These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of anti-transglutaminase ELISAs and an anti-endomysial antibody assay in the diagnosis of celiac disease: a prospective study.
    Author: Carroccio A, Vitale G, Di Prima L, Chifari N, Napoli S, La Russa C, Gulotta G, Averna MR, Montalto G, Mansueto S, Notarbartolo A.
    Journal: Clin Chem; 2002 Sep; 48(9):1546-50. PubMed ID: 12194932.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Most studies of anti-transglutaminase (anti-tTG) assays have considered preselected groups of patients. This study compared the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of an immunofluorescence method for anti-endomysial antibodies (EmAs) and two anti-tTG ELISAs, one using guinea pig tTG (gp-tTG) and the other human tTG (h-tTG) as antigen, in consecutive patients investigated for suspected celiac disease (CD). METHODS: We studied 207 consecutive patients (99 men, 108 women; age range, 17-84 years) who underwent intestinal biopsy for suspected CD. Patients presented with one or more of the following: weight loss, anemia, chronic diarrhea, abdominal pain, dyspepsia, alternating bowel habits, constipation, pain in the joints, and dermatitis. At entry to the study, an intestinal biopsy was performed and a serum sample was taken for IgA EmAs, anti-gp-tTG, and anti-h-tTG. RESULTS: Intestinal histology showed that 24 patients had partial or total villous atrophy; in these patients the diagnosis of CD was confirmed by follow-up. The remaining 183 patients had villous/crypt ratios that were within our laboratory's reference values and were considered controls. Serum EmAs, anti-gp-tTG, and anti-h-tTG were positive in all 24 CD patients; in the control group, none were positive for serum EmAs, but 15 of 183 (8.2%) were positive for anti-gp-tTG, and 6 of 183 (3.3%) were positive for anti-h-tTG. Sensitivity was 100% for all assays, whereas specificity was 100% for the EmA, 92% for the anti-gp-tTG, and 97% for the anti-h-tTG assay. The negative predictive value was 100% for all assays; the positive predictive value was 100% for the EmA, 80% [95% confidence interval (CI), 65-95%] for the anti-h-tTG (P = 0.03 vs EmA) and 60% (95% CI, 44-76%) for the anti-gp-tTG assay (P = 0.0002 vs EmA). Areas (95% CIs) under the ROC curves were 0.987 (0.97-1.0) for anti-h-tTG and 0.965 (0.94-0.99) for anti-gp-tTG. Most of the patients testing false positive for anti-tTG had Crohn disease or chronic liver disease. CONCLUSIONS: Although both anti-tTG ELISAs showed optimum sensitivity, their lack of specificity yielded positive predictive values significantly lower than those for the EmA assay.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]