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

Ttg Test Results Negative...

Marz

Recommended Posts

Marz Enthusiast
Marz
Posted

IgA TTg - 1.4 (Ref 0.0 - 6 negative, > 6 positive)

IgG TTg - 0.4 (Ref 0.0 - 7 negative, > 7 positive)

Um, I'm not 100% sure which is which, the first might be IgG not IgA, since the results were dictated over the phone...

That's after 3 weeks gluten-free, so I guess not really an accurate result :unsure:

So over-all result negative, anti-gliadin IgA was also a very low negative (after being a few days gluten-free, that was a few weeks ago), and total IgA levels normal. Dr GI wants to do an in-depth endoscopy taking biopsies throughout the SI, but if I went that route I'd force myself to eat lots of gluten for a month to get the damage back up.

To be honest, even a negative biopsy wouldn't stop me from being gluten-free, so at this point further testing/glutening is just to *prove* that I have textbook celiac disease, which really isn't worth it :P

Just curious though - the ttg antibodies, why would a "normal" person even have a single antibody for this, why is the reference range so high? Is there really so much "noise" in the test, that they need to set the bar high? Is the 1.4 level I have something indicating a possible issue, even if it's "low" according to the reference range?

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

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):


Skylark Collaborator
Skylark
Posted

Just curious though - the ttg antibodies, why would a "normal" person even have a single antibody for this, why is the reference range so high? Is there really so much "noise" in the test, that they need to set the bar high? Is the 1.4 level I have something indicating a possible issue, even if it's "low" according to the reference range?

Yes, it's noise. There are lots of sources of noise in clinical assays, including proteins and enzymes in plasma, traces of hemolyzed blood, or slight antibody cross-reactivity. The reference ranges are set to be above the normal amount of noise in the assay. In an assay like this, your reading of 1.4 means the result is completely indistinguishable from the normal assay background.

Out of curiosity what makes you think the top of the reference range is "high"? These tests are set in arbitrary units.

nora-n Rookie
nora-n
Posted

they set the reference range so high so they supposedly get no negative biopsies if the ttg test is positive.....

There was an article here in celiac.com where real blood samples from biopsy proven celiacs were sent to several actual labs.

Some found most of them, (80% I think)

some only found 50% of them

Marz Enthusiast
Marz
Posted
  • Author

Out of curiosity what makes you think the top of the reference range is "high"? These tests are set in arbitrary units.

Just high compared to my result :P Thanks for explaining the reference ranges :)

Marz Enthusiast
Marz
Posted
  • Author

they set the reference range so high so they supposedly get no negative biopsies if the ttg test is positive.....

There was an article here in celiac.com where real blood samples from biopsy proven celiacs were sent to several actual labs.

Some found most of them, (80% I think)

some only found 50% of them

Thanks for the info. So the result can vary somewhat depending on the technician's skill or laboratory?

Skylark Collaborator
Skylark
Posted

Thanks for the info. So the result can vary somewhat depending on the technician's skill or laboratory?

Yes, it can. Diagnostic labs usually use automated equipment so technician skill doesn't affect things much, although it can in assays like anti-EMA that are run and read by hand. Variability tends to have more to do with equipment age and brand, batches of assay reagents (this can be a really big factor), blood sample handling, and the details of how that particular lab runs their assays. Some assays are simply less reliable than others too. You're going to get better measurements from lab to lab on a simple test like sodium than on an antibody test where there are multiple biological reagents involved. Also the units in which answers are reported can be different from lab to lab. That's why the more knowledgeable members here will not try to interpret a clinical lab result without a reference range.

Archived

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

Go to topic listing
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      131,634
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748
    dysmathers
    Newest Member
    dysmathers
    Joined
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      121.4k
    • Total Posts
      1m
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):



  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):


  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • deanna1ynne
      Inconclusive results

      By deanna1ynne · Posted

      Dd10 was tested for celiac four years ago bc two siblings were dx’d (positive labs and biopsies). Her results at the time were positive ema  and ttg (7x the UL), but a negative biopsy. We checked again three months later and her ttg was still positive (4x the UL), but ema and biopsy were negative. Doc said it was “potential celiac” and to keep eating gluten, but we were concerned about harming her growth and development while young and had her go gluten-free because we felt the labs and ema in particular were very suggestive of early celiac, despite the negative biopsies. She also had stomach aches and lethargy when eating it. We just felt it’d be better to be safe than sorry. Now, four years later, she doesn’t want to be gluten-free if she doesn’t “have to be,” so underwent a 12 week gluten challenge. She had labs done before starting and all looked great (celiac panel all negative, as expected.) Surprisingly, she experienced no noticeable symptoms when she began eating gluten again, which we felt was a positive sign. However, 12 weeks in, her labs are positive again (ttg 4x the UL and ema positive again as well). Doc says that since she feels fine and her previous two biopsies showed nothing, she can just keep eating gluten and we could maybe biopsy again in two years. I was looking up the ema test and the probability of having not just one but two false positives, and it seems ridiculously low.  Any advice? Would you biopsy again? She’s old enough at this point that I really feel I need her buy-in to keep her gluten-free, and she feels that if the doc says it’s fine, then that’s the final word — which makes me inclined to biopsy again and hope that it actually shows damage this time (not because I want her to have celiac like her sisters, but because I kind of think she already does have it, and seeing the damage now would save her more severe damage in the long run that would come from just continuing to eat gluten for a few more years before testing again.)  Our doc is great - we really like him. But we are very confused and want to protect her. One of her older sibs stopped growing and has lots of teeth problems and all that jazz from not catching the celiac disease sooner, and we don’t want to get to that point with the younger sis. fwiw- she doesn’t mind the biopsy at all. It’s at a children’s hospital and she thinks it’s kind of fun. So it’s not like that would stress her out or anything.
    • Inkie
      Buckwheat

      By Inkie · Posted

      Thanks for the replies. I already use a gluten-free brand of buckwheat flakes I occasionally get itchy bumps. I'm still reviewing all my food products. I occasionally eat prepackaged gluten-free crackers and cookies, so I'll stop using those. I use buckwheat flakes and Doves Farm flour as a base for baking. Would you recommend eliminating those as well? It's a constant search.
    • Wheatwacked
      Frequent nausea after gluten-free diet

      By Wheatwacked · Posted

      Gluten free food is not fortified with vitamins and minerals as regular food is.  Vitamin deficiencies are common especially in recently diagnosed persons,  Get a 25(OH)Vitamin D blood test. And work on raising it.  The safe upper blood level is around 200 nmol/L.    "Low serum levels of 25(OH)D have been associated with increased risk of autoimmune disease onset and/or high disease activity. The role of vitamin D in autoimmune diseases   🏋️‍♂️Good job!   I find the commercial milk will give me mild stomach burn at night, while pasture/grassfed only milk does not bother me at all.  While you are healing, listen to your body.  If it hurts to eat something, eat something else.  You may be able to eat it later, or maybe it is just not good for you.  Lower your Omega 6 to 3 ratio of what you eat.  Most omega 6 fatty acids are inflammation causing.    The standard american diet omega 6:3 ratio is estimated at upward of 14:1.  Thats why fish oil works
    • Inkie
      Thee

      By Inkie · Posted

      I  notice a reaction to tea bags, possibly due to gluten or other substances. Is this recognizable?
    • trents
      Taking Probiotics but Still Getting Sick After Gluten – Advice?

      By trents · Posted

      The blood tests you had done are not the main ones. The two main ones are the "Total IGA" (to check for IGA deficiency) and the "TTG-IGA". Current guidelines for the "gluten challenge" when people have been gluten free for a significant time period are the daily consumption of at least10g of gluten (about the amount in 4-6 slices of wheat bread) for at least two weeks leading up to the day of the blood draw. That should give you some perspective.
×
×
  • 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.