Screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use?

OBJECTIVE: To determine which serological marker(s) to use when screening for coeliac disease. DESIGN: In a population-based cross-sectional study we compared the use of antigliadin antibodies (AGA) of isotypes IgA and IgG, antiendomysial antibodies (AEA) of isotype IgA and antitransglutaminase anti...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of Internal Medicine
Main Authors: Lagerqvist, C, Ivarsson, A, Juto, P, Persson, LA, Hernell, O
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:unknown
Published: Wiley 2001
Subjects:
Online Access:https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3591128/
id ftlshtm:oai:researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk:3591128
record_format openpolar
spelling ftlshtm:oai:researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk:3591128 2023-05-15T17:44:49+02:00 Screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use? Lagerqvist, C Ivarsson, A Juto, P Persson, LA Hernell, O 2001 https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3591128/ unknown Wiley Lagerqvist, C; Ivarsson, A; Juto, P; Persson, LA <https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/view/creators/idcvlper.html>; Hernell, O; (2001) Screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use? Journal of internal medicine, 250 (3). pp. 241-248. ISSN 0954-6820 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2001.00891.x <https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2001.00891.x> Article PeerReviewed 2001 ftlshtm 2022-03-03T07:13:46Z OBJECTIVE: To determine which serological marker(s) to use when screening for coeliac disease. DESIGN: In a population-based cross-sectional study we compared the use of antigliadin antibodies (AGA) of isotypes IgA and IgG, antiendomysial antibodies (AEA) of isotype IgA and antitransglutaminase antibodies (ATGA) of isotype IgA for detecting coeliac disease amongst adults. SETTING: Northern Sweden. SUBJECTS: A total of 1850 of 2500 (74%) invited adults (aged 25-74 years) who were randomly selected from the population register after stratification for age and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the AGA, ATGA and AEA tests. RESULTS: Nine cases of biopsy proven, previously undiagnosed coeliac disease were detected by screening. The sensitivity of both ATGA and AEA was 100% whilst AGA IgA and IgG both had a sensitivity of 89%. The AEA test had a specificity of 100% whereas the specificities of the ATGA, AGA IgA and IgG tests were 97, 96 and 78%, respectively. The positive predictive value for the AEA test was 100%, whereas it was considerably lower for the other tests (ATGA > AGA IgA > AGA IgG), with further decreases for all tests when shifting from a clinical to a screening situation. CONCLUSIONS: When screening for coeliac disease we suggest a serial testing approach, i.e. an initial ATGA test and, when positive, followed by an AEA test, provided that IgA deficiency has been excluded. However, assessment of the small intestinal mucosal morphology is still required to ascertain the diagnosis. Article in Journal/Newspaper Northern Sweden London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine: LSHTM Research Online Journal of Internal Medicine 250 3 241 248
institution Open Polar
collection London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine: LSHTM Research Online
op_collection_id ftlshtm
language unknown
description OBJECTIVE: To determine which serological marker(s) to use when screening for coeliac disease. DESIGN: In a population-based cross-sectional study we compared the use of antigliadin antibodies (AGA) of isotypes IgA and IgG, antiendomysial antibodies (AEA) of isotype IgA and antitransglutaminase antibodies (ATGA) of isotype IgA for detecting coeliac disease amongst adults. SETTING: Northern Sweden. SUBJECTS: A total of 1850 of 2500 (74%) invited adults (aged 25-74 years) who were randomly selected from the population register after stratification for age and sex. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The sensitivity, specificity and predictive values of the AGA, ATGA and AEA tests. RESULTS: Nine cases of biopsy proven, previously undiagnosed coeliac disease were detected by screening. The sensitivity of both ATGA and AEA was 100% whilst AGA IgA and IgG both had a sensitivity of 89%. The AEA test had a specificity of 100% whereas the specificities of the ATGA, AGA IgA and IgG tests were 97, 96 and 78%, respectively. The positive predictive value for the AEA test was 100%, whereas it was considerably lower for the other tests (ATGA > AGA IgA > AGA IgG), with further decreases for all tests when shifting from a clinical to a screening situation. CONCLUSIONS: When screening for coeliac disease we suggest a serial testing approach, i.e. an initial ATGA test and, when positive, followed by an AEA test, provided that IgA deficiency has been excluded. However, assessment of the small intestinal mucosal morphology is still required to ascertain the diagnosis.
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
author Lagerqvist, C
Ivarsson, A
Juto, P
Persson, LA
Hernell, O
spellingShingle Lagerqvist, C
Ivarsson, A
Juto, P
Persson, LA
Hernell, O
Screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use?
author_facet Lagerqvist, C
Ivarsson, A
Juto, P
Persson, LA
Hernell, O
author_sort Lagerqvist, C
title Screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use?
title_short Screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use?
title_full Screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use?
title_fullStr Screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use?
title_full_unstemmed Screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use?
title_sort screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use?
publisher Wiley
publishDate 2001
url https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/id/eprint/3591128/
genre Northern Sweden
genre_facet Northern Sweden
op_relation Lagerqvist, C; Ivarsson, A; Juto, P; Persson, LA <https://researchonline.lshtm.ac.uk/view/creators/idcvlper.html>; Hernell, O; (2001) Screening for adult coeliac disease - which serological marker(s) to use? Journal of internal medicine, 250 (3). pp. 241-248. ISSN 0954-6820 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2001.00891.x <https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2796.2001.00891.x>
container_title Journal of Internal Medicine
container_volume 250
container_issue 3
container_start_page 241
op_container_end_page 248
_version_ 1766147110501089280