Peter D Mooney1, Simon H Wong2, Alexander J Johnston2, Matthew Kurien3, Anastasios Avgerinos4, David S Sanders3. 1. Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom; University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. Electronic address: p_d_mooney@hotmail.com. 2. University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. 3. Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom; University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom. 4. Royal Hallamshire Hospital, Sheffield, United Kingdom.
Abstract
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Celiac disease is underdiagnosed. Many patients are examined by endoscopy, but celiac disease is missed or not detected. We evaluated the accuracy of finger prick-based point-of-care tests in the detection of celiac disease and developed an algorithm for diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 2 groups of patients with celiac disease evaluated at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield (United Kingdom) from March 2013 through February 2014. In group 1, patients at high risk of celiac disease who tested positive for endomysial antibody (n = 55) were evaluated using the Biocard test (BHR Pharmaceuticals, Nuneaton, UK) and the Celiac Quick Test (Biohit Healthcare UK, Ellesmere Port, UK), which measure antibodies to tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG), and the Simtomax test (Tillotts Pharma, Rheinfelden, Switzerland), which measures deamidated gliadin peptide antibodies (DGP). Patients in group 2 (508 consecutive patients who underwent an endoscopy examination for any indication) received the DGP test, and also were evaluated using a diagnostic algorithm that incorporated results from the DGP test and data on symptoms. In both groups, point-of-care tests were taken at the time of endoscopy and results were compared with results from histologic analyses of duodenal biopsy specimens from all patients. RESULTS: In group 1, the DGP test identified patients with celiac disease with 94.4% sensitivity, the Celiac Quick Test identified patients with 77.8% sensitivity (P = .03 vs the DGP test), and the Biocard test identified patients with 72.2% sensitivity (P = .008 vs the DGP test). In group 2, the DGP test identified patients with celiac disease with 92.7% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 83.0-97.3), 85.2% specificity (95% confidence interval, 81.5-88.3), a positive predictive value of 49.2% (95% confidence interval, 40.3-58.2), and a negative predictive value of 98.7% (95% confidence interval, 96.8-99.5). Measurement of serum anti-tTG identified patients with celiac disease with 91.2% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 81.1-96.4), 87.5% specificity (95% confidence interval, 84.0-90.4), a positive predictive value of 53.0% (95% confidence interval, 43.6-62.2), and a negative predictive value of 98.5% (95% confidence interval, 96.5-99.4). The algorithm identified patients with celiac disease with 98.5% sensitivity; its use could reduce duodenal biopsies by 35%. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, a test for DGP identified patients with celiac disease with similar levels of sensitivity and specificity as standard serologic analysis of anti-tTG. Use of the DGP test before endoscopy could increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of celiac disease. Further studies, in lower-prevalence populations, are required to assess the impact of the test in clinical practice.
BACKGROUND & AIMS:Celiac disease is underdiagnosed. Many patients are examined by endoscopy, but celiac disease is missed or not detected. We evaluated the accuracy of finger prick-based point-of-care tests in the detection of celiac disease and developed an algorithm for diagnosis. METHODS: We performed a prospective study of 2 groups of patients with celiac disease evaluated at the Royal Hallamshire Hospital in Sheffield (United Kingdom) from March 2013 through February 2014. In group 1, patients at high risk of celiac disease who tested positive for endomysial antibody (n = 55) were evaluated using the Biocard test (BHR Pharmaceuticals, Nuneaton, UK) and the Celiac Quick Test (Biohit Healthcare UK, Ellesmere Port, UK), which measure antibodies to tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG), and the Simtomax test (Tillotts Pharma, Rheinfelden, Switzerland), which measures deamidated gliadin peptide antibodies (DGP). Patients in group 2 (508 consecutive patients who underwent an endoscopy examination for any indication) received the DGP test, and also were evaluated using a diagnostic algorithm that incorporated results from the DGP test and data on symptoms. In both groups, point-of-care tests were taken at the time of endoscopy and results were compared with results from histologic analyses of duodenal biopsy specimens from all patients. RESULTS: In group 1, the DGP test identified patients with celiac disease with 94.4% sensitivity, the Celiac Quick Test identified patients with 77.8% sensitivity (P = .03 vs the DGP test), and the Biocard test identified patients with 72.2% sensitivity (P = .008 vs the DGP test). In group 2, the DGP test identified patients with celiac disease with 92.7% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 83.0-97.3), 85.2% specificity (95% confidence interval, 81.5-88.3), a positive predictive value of 49.2% (95% confidence interval, 40.3-58.2), and a negative predictive value of 98.7% (95% confidence interval, 96.8-99.5). Measurement of serum anti-tTG identified patients with celiac disease with 91.2% sensitivity (95% confidence interval, 81.1-96.4), 87.5% specificity (95% confidence interval, 84.0-90.4), a positive predictive value of 53.0% (95% confidence interval, 43.6-62.2), and a negative predictive value of 98.5% (95% confidence interval, 96.5-99.4). The algorithm identified patients with celiac disease with 98.5% sensitivity; its use could reduce duodenal biopsies by 35%. CONCLUSIONS: In a prospective study, a test for DGP identified patients with celiac disease with similar levels of sensitivity and specificity as standard serologic analysis of anti-tTG. Use of the DGP test before endoscopy could increase the accuracy of the diagnosis of celiac disease. Further studies, in lower-prevalence populations, are required to assess the impact of the test in clinical practice.
Authors: Annalisa Schiepatti; Anupam Rej; Stiliano Maimaris; Simon S Cross; Petra Porta; Imran Aziz; Tim Key; John Goodwin; Amelie Therrien; Shakira Yoosuf; Daniel A Leffler; Jocelyn A Silvester; Catherine Klersy; Federico Biagi; David S Sanders Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2021-09-08 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Michelle S Lau; Peter D Mooney; William L White; Michael A Rees; Simon H Wong; Matthew Kurien; Nick Trott; Daniel A Leffler; Marios Hadjivassiliou; David S Sanders Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Norelle R Reilly; Steffen Husby; David S Sanders; Peter H R Green Journal: Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2017-10-11 Impact factor: 46.802
Authors: Jonas F Ludvigsson; Lars Agreus; Carolina Ciacci; Sheila E Crowe; Marilyn G Geller; Peter H R Green; Ivor Hill; A Pali Hungin; Sibylle Koletzko; Tunde Koltai; Knut E A Lundin; M Luisa Mearin; Joseph A Murray; Norelle Reilly; Marjorie M Walker; David S Sanders; Raanan Shamir; Riccardo Troncone; Steffen Husby Journal: Gut Date: 2016-04-18 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Kamran Rostami; Michael N Marsh; Matt W Johnson; Hamid Mohaghegh; Calvin Heal; Geoffrey Holmes; Arzu Ensari; David Aldulaimi; Brigitte Bancel; Gabrio Bassotti; Adrian Bateman; Gabriel Becheanu; Anna Bozzola; Antonio Carroccio; Carlo Catassi; Carolina Ciacci; Alexandra Ciobanu; Mihai Danciu; Mohammad H Derakhshan; Luca Elli; Stefano Ferrero; Michelangelo Fiorentino; Marilena Fiorino; Azita Ganji; Kamran Ghaffarzadehgan; James J Going; Sauid Ishaq; Alessandra Mandolesi; Sherly Mathews; Roxana Maxim; Chris J Mulder; Andra Neefjes-Borst; Marie Robert; Ilaria Russo; Mohammad Rostami-Nejad; Angelo Sidoni; Masoud Sotoudeh; Vincenzo Villanacci; Umberto Volta; Mohammad R Zali; Amitabh Srivastava Journal: Gut Date: 2017-09-11 Impact factor: 23.059