Suppr超能文献

组织转谷氨酰胺酶抗体阳性而内肌层抗体阴性:诊断乳糜泻中的未解决问题。

Positive tissue transglutaminase antibodies with negative endomysial antibodies: Unresolved issues in diagnosing celiac disease.

机构信息

Laboratorio Immunologia e Allergologia, Ospedale S. Giovanni di Dio, Azienda USL. Centro Firenze, Toscana, Italy.

Unità di Sistemi di elaborazione e Bioinformatica, Facoltà Dipartimentale di Ingegneria, Università Campus Bio-Medico, Roma, Italy.

出版信息

J Immunol Methods. 2021 Feb;489:112910. doi: 10.1016/j.jim.2020.112910. Epub 2020 Nov 7.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The serological screening for celiac disease (CD) is currently based on the detection of anti-transglutaminase (tTG) IgA antibodies, subsequently confirmed by positive endomysial antibodies (EMA). When an anti-tTG IgA positive/EMA IgA negative result occurs, it can be due either to the lower sensitivity of the EMA test or to the lower specificity of the anti-tTG test. This study aimed at verifying how variation in analytical specificity among different anti-tTG methods could account for this discrepancy.

METHODS

A total of 130 consecutive anti-tTG IgA positive/EMA negative samples were collected from the local screening routine and tested using five anti-tTG IgA commercial assays: two chemiluminescence methods, one fluoroimmunoenzymatic method, one immunoenzymatic method and one multiplex flow immunoassay method.

RESULTS

Twenty three/130 (17.7%) patients were diagnosed with CD. In the other 107 cases a diagnosis of CD was not confirmed. The overall agreement among the five anti-tTG methods ranged from 28.5% to 77.7%. CD condition was more likely linked to the positivity of more than one anti-tTG IgA assay (monopositive = 2.5%, positive with ≥ three methods = 29.5%; p = 0.0004), but it was not related to anti-tTG IgA antibody levels (either positive or borderline; p = 0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with positive anti-tTG/negative EMA have a low probability of being affected by CD. Given the high variability among methods to measure anti-tTG IgA antibodies, anti-tTG-positive/EMA-negative result must be considered with extreme caution. It is advisable that the laboratory report comments on any discordant results, suggesting to consider the data in the proper clinical context and to refer the patient to a CD reference center for prolonged follow up.

摘要

背景

目前,对乳糜泻(CD)的血清学筛查基于抗转谷氨酰胺酶(tTG)IgA 抗体的检测,随后通过阳性内肌层抗体(EMA)加以确认。当出现抗 tTG IgA 阳性/EMA IgA 阴性结果时,可能是由于 EMA 检测的敏感性较低,或是抗 tTG 检测的特异性较低。本研究旨在验证不同抗 tTG 方法之间分析特异性的变化如何导致这种差异。

方法

从当地筛查常规中收集了 130 例连续的抗 tTG IgA 阳性/EMA 阴性样本,并使用五种抗 tTG IgA 商业检测方法进行了检测:两种化学发光方法、一种荧光酶免疫测定法、一种免疫酶测定法和一种多重流式免疫测定法。

结果

23/130(17.7%)患者被诊断为 CD。在其余 107 例中,未确诊为 CD。五种抗 tTG 方法的总一致性在 28.5%至 77.7%之间。CD 状态更可能与不止一种抗 tTG IgA 检测方法的阳性结果相关(单一阳性为 2.5%,阳性与≥三种方法为 29.5%;p=0.0004),但与抗 tTG IgA 抗体水平无关(阳性或边界值;p=0.5)。

结论

抗 tTG/EMA 阴性的阳性患者患有 CD 的可能性较低。鉴于用于测量抗 tTG IgA 抗体的方法之间存在高度变异性,必须极其谨慎地考虑抗 tTG 阳性/EMA 阴性的结果。建议实验室报告对任何不一致的结果进行评论,建议在适当的临床背景下考虑这些数据,并将患者转介至 CD 参考中心进行长期随访。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验