Rashtak Shadi, Ettore Michael W, Homburger Henry A, Murray Joseph A
Department of Medicine, Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota 55905, USA.
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Apr;6(4):426-32; quiz 370. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.12.030. Epub 2008 Mar 4.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Serologic tests are used frequently in celiac disease diagnosis. Gliadin antibodies generally lack the accuracy required for proper diagnosis. We evaluated the value of deamidated gliadin antibody measurements in the diagnosis and follow-up evaluation of celiac disease and compared their potential usefulness with that of gliadin and tissue-transglutaminase antibodies.
We tested deamidated gliadin, gliadin, and tissue-transglutaminase-immunoglobulin (Ig)A and -IgG in 216 biopsy-selected subjects including 92 biopsy-proven untreated celiac patients (46% with total villous atrophy and 54% with partial villous atrophy) and 124 biopsy-proven nonceliac controls. Fifty-nine celiac patients also were tested after treatment with a gluten-free diet. Antibodies were measured by commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays. Deamidated gliadin-IgA+G was detected using a conjugate reactive to both isotypes, which gives a positive if either isotype is present.
The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of deamidated gliadin-IgA (74%, 95%, and 86%), deamidated gliadin-IgG (65%, 98%, and 84%), and deamidated gliadin-IgA+G (75%, 94%, and 86%) were superior to gliadin-IgA (63%, 90%, and 79%) (P < .05) and gliadin-IgG (42%, 90%, and 69%) (P < .01), and were similar to tissue-transglutaminase-IgA (78%, 98%, and 90%) before treatment. The sensitivity of IgA isotype for all tests was significantly greater in celiac patients with total villous atrophy compared with those with partial villous atrophy (P < .05). The proportion of positive test results for all tests decreased significantly after treatment (P < .0001).
Deamidated gliadin antibody is a better diagnostic test for celiac disease than the conventional gliadin antibody testing; although histopathology remains the gold standard test for diagnosis of celiac patients.
血清学检测常用于乳糜泻的诊断。麦醇溶蛋白抗体通常缺乏准确诊断所需的精度。我们评估了去酰胺化麦醇溶蛋白抗体检测在乳糜泻诊断及随访评估中的价值,并将其潜在效用与麦醇溶蛋白抗体和组织转谷氨酰胺酶抗体进行比较。
我们对216例经活检选择的受试者检测了去酰胺化麦醇溶蛋白、麦醇溶蛋白以及组织转谷氨酰胺酶免疫球蛋白(Ig)A和IgG,其中包括92例经活检证实的未经治疗的乳糜泻患者(46%为全绒毛萎缩,54%为部分绒毛萎缩)以及124例经活检证实的非乳糜泻对照。59例乳糜泻患者在采用无麸质饮食治疗后也接受了检测。抗体通过商用酶联免疫吸附测定法进行检测。使用对两种同种型均有反应的结合物检测去酰胺化麦醇溶蛋白-IgA+G,若存在任何一种同种型则结果为阳性。
去酰胺化麦醇溶蛋白-IgA(74%、95%和86%)、去酰胺化麦醇溶蛋白-IgG(65%、98%和84%)以及去酰胺化麦醇溶蛋白-IgA+G(75%、94%和86%)的敏感性、特异性和准确性均优于麦醇溶蛋白-IgA(63%、90%和79%)(P <.05)和麦醇溶蛋白-IgG(42%、90%和69%)(P <.01),且与治疗前的组织转谷氨酰胺酶-IgA(78%、98%和90%)相似。与部分绒毛萎缩的乳糜泻患者相比,全绒毛萎缩的乳糜泻患者所有检测中IgA同种型的敏感性显著更高(P <.05)。所有检测的阳性结果比例在治疗后均显著下降(P <.0001)。
对于乳糜泻,去酰胺化麦醇溶蛋白抗体检测比传统的麦醇溶蛋白抗体检测是更好的诊断方法;尽管组织病理学仍是诊断乳糜泻患者的金标准检测方法。