Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Infantino, Maria
• Merone, Mario
• Manfredi, Mariangela
• Grossi, Valentina
• Landini, Alessandra
• Alessio, Maria Grazia
• Previtali, Giulia
• Trevisan, Maria Teresa
• Porcelli, Brunetta
• Fabris, Martina
• Macchia, Donatella
• Villalta, Danilo
• Cinquanta, Luigi
• D'Antoni, Federico
• Iannello, Giulio
• Soda, Paolo
• Bizzaro, Nicola

Titel

Positive tissue transglutaminase antibodies with negative endomysial antibodies: Unresolved issues in diagnosing celiac disease

Ist Teil von

• Journal of immunological methods, 2021-02, Vol.489, p.112910-112910, Article 112910

Ort / Verlag

Netherlands: Elsevier B.V

Erscheinungsjahr

2021

Quelle

Alma/SFX Local Collection

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• The serological screening for celiac disease (CD) is currently based on the detection of anti-transglutaminase (tTG) IgA antibodies, subsequently confirmed by positive endomysial antibodies (EMA). When an anti-tTG IgA positive/EMA IgA negative result occurs, it can be due either to the lower sensitivity of the EMA test or to the lower specificity of the anti-tTG test. This study aimed at verifying how variation in analytical specificity among different anti-tTG methods could account for this discrepancy. A total of 130 consecutive anti-tTG IgA positive/EMA negative samples were collected from the local screening routine and tested using five anti-tTG IgA commercial assays: two chemiluminescence methods, one fluoroimmunoenzymatic method, one immunoenzymatic method and one multiplex flow immunoassay method. Twenty three/130 (17.7%) patients were diagnosed with CD. In the other 107 cases a diagnosis of CD was not confirmed. The overall agreement among the five anti-tTG methods ranged from 28.5% to 77.7%. CD condition was more likely linked to the positivity of more than one anti-tTG IgA assay (monopositive = 2.5%, positive with ≥ three methods = 29.5%; p = 0.0004), but it was not related to anti-tTG IgA antibody levels (either positive or borderline; p = 0.5). Patients with positive anti-tTG/negative EMA have a low probability of being affected by CD. Given the high variability among methods to measure anti-tTG IgA antibodies, anti-tTG-positive/EMA-negative result must be considered with extreme caution. It is advisable that the laboratory report comments on any discordant results, suggesting to consider the data in the proper clinical context and to refer the patient to a CD reference center for prolonged follow up.