Dominica Gidrewicz1, Kathryn Potter1, Cynthia L Trevenen2, Martha Lyon3, J Decker Butzner1. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 2. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 3. Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Saskatoon Health Region, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We retrospectively examined the performance of the tissue transglutaminase (TTG), endomysial antibody (EMA) tests, and the ESPGHAN (European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition) nonbiopsy criteria in a pediatric population. METHODS: Consecutive celiac serologies and corresponding intestinal biopsy results were obtained on children <18 years old over 3.5 years. Patients were classified into three categories: positive TTG, negative TTG, and IgA deficiency. RESULTS: Of the 17,505 patients with celiac serology performed, 775 had a positive TTG, 574 with a negative TTG were biopsied, and 25 were IgA deficient. Of the patients with a TTG ≥10 × upper limit of normal (ULN), positive EMA, and symptoms, 98.2% had biopsies consistent with celiac disease (CD). Four human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DQ2/DQ8-positive patients who met the ESPGHAN nonbiopsy criteria did not have CD. In the group with a TTG 3-10 × ULN, 75.7% EMA-positive patients and only 40% EMA-negative patients had CD (P<0.001). Of those with a TTG 1-3 × ULN, 52.2% EMA-positive patients vs. only 13.3% EMA-negative patients had CD (P<0.01). Of the patients with bulbar and duodenal biopsies, 9.8% had CD confined only in the bulb, especially those with a low titer TTG (P<0.01). CD prevalence in our cohort was 34.6%. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of the TTG were 98.7%, 86.4%, and 79.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The TTG is a very sensitive screen for CD, but positive predictive value improves with a positive EMA titer. To apply the new ESPGHAN guidelines, clinicians must understand the performance of their celiac serology tests.
OBJECTIVES: We retrospectively examined the performance of the tissue transglutaminase (TTG), endomysial antibody (EMA) tests, and the ESPGHAN (European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition) nonbiopsy criteria in a pediatric population. METHODS: Consecutive celiac serologies and corresponding intestinal biopsy results were obtained on children <18 years old over 3.5 years. Patients were classified into three categories: positive TTG, negative TTG, and IgA deficiency. RESULTS: Of the 17,505 patients with celiac serology performed, 775 had a positive TTG, 574 with a negative TTG were biopsied, and 25 were IgA deficient. Of the patients with a TTG ≥10 × upper limit of normal (ULN), positive EMA, and symptoms, 98.2% had biopsies consistent with celiac disease (CD). Four human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DQ2/DQ8-positive patients who met the ESPGHAN nonbiopsy criteria did not have CD. In the group with a TTG 3-10 × ULN, 75.7% EMA-positive patients and only 40% EMA-negative patients had CD (P<0.001). Of those with a TTG 1-3 × ULN, 52.2% EMA-positive patients vs. only 13.3% EMA-negative patients had CD (P<0.01). Of the patients with bulbar and duodenal biopsies, 9.8% had CD confined only in the bulb, especially those with a low titer TTG (P<0.01). CD prevalence in our cohort was 34.6%. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of the TTG were 98.7%, 86.4%, and 79.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The TTG is a very sensitive screen for CD, but positive predictive value improves with a positive EMA titer. To apply the new ESPGHAN guidelines, clinicians must understand the performance of their celiac serology tests.
Authors: Mira Barak; Orit Rozenberg; Paul Froom; Maya Grinberg; Dina Reginashvili; Clara Henig; Avi Pacht; Aaron Lerner Journal: Clin Chem Lab Med Date: 2013-07-10 Impact factor: 3.694
Authors: Kate E Evans; Imran Aziz; Simon S Cross; Gursharan R K Sahota; Andrew D Hopper; Marios Hadjivassiliou; David S Sanders Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2011-05-24 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: F Ferrara; S Quaglia; I Caputo; C Esposito; M Lepretti; S Pastore; R Giorgi; S Martelossi; G Dal Molin; N Di Toro; A Ventura; T Not Journal: Clin Exp Immunol Date: 2009-11-12 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Luke Forde; Niamh McGrath; Deirdre Devaney; Sami Awadalla; Ciara M McDonnell; Nuala P Murphy Journal: Ir J Med Sci Date: 2018-05-31 Impact factor: 1.568
Authors: Yoram Elitsur; Terry Sigman; Runa Watkins; Anthony F Porto; Elaine L Leonard Puppa; Elsie J Foglio; Deborah L Preston Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.199
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: Isabel A Hujoel; Claire L Jansson-Knodell; Philippe P Hujoel; Margaux L A Hujoel; Rok Seon Choung; Joseph A Murray; Alberto Rubio-Tapia Journal: J Clin Gastroenterol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 3.174
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