Aller au contenu principal
Accès ouvert déclaré 2023 conference-abstract

B-062 A Self-Imposed Gray Area? Analysis of Anti-Tissue Transglutaminase and Anti-Endomysial Antibody Discordance in a Celiac Disease Screening Serology Testing Algorithm

0Citations signalées, ce qui n’est pas une note de qualité
3Institutions déclarées
1Pays d’affiliation déclarés

Rattachement africain : ca. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.

Le résumé fourni par la source

Abstract Background Celiac disease (CD) is an autoimmune enteropathy affecting around 1% of the population. While occasionally asymptomatic, the disease can present in a variety of ways and can be triggered by dietary gluten at any age. CD serology, including anti-tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG) IgA and/or IgG, anti-endomysial antibody IgA and/or IgG, and anti-deamidated gliadin peptide IgA and/or IgG, is a key tool for CD screening, diagnosis, and monitoring. Of these tests, the clinical utility of anti-EMA testing has been questioned due to its high cost and limited sensitivity: 5–10% of CD patients do not test positive for anti-EMA and a negative anti-EMA does not rule out CD. The objective of this study is to: 1) evaluate the concordance between anti-tTG and anti-EMA serology test results, and 2) assess the clinical validity of our current CD reflex testing algorithm in which every positive anti-tTG test result goes on for anti-EMA testing. Methods Using our laboratory’s information system, we conducted a retroactive study on patients who underwent CD serology testing at our institution. Query was performed for all patient data [pediatric (<18 years) and adult (>18 years)] collected between April 2020 and August 2022 for anti-tTG IgA performed on the BioPlex 2200 (BioRad Laboratories Inc., Hercules, CA) and anti-EMA IgA (Euroimmun, Germany) (N = 124 308). Vendor-supplied clinical sensitivity and specificity are as follows: anti-tTG IgA 94.3% sensitivity, 98.8% specificity; anti-EMA IgA 95.3% sensitivity and 98.0% specificity. Results From our data, we calculated a mean positive agreement between our anti-tTG IgA and anti-EMA test results of 53.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 47.5–58.8%) for all anti-tTG IgA positive cases (N = 6691, 5.4% of total anti-tTG IgA test results). The agreement between anti-tTG IgA and anti-EMA test results is improved if multiples of the upper limit of normal (ULN) for anti-tTG IgA is applied. The mean positive agreement between anti-tTG IgA and anti-EMA test results when the anti-tTG result is >10x ULN is 98.4% (95% CI 97.7–99.2%). However, if an anti-tTG IgA cutoff of <10x ULN is employed a mean positive agreement of 32.3% (95% CI 25.8–38.7%) is observed. At an anti-tTG IgA cutoff of <3x ULN, the mean positive agreement is just 11.8% (95% CI 8.2–15.4%). These findings are consistent in both pediatric (N = 29 381) and adult (N = 94 961) populations and are problematic as 45.4% of our positive anti-tTG IgA test results are accompanied by a negative anti-EMA. Conclusion The agreement between anti-tTG IgA and anti-EMA is dependent on the value of anti-tTG IgA with greater agreement observed with increasing anti-tTG IgA values. As all specimens at our institution with positive anti-tTG IgA test results are automatically reflexed for anti-EMA testing, has led to physician confusion as the majority of patients are falling into a gray area with conflicting CD serology test results. Our algorithm is also out of line with most CD screening guidelines that suggest an initial positive anti-tTG test result is followed up with biopsy. Finally, discontinuing anti-EMA reflex testing could result in cost savings of approximately $120 000 CAD per year.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.

Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert

DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.

Titre Crossref
B-062 A Self-Imposed Gray Area? Analysis of Anti-Tissue Transglutaminase and Anti-Endomysial Antibody Discordance in a Celiac Disease Screening Serology Testing Algorithm
Date Crossref
27/09/2023
Éditeur
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Type
journal-article

Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.

Où se fait cette recherche

  • University of Calgary Alberta Precision Laboratories and Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine pays non établi dans la notice
    Université ou école supérieure
  • Calgary Laboratory Services pays non établi dans la notice
    Structure de recherche
  • Alberta Precision Laboratories pays non établi dans la notice
    Établissement de santé

Alberta Precision Laboratories and Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine — University of Calgary, Calgary Laboratory Services et Alberta Precision Laboratories.

Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.

Les sujets associés

Celiac Disease Research and ManagementMicroscopic ColitisImmunodeficiency and Autoimmune Disorders

BNTIC News n’est pas le producteur de ces données. Les publications sont interrogées à la demande dans Crossref, OpenAIRE, DOAJ, Europe PMC, HAL, DataCite, AfricArXiv, ROR et la Banque mondiale, sans clé d’accès. OpenAlex reste optionnel. Aucun service payant n’est nécessaire et aucune donnée externe n’est enregistrée en base. Consulter les sources et leurs limites.