Silvester Jocelyn A, Kurada Satya, Szwajcer Andrea, Kelly Ciarán P, Leffler Daniel A, Duerksen Donald R
Max Rady College of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg; Celiac Research Program, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Celiac Research Program, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts; Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts.
Gastroenterology. 2017 Sep;153(3):689-701.e1. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2017.05.015. Epub 2017 May 22.
BACKGROUND & AIMS: Tests to measure serum endomysial antibodies (EMA) and antibodies to tissue transglutaminase (tTG) were developed to screen for celiac disease in patients consuming gluten. However, they are commonly used to monitor patients on a gluten-free diet (GFD). We conducted a meta-analysis to assess the sensitivity and specificity of tTG IgA and EMA IgA assays in identifying patients with celiac disease who have persistent villous atrophy despite a GFD.
We searched PUBMED, EMBASE, BIOSIS, SCOPUS, clinicaltrials.gov, Science Citation Index, and Cochrane Library databases through November 2016. Inclusion criteria were studies of subjects with biopsy-confirmed celiac disease, follow-up biopsies, and measurement of serum antibodies on a GFD, biopsy performed on subjects regardless of symptoms, or antibody test results. Our analysis excluded subjects with refractory celiac disease, undergoing gluten challenge, or consuming a prescribed oats-containing GFD. Tests were considered to have positive or negative findings based on manufacturer cut-off values. Villous atrophy was defined as a Marsh 3 lesion or villous height:crypt depth ratio below 3.0. We constructed forest plots to determine the sensitivity and specificity of detection for individual studies. For the meta-analysis, a bivariate random effects model was used to jointly model sensitivity and specificity.
Our search identified 5408 unique citations. Following review of abstracts, 442 articles were reviewed in detail. Only 26 studies (6 of tTG assays, 15 of EMA assays, and 5 of tTG and EMA assays) met our inclusion criteria. The most common reason studies were excluded from our analysis was inability to cross-tabulate histologic and serologic findings. The serum assays identified patients with persistent villous atrophy with high levels of specificity: 0.83 for the tTG IgA assay (95% CI, 0.79-0.87) and 0.91 for the EMA IgA assay (95% CI, 0.87-0.94). However, they detected villous atrophy with low levels of sensitivity: 0.50 for the tTG IgA assay (95% CI, 0.41-0.60) and 0.45 for the EMA IgA assay (95% CI, 0.34-0.57). The tests had similar levels of performance in pediatric and adult patients.
In a meta-analysis of patients with biopsy-confirmed celiac disease undergoing follow-up biopsy on a GFD, we found that tests for serum tTG IgA and EMA IgA levels had low sensitivity (below 50%) in detection of persistent villous atrophy. We need more-accurate non-invasive markers of mucosal damage in children and adults with celiac disease who are following a GFD.
用于检测血清肌内膜抗体(EMA)和抗组织转谷氨酰胺酶抗体(tTG)的检测方法被开发出来用于筛查食用麸质的乳糜泻患者。然而,它们通常被用于监测采用无麸质饮食(GFD)的患者。我们进行了一项荟萃分析,以评估tTG IgA和EMA IgA检测在识别尽管采用了GFD但仍存在持续性绒毛萎缩的乳糜泻患者中的敏感性和特异性。
我们检索了截至2016年11月的PUBMED、EMBASE、BIOSIS、SCOPUS、clinicaltrials.gov、科学引文索引和考克兰图书馆数据库。纳入标准为对经活检确诊的乳糜泻患者、随访活检以及在GFD状态下血清抗体测量的研究,无论症状如何对受试者进行的活检,或抗体检测结果。我们的分析排除了难治性乳糜泻患者、正在接受麸质激发试验的患者或食用规定含燕麦GFD的患者。根据制造商的临界值,检测结果被视为阳性或阴性。绒毛萎缩被定义为马什3级病变或绒毛高度与隐窝深度之比低于3.0。我们构建森林图以确定各研究的检测敏感性和特异性。对于荟萃分析,使用双变量随机效应模型来联合模拟敏感性和特异性。
我们的检索识别出5408条独特的引文。在对摘要进行审查后,对442篇文章进行了详细审查。只有26项研究(6项tTG检测、15项EMA检测以及5项tTG和EMA检测)符合我们的纳入标准。研究被排除在我们分析之外的最常见原因是无法交叉列表组织学和血清学结果。血清检测在识别持续性绒毛萎缩患者方面具有较高的特异性:tTG IgA检测为0.83(95%CI,0.79 - 0.87),EMA IgA检测为0.91(95%CI,0.87 - 0.94)。然而,它们检测绒毛萎缩的敏感性较低:tTG IgA检测为0.50(95%CI,0.41 - 0.60),EMA IgA检测为0.45(95%CI,0.34 - 0.57)。这些检测在儿科和成年患者中的表现水平相似。
在一项对经活检确诊的乳糜泻患者在GFD状态下进行随访活检的荟萃分析中,我们发现检测血清tTG IgA和EMA IgA水平在检测持续性绒毛萎缩方面敏感性较低(低于50%)。我们需要更准确的非侵入性标志物来检测采用GFD的乳糜泻儿童和成人的黏膜损伤。