that Coeliac was previously diagnosed if the count was over 40 but that a count of over 25 is now regarded as low grade Coeliac, even without villous atrophy. This would obviously put me into the Coeliac group (my bloods were negative but a gluten-free diet is working wonders).

Does anyone have any experience of IEL counts who could confirm whether or not 35-40 is high enough to be considered early stage Coeliac?

In some respects it doesn't matter as I know that a gluten free diet is helping but I can't get foods on prescription without a formal diagnosis, plus I'd like to understand what's going on.

I will reply even though this is from 2008... I just got diagnosed with Celiac Disease because my IELs were "greater than 30." I do not improve on a gluten free diet. My bloodwork is all negative. All my blood vitamin and mineral levels are normal. I have the DQ2 gene so given that it's possible for me to have Celiac they went ahead with the diagnosis of celiac disease.

 

So based on my diagnosis, if you have more than 30 IELs/100 AND you feel better on gluten-free diet, you probably have celiac disease.

Archived

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


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      127,788
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Cookieldy
    Newest Member
    Cookieldy
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      121k
    • Total Posts
      70.4k

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):





  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • K6315
      Hi Lily Ivy. Thanks for responding. Did you have withdrawal? If so, what was it like and for how long?
    • trents
      Welcome to the forum, @Doris Barnes! You do realize don't you that the "gluten free" label does not mean the same thing as "free of gluten"? According to FDA regulations, using the "gluten free" label simply means the product does not contain gluten in excess of 20 ppm. "Certified Gluten Free" is labeling deployed by an independent testing group known as GFCO which means the product does not contain gluten in excess of 10 ppm. Either concentration of gluten can still cause a reaction in folks who fall into the more sensitive spectrum of the celiac community. 20 ppm is safe for most celiacs. Without knowing how sensitive you are to small amounts of gluten, I cannot speak to whether or not the Hu Kitechen chocolates are safe for you. But it sounds like they have taken sufficient precautions at their factory to ensure that this product will be safe for the large majority of celiacs.
    • Doris Barnes
      Buying choclate, I recently boght a bar from Hu Kitchen (on your list of recommended candy. It says it is free of gluten. However on the same package in small print it says "please be aware that the product is produced using equipment that also processes nuts, soy, milk and wheat. Allergen cleans are made prior to production". So my question is can I trust that there is no cross contamination.  If the allergy clean is not done carefully it could cause gluten exposure. Does anyone know of a choclate brand that is made at a facility that does not also use wheat, a gluten free facility. Thank you.
    • trents
      @Manaan2, have you considered the possibility that she might be cross reacting to some food or foods that technically don't contain gluten but whose proteins closely resemble gluten. Chief candidates might be dairy (casein), oats (avenin), soy, corn and eggs. One small study showed that 50% of celiacs react to CMP (Cow's Milk Protein) like they do gluten.
    • Manaan2
      I realize I'm super late in the game regarding this topic but in case anyone is still reading/commenting on this one-does anyone who is especially sensitive have their personal observations to share regarding Primal Kitchen brand?  My daughter was diagnosed almost 2 years ago with celiac and within 6 months, her follow up labs were normal and a year later vitamin levels significantly improving, but we are still battling GI symptoms; particularly, constipation, so much that she has been on MiraLax every day since she was 3.  We've managed to get her down to a half cap every other day but without that, she continues to have issues (when she has a known, accidental ingestion unfortunately it takes a lot more MiraLax and additional laxatives to help her).  I was searching for something else and found this and am wondering if anyone has any specific comments regarding Primal Kitchen.  I feel like we are so incredibly careful with diet, logging diet and symptoms to look for patterns (we've had multiple dieticians help with this piece as well), not eating out, contacting companies and of course, there is always room for improvement but I'm running out of ideas regarding where her issues could be coming from.  Even if the Primal Kitchen is contributing, I'm sure it's not the only thing contributing but I can't help but think there must be handful of things that are working together and against her.  The ingredients list distilled white vinegar, but also white wine vinegar and balsamic, then "spices" which I'm always cautious about.  However, after contacting the company, I felt more comfortable allowing her to consume their products but over time I've realized that the front-line customer service support people don't always provide the most accurate of information.  Thanks for reading to anyone that does.   
×
×
  • Create New...