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

Pondering Skipping Biopsy...


glutenfreejd

Recommended Posts

glutenfreejd Newbie

Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum. A few months ago I had a positive blood test for celiac and was referred to a specialist for a confirmation biopsy. In the meantime I went gluten free as my symptoms had become so bad I was having difficulty working. The other day I got a call back from the clinic with my appointment date, but now I'm not sure I want to do it as I would have to start eating gluten again for it to be accurate. Since I've been dating gluten free I've noticed I've become even more sensitive, if I accidentally eat something a bit contaminated I have a pretty strong reaction. Is there any benefi to the biopsy that would compel me to go through this process I imagine to be so horrible? Thanks:)


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



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



Katrala Contributor

Most doctors will tell you to not go gluten-free until the biopsy.

The good thing about the biopsy is that you'll have a baseline and any other problems can be discovered.

Also, you'll have a 100% diagnosis.

If you're OK with not having an official diagnosis (you may find a doctor who will diagnosis without, though,) then go ahead and skip it.

From personal experience, I was glad I had it. But there are many people here who didn't and are still happy with their choice.

MitziG Enthusiast

Dr Alex Fasano is considered THE leading expert on Celiac Disease. He recently stated this in Gluten Free Living Magazine:

"I was the one who said the gold standard was the biopsy. Now

I am saying I was wrong.

The blood tests are extremely accurate at showing a positive Celiac. False negatives- very common. False-positive? nope.

You have Celiac Disease. You can have a biopsy, but, since you have been gluten free for awhile, even if you go back on it for weeks, or months...there may not be enough damage to show positive in a biopsy.

They may do the biopsy, and not take enough samples, or not take them from the right spots, and miss the damage. Celiac is often patchy.

Or they may biopsy damaged areas, and the lab tech who reads the samples may not be experienced, and may miss it.

So...if you get a negative biopsy- what will you do? Probably start questioning yourself. Doctors cant see beyond lab results generally, and they will most certainly dismiss it, and say all of your problems are not from Celiac, and write you a rx for antidepressants.

That said, I had the biopsy, and it was positive, and I needed that confirmation to resolve to stick with the diet. But I also had not been gluten free when I had it.

Not saying you shouldn't do it...but be prepared for the very real likelihood that it will deny what is most definitely true.

Lisa Mentor

Often times, a biopsy can find additional issues, which otherwise might go unresolved. And, with digestive concerns for a period of time, a biopsy can look for the level of damage.

I'm certain you will get opinions from either directions. Take it all in and make the choice you are most comfortable. :)

MitziG Enthusiast

Often times, a biopsy can find additional issues, which otherwise might go unresolved. And, with digestive concerns for a period of time, a biopsy can look for the level of damage.

I'm certain you will get opinions from either directions. Take it all in and make the choice you are most comfortable. :)

This is a very valid point. I am not against biopsy, by any means. I just worry that people feel they aren't a "real celiac" without that dang biopsy report!

luvs2eat Collaborator

Apparently my blood test was SO positive that my doctor told me biopsy wasn't necessary! I ended up having one several years later for heartburn/GERD issues and there were celiac indications in there, but as it turned out, the biopsy really wasn't necessary. The blood tests told me what I needed to know... NO MORE GLUTEN FOR ME!!

glutenfreejd Newbie

Thanks everyone, that was really helpful. No test for me!! I don't feel like a slip of paper will make me feel any better. I've been feeling so great, I don't want to mess with it. Thanks again!!


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



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



Mom-of-Two Contributor

My bloodwork was also super positive, I see the GI this Thursday and am also thinking I may not do a biopsy. If you are feeling better, I would hate to see you reintroduce gluten :( sounds like you have your answer!

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. - Mmoc replied to Mmoc's topic in Celiac Disease Pre-Diagnosis, Testing & Symptoms
      2

      Blood tests low iGA 4 years later digestive issues

    2. - Aretaeus Cappadocia replied to Clear2me's topic in Gluten-Free Foods, Products, Shopping & Medications
      6

      Gluten free nuts

    3. - trents replied to Larzipan's topic in Related Issues & Disorders
      42

      Has anyone had terrible TMJ/ Jaw Pain from undiagnosed Celiac?

    4. - Scott Adams replied to Larzipan's topic in Related Issues & Disorders
      42

      Has anyone had terrible TMJ/ Jaw Pain from undiagnosed Celiac?

    5. - Wheatwacked commented on Scott Adams's article in Latest Research
      6

      Study Estimates the Costs of Delayed Celiac Disease Diagnosis (+Video)


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      132,387
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    LizzieE
    Newest Member
    LizzieE
    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

    • Mmoc
      Thank you kindly for your response. I have since gotten the other type of bloods done and am awaiting results. 
    • Aretaeus Cappadocia
      I wanted to respond to your post as much for other people who read this later on (I'm not trying to contradict your experience or decisions) > Kirkland Signature Super Extra-Large Peanuts, 2.5 lbs, are labeled "gluten free" in the Calif Costcos I've been in. If they are selling non-gluten-free in your store, I suggest talking to customer service to see if they can get you the gluten-free version (they are tasty) > This past week I bought "Sliced Raw Almonds, Baking Nuts, 5 lbs Item 1495072 Best if used by Jun-10-26 W-261-6-L1A 12:47" at Costco. The package has the standard warning that it was made on machinery that <may> have processed wheat. Based on that alone, I would not eat these. However, I contacted customer service and asked them "are Costco's Sliced Almonds gluten free?" Within a day I got this response:  "This is [xyz] with the Costco Member Service Resolutions Team. I am happy to let you know we got a reply back from our Kirkland Signature team. Here is their response:  This item does not have a risk of cross contamination with gluten, barley or rye." Based on this, I will eat them. Based on experience, I believe they will be fine. Sometimes, for other products, the answer has been "they really do have cross-contamination risk" (eg, Kirkland Signature Dry Roasted Macadamia Nuts, Salted, 1.5 lbs Item 1195303). When they give me that answer I return them for cash. You might reasonably ask, "Why would Costco use that label if they actually are safe?" I can't speak for Costco but I've worked in Corporate America and I've seen this kind of thing first hand and up close. (1) This kind of regulatory label represents risk/cost to the company. What if they are mistaken? In one direction, the cost is loss of maybe 1% of sales (if celiacs don't buy when they would have). In the other direction, the risk is reputational damage and open-ended litigation (bad reviews and celiacs suing them). Expect them to play it safe. (2) There is a team tasked with getting each product out to market quickly and cheaply, and there is also a committee tasked with reviewing the packaging before it is released. If the team chooses the simplest, safest, pre-approved label, this becomes a quick check box. On the other hand, if they choose something else, it has to be carefully scrutinized through a long process. It's more efficient for the team to say there <could> be risk. (3) There is probably some plug and play in production. Some lots of the very same product could be made in a safe facility while others are made in an unsafe facility. Uniform packaging (saying there is risk) for all packages regardless of gluten risk is easier, cheaper, and safer (for Costco). Everything I wrote here is about my Costco experience, but the principles will be true at other vendors, particularly if they have extensive quality control infrastructure. The first hurdle of gluten-free diet is to remove/replace all the labeled gluten ingredients. The second, more difficult hurdle is to remove/replace all the hidden gluten. Each of us have to assess gray zones and make judgement calls knowing there is a penalty for being wrong. One penalty would be getting glutened but the other penalty could be eating an unnecessarily boring or malnourishing diet.
    • trents
      Thanks for the thoughtful reply and links, Wheatwacked. Definitely some food for thought. However, I would point out that your linked articles refer to gliadin in human breast milk, not cow's milk. And although it might seem reasonable to conclude it would work the same way in cows, that is not necessarily the case. Studies seem to indicate otherwise. Studies also indicate the amount of gliadin in human breast milk is miniscule and unlikely to cause reactions:  https://www.glutenfreewatchdog.org/news/gluten-peptides-in-human-breast-milk-implications-for-cows-milk/ I would also point out that Dr. Peter Osborne's doctorate is in chiropractic medicine, though he also has studied and, I believe, holds some sort of certifications in nutritional science. To put it plainly, he is considered by many qualified medical and nutritional professionals to be on the fringe of quackery. But he has a dedicated and rabid following, nonetheless.
    • Scott Adams
      I'd be very cautious about accepting these claims without robust evidence. The hypothesis requires a chain of biologically unlikely events: Gluten/gliadin survives the cow's rumen and entire digestive system intact. It is then absorbed whole into the cow's bloodstream. It bypasses the cow's immune system and liver. It is then secreted, still intact and immunogenic, into the milk. The cow's digestive system is designed to break down proteins, not transfer them whole into milk. This is not a recognized pathway in veterinary science. The provided backup shifts from cow's milk to human breastmilk, which is a classic bait-and-switch. While the transfer of food proteins in human breastmilk is a valid area of study, it doesn't validate the initial claim about commercial dairy. The use of a Dr. Osborne video is a major red flag. His entire platform is based on the idea that all grains are toxic, a view that far exceeds the established science on Celiac Disease and non-celiac gluten sensitivity. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and a YouTube video from a known ideological source is not that evidence."  
    • Wheatwacked
      Some backup to my statement about gluten and milk. Some background.  When my son was born in 1976 he was colicky from the beginning.  When he transitioned to formula it got really bad.  That's when we found the only pediactric gastroenterologist (in a population of 6 million that dealt with Celiac Disease (and he only had 14 patients with celiac disease), who dianosed by biopsy and started him on Nutramegen.  Recovery was quick. The portion of gluten that passes through to breastmilk is called gliadin. It is the component of gluten that causes celiac disease or gluten intolerance. What are the Effects of Gluten in Breastmilk? Gliaden, a component of gluten which is typically responsible for the intestinal reaction of gluten, DOES pass through breast milk.  This is because gliaden (as one of many food proteins) passes through the lining of your small intestine into your blood. Can gluten transmit through breast milk?  
×
×
  • 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.