Literature DB >> 11374690

Low prevalence of antigliadin and anti-endomysium antibodies in subclinical/silent celiac disease.

A Tursi1, G Brandimarte, G Giorgetti, A Gigliobianco, D Lombardi, G Gasbarrini.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Endomysial antibodies (EMA) are a well-known hallmark of celiac disease, but some recent studies showed that the prevalence of these antibodies in clinical practice is lower than expected. The aim of our study was to determine the prevalence of antigliadin (AGA) and EMA antibodies on a consecutive series of subclinical/silent celiac patients.
METHODS: We studied 115 consecutive patients with subclinical (92 patients) or silent (23 patients) forms of celiac disease. AGA and EMA were screened in all patients. Histopathology of celiac disease was expressed according to the Marsh classification.
RESULTS: The overall AGA in subclinical form were positive in 77% (14 of 18) of patients with partial villous atrophy (VA), in 84% (21 of 25) of patients with subtotal VA, and in 90% (27 of 30) of patients with total VA, whereas EMA were positive in 88.88% (16 of 18) of patients with partial VA, in 92% (23 of 25) of patients with subtotal VA, and 96.66% (29 of 30) of patients with total VA. On the other hand, AGA were positive in 0% (zero of two) of patients with Marsh I and in 30% (three of 10) of patients with Marsh II, whereas EMA were positive in 0% (zero of two) of patients with Marsh I and in 40% (four of 10) of patients with Marsh II (Marsh I-IIIa vs Marsh IIIb-c, p = < 0.005 in overall AGA-positive patients and p = < 0.0001 in EMA-positive patients). At the same time the overall AGA in silent form were positive in 60% (three of five) of patients with partial VA, in 66.66% (four of six) of patients with subtotal VA, and in 77.77% (seven of nine) of patients with total VA, whereas EMA were positive in 80% (four of five) of patients with partial VA, in 83.33% (five of six) of patients with subtotal VA, and in 88.88% (eight of nine) of patients with total VA. On the other hand, overall AGA were positive in 0% of patients with both Marsh I (zero of one) and Marsh II (zero of two), as well as EMA were positive in 0% with both Marsh I (zero of one) and Marsh II (zero of two) (Marsh I-IIIa vs Marsh IIIb-c, p = < 0.001 in overall AGA-positive patients and p = < 0.007 in EMA-positive patients).
CONCLUSIONS: At this time small bowel biopsy seems to be the only correct procedure to diagnose a case of suspected celiac disease, especially in patients with mild symptoms or suspected for celiac disease, because they belong to high-risk groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11374690     DOI: 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2001.03744.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol        ISSN: 0002-9270            Impact factor:   10.864


  20 in total

1.  Invasive or non-invasive methods for the diagnosis of subclinical coeliac disease?

Authors:  A Tursi
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2002-09       Impact factor: 23.059

Review 2.  Celiac disease: risk assessment, diagnosis, and monitoring.

Authors:  Mala Setty; Leonardo Hormaza; Stefano Guandalini
Journal:  Mol Diagn Ther       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 4.074

Review 3.  Celiac disease: prevalence, diagnosis, pathogenesis and treatment.

Authors:  Naiyana Gujral; Hugh J Freeman; Alan B R Thomson
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2012-11-14       Impact factor: 5.742

4.  Celiac disease serology in patients with different pretest probabilities: is biopsy avoidable?

Authors:  Emilia Sugai; María L Moreno; Hui J Hwang; Ana Cabanne; Adriana Crivelli; Fabio Nachman; Horacio Vázquez; Sonia Niveloni; Julio Argonz; Roberto Mazure; Graciela La Motta; María E Caniggia; Edgardo Smecuol; Néstor Chopita; Juan C Gómez; Eduardo Mauriño; Julio C Bai
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-07-07       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Autoantibodies for gastrointestinal organ-specific autoimmune diseases in rheumatoid arthritis patients and their relatives.

Authors:  Isabela Goeldner; Thelma L Skare; Iara T de Messias Reason; Renato M Nisihara; Marília B Silva; Shirley R da Rosa Utiyama
Journal:  Clin Rheumatol       Date:  2010-08-04       Impact factor: 2.980

6.  Endomysial antibody-negative coeliac disease: clinical characteristics and intestinal autoantibody deposits.

Authors:  T T Salmi; P Collin; I R Korponay-Szabó; K Laurila; J Partanen; H Huhtala; R Király; L Lorand; T Reunala; M Mäki; K Kaukinen
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2006-03-29       Impact factor: 23.059

7.  Prevalence of celiac disease in Germany: a prospective follow-up study.

Authors:  Wolfgang Kratzer; Monika Kibele; Atilla Akinli; Marc Porzner; Bernhard O Boehm; Wolfgang Koenig; Suemeyra Oeztuerk; Richard A Mason; Ren Mao; Mark H Haenle
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-05-07       Impact factor: 5.742

8.  Diagnostic accuracy of a new point-of-care screening assay for celiac disease.

Authors:  Faiza Benkebil; Christophe Combescure; Silvia I Anghel; Cécile Besson Duvanel; Michela G Schäppi
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 5.742

9.  Serum mannan-binding lectin levels in patients with celiac disease: an analysis of clinical and autoimmune features.

Authors:  Elisandra Grangeiro de Carvalho; Shirley Ramos da Rosa Utiyama; Lorete Maria da Silva Kotze; Iara Taborda de Messias Reason
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2007-03-28       Impact factor: 3.199

10.  Duodenal biopsy may be avoided when high transglutaminase antibody titers are present.

Authors:  Santiago Vivas; Jose G Ruiz de Morales; Sabino Riestra; Laura Arias; Dolores Fuentes; Noemi Alvarez; Sara Calleja; Mercedes Hernando; Blanca Herrero; Javier Casqueiro; Luis Rodrigo
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2009-10-14       Impact factor: 5.742

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.