4.7 Article

Evaluation of the ESPGHAN Celiac Guidelines in a North American Pediatric Population

Journal

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
Volume 110, Issue 5, Pages 760-767

Publisher

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2015.87

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Canadian Celiac Association-Calgary Chapter

Ask authors/readers for more resources

OBJECTIVES: We retrospectively examined the performance of the tissue transglutaminase (TTG), endomysial antibody (EMA) tests, and the ESPGHAN (European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition) nonbiopsy criteria in a pediatric population. METHODS: Consecutive celiac serologies and corresponding intestinal biopsy results were obtained on children < 18 years old over 3.5 years. Patients were classified into three categories: positive TTG, negative TTG, and IgA deficiency. RESULTS: Of the 17,505 patients with celiac serology performed, 775 had a positive TTG, 574 with a negative TTG were biopsied, and 25 were IgA deficient. Of the patients with a TTG >= 10x upper limit of normal (ULN), positive EMA, and symptoms, 98.2% had biopsies consistent with celiac disease (CD). Four human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DQ2/DQ8-positive patients who met the ESPGHAN nonbiopsy criteria did not have CD. In the group with a TTG 3-10x ULN, 75.7% EMA-positive patients and only 40% EMA-negative patients had CD (P<0.001). Of those with a TTG 1-3x ULN, 52.2% EMA-positive patients vs. only 13.3% EMA-negative patients had CD (P<0.01). Of the patients with bulbar and duodenal biopsies, 9.8% had CD confined only in the bulb, especially those with a low titer TTG (P<0.01). CD prevalence in our cohort was 34.6%. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value of the TTG were 98.7%, 86.4%, and 79.4%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The TTG is a very sensitive screen for CD, but positive predictive value improves with a positive EMA titer. To apply the new ESPGHAN guidelines, clinicians must understand the performance of their celiac serology tests.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available