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

Blood Test/diagnosis Question


basilicious

Recommended Posts

basilicious Explorer

I apologize if this is something I should have already figured out in my research, but my annoyance with the diagnostic process is clouding my thinking at the moment...

If the DGP IgG test is so accurate and so specific to celiac (which I realize it is), then why would we need any other blood tests? Why are people still getting full celiac panels for the wide array of antibodies? Why are biopsies still being used to confirm diagnosis? Are there ever false positives or other underlying reasons for the DGP IgG test?

What constitutes sufficient "proof" of celiac? Although it's clearly useful to try to size up damage and rule out other conditions, can't that be a next step after a celiac diagnosis? I am genuinely trying to understand if I'm missing something or if it truly just boils down to the medical field only diagnosing advanced celiac!

I keep seeing how DGP IgG is so great at diagnosing celiac when someone is low in total IgA or is very young, but I don't understand why it would be limited to that group. If it's good, it's good, and shouldn't everyone use it?

Sorry for so many questions...thanks for humoring me. :blink:


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



Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):



Skylark Collaborator

Scientists are comparing them even as we type. B) It looks like the combo of DGP-IgG and TTG-IgA may be the best bet to help reduce false positives.

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

basilicious Explorer

Scientists are comparing them even as we type. B) It looks like the combo of DGP-IgG and TTG-IgA may be the best bet to help reduce false positives.

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

Skylark, as usual, you are able to school me! :) I will have to find the full text of these online.

Not trying to be thick-headed here, but since this points to a combo of DGP-IgG and TTG IgA, then what about the folks (like me) who are positive for DGP IgG but not TTG IgA? Isn't the chance of a false positive extremely slim? Are you aware of anything else besides celiac that could cause a high DGP IgG? (For example, my GI doctor said it could be related to a wheat allergy, which seems far-fetched, but what do I know...)

Related to this...is it true that testing DGP IgG could detect celiac earlier than some of the other antibodies tests? So should I feel confident in my results and feel fortunate to have possibly caught this at an earlier stage?

Skylark Collaborator

From what I've been reading DGP IgG is thought to be the first celiac antibody formed. Then when antibodies bind to the gliadin-TTG enzyme complex you end up with TTG antibodies and autoimmunity. Your doctor may be thinking of DGP-IgA, which is not as sensitive for celiac. The putative development of DGP-IgG before TTG does raise the question of how far into celiac disease you get DGP, assuming that is the correct sequence of events. I agree with you that false positives seem unlikey and that you were probably lucky and caught early in the process of developing celiac.

It looks like the DGP-IgG is actually slightly less sensitive in one of these two studies than TTG-IgA. The combination is preferred because of the high specificity.

Let's see. In the Vermeersch et al. paper they were working with a bunch of different DGP IgG tests. The best had 86% sensitivity and 98% specificity. Their other kits ranged in sensitivity from 40.7%-86% at a 98% sensitivity cutoff.

"When the IgG anti-DGP assay from Inova would be performed in all patients in addition to the IgA anti-tTG assay from Phadia (the IgA anti-tTG and IgG anti-DGP assay with the highest LR in this study), the sensitivity would increase from 83.7% to 89.5%, while the specificity would only decrease from 98.4% to 98.0%. Five of the 14 patients diagnosed with celiac disease who were negative for IgA anti-tTG were positive for IgG anti-DGP including one patient with a selective IgA deficiency (< 0.05 g/L). Sixty-seven of the 86 celiac disease patients were positive with both assays compared to only 2 of the 741 patients classified as non-celiac disease. These 2 patients who were Marsh 0 on intestinal biopsy could have latent celiac disease. One 5 year old patient had a small stature and another 4 year old patient had abdominal pain."

From Volta et al.

"In the light of the information provided by our prospective study, as hypothesized by other authors,23 a new antibody strategy based on the combined search for IgA tTGA and IgG DGP-AGA can be designed for celiac disease screening. As generally recognized, IgA tTGA are the most sensitive test for celiac disease, but their usefulness can be partially reduced by the occurrence of “false positives,” a lower sensitivity in infancy and the inability to identify celiac disease cases associated with IgA deficiency. Indeed, IgG DGP-AGA may be suggested to solve these diagnostic deficiencies of IgA tTGA and add significant advantages for the serologic workup of celiac disease. Specifically: (1) IgG DGP-AGA can replace IgA EmA as a confirmatory test for tTGA positive cases. Indeed, although both IgG DGP-AGA and EmA are highly specific for celiac disease, the former (as it uses ELISA) offers the advantage of better reproducibility than the latter, whose reliability is limited by interobserver variability owing to the interpretation of the indirect immunofluorescence pattern 24; (2) IgG DGP-AGA are a very good tool for identifying celiac disease in children under 2 years of age, rendering testing for AGA redundant in these patients,25, Volta unpublished data finally, and (3) IgG DGP-AGA allows the identification of celiac disease in patients with IgA deficiency, thus avoiding the IgG tTGA test. In this respect, IgG DGP-AGA should undoubtedly be preferred to IgG tTGA, which is known to have a very low specificity for celiac disease.4 Taken together, the results that emerge from this study lead us to propose just the 2 IgA tTGA and IgG DGP-AGA tests instead of 4 assays (that is IgA tTGA, IgA EmA, IgA AGA, and IgG tTGA) for celiac disease screening. If confirmed by other studies, this strategy will mean both a significant saving of resources and an improvement in diagnostic accuracy for celiac disease."

basilicious Explorer

Thank you for taking the time to share these excerpts, Skylark! :) My alumni access to online research can be a bit testy.

This makes a lot more sense. While I've been focused on the false positive angle, I realize the more important issue from a broader testing perspective is how sensitive IgG DGP is and whether it will detect celiac at various stages. Alone, IgG DGP satisfies the former but possibly not the latter.

This sounds like a major advance in that, between IgG DGP and TTG-IgA, there is not only strong sensitivity but also the ability to detect celiac over time, including early on. Let's hope they soon develop a diagnostic timeline that fully maps out the testing required to effectively detect celiac at all stages...but maybe they're already there with this combo.

Archived

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


  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):



  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      131,339
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748

    Skydawg
    Newest Member
    Skydawg
    Joined

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      121.4k
    • Total Posts
      1m

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):




  • Who's Online (See full list)

    • There are no registered users currently online

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):



  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • trents
      My reaction to a gluten bolus exposure is similar to yours, with 2-3 hours of severe abdominal cramps and intractable emesis followed by several hours of diarrhea. I don't necessarily equate that one large exposure to gluten with significant intestinal lining damage, however. I think it's just a violent reaction to a what the body perceives to be a somewhat toxic substance that I am no longer tolerant of because I have quit exposing myself to it regularly. It's just the body purging itself of it rather than an expression of significant damage. Before diagnosis, when I was consuming gluten daily, I had little to no GI distress. I was, for the most part, a "silent celiac". The damage to my small bowel lining didn't happen all at once but was slow and insidious, accumulating over a period of years. The last time I got a big shot of gluten was about three years ago when I got my wife's wheat biscuits mixed up with my gluten-free ones. There was this acute reaction after about two hours of ingestion as I described above. I felt washed out for a few days and fully recovered within a week or so.  Now, I'm a 74-year-old male. So, I'm not worried about being pregnant. And I don't want to contradict your physicians advice. But I just don't think you have done significant damage to your small bowel lining by one episode of significant gluten ingestion. I just don't think it works that way.
    • Skydawg
      Wondering about some thoughts on how long to wait to try to get pregnant after a gluten exposure?  I have been diagnosed for 10 years and have followed the diet strictly. I have been cross contaminated before, but have never had a full on gluten exposure. I went to a restaurant recently, and the waiter messed up and gave me regular bread and told me it was gluten free. 2 hours later I was throwing up for the whole evening. I have never had that kind of reaction before as I have never had such a big exposure. My husband and I were planning to start trying to get pregnant this month. My dr did blood work to check for electrolytes and white blood cells, but did not do a full nutritional panel. Most of my GI symptoms have resolved in the past 2 weeks, but I am definitely still dealing with brain fog, fatigue and headaches. My dr has recommended I wait 3 months before I start to try to get pregnant.   I have read else where about how long it can take for the intestine to fully heal, and the impacts gluten exposure can have on pregnancy. I guess I am really wondering if anyone has had a similar experience? How long does it take to heal after 1 exposure like that, after following the diet so well for 10 years? Is 3 months an okay amount of time to wait? Is there anything I can do in the meantime to reduce my symptoms? 
    • ShadowLoom
      I’ve used tinctures and made my own edibles with gluten-free ingredients to stay safe. Dispensary staff don’t always know about gluten, so I double-check labels or just make my own.
    • Scott Adams
      It's great to hear that there are some good doctors out there, and this is an example of why having a formal diagnosis can definitely be helpful.
    • RMJ
      Update: I have a wonderful new gastroenterologist. She wants to be sure there’s nothing more serious, like refractory celiac, going on. She ordered various tests including some micronutrient tests that no one has ever ordered before.  I’m deficient in folate and zinc and starting supplements for both. I’m so glad I decided to go to a new GI!
×
×
  • Create New...