Gluten intolerance - blood test? Any test?

[Tom Brehon]

Can anyone tell me if there is a blood test of some sort for
gluten intolerance? Or a definitive test of any sort?

Tom.

[Don Wiss]

On Thu, 16 May 2002, Tom Brehony
<Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:

>Can anyone tell me if there is a blood test of some sort for
>gluten intolerance?

There are five different serum tests for gluten intolerance.
Plus a saliva test and a fecal test. These last two are not
recognized for celiac disease. Of the serum tests some are
unreliable, and one, Tissue Transglutaminase (tTG), a new one,
is considered to be fairly reliable.

This page includes a lot of info on serum testing. tTG is near
the bottom. http://www.enabling.org/ia/celiac/diag-tst.html

These three are the older tests, and are still in use:

SENSITIVITY- the proportion of subjects with the disease who
have a positive test. It indicates how good a test is at
identifying the diseased. IgA AGA: average: 78% range: 46-100%
IgG AGA: average: 79% range: 57-94% IgA EMA: average: 97%
range: 89-100%

The last one, IgA EMA, is expensive, and rarely done. tTG is
new, and I do not know how many labs are doing it. Most people
have the first two above, and if you get a bad lab there is
about a 50% probability of a false negative. Also if one is
IgG deficient, the second one will always be negative.

>Or a definitive test of any sort?

For celiac disease an intestinal biopsy is considered
definitive. Except that it can also produce false negatives.
The damage can be spotty, and if only a few samples taken it
can be missed, then the pathologist can slice the tissue
sample wrong, and most pathologists don't know how to read the
sample, and won't make a positive diagnosis unless they see
complete flatness, which it need not be.

Then all of the above is assuming one is consuming gluten. No
gluten consumption and one can't be tested, though the saliva
test people claim they still can.

Don <www.gluten-free.org>.

[Jim]

Don Wiss wrote:

> On Thu, 16 May 2002, Tom Brehony
> <Use-Author-Address-Header@[127.1]> wrote:
>
> >Can anyone tell me if there is a blood test of some sort
> >for gluten intolerance?
>
> There are five different serum tests for gluten intolerance.
> Plus a saliva test and a fecal test. These last two are not
> recognized for celiac disease. Of the serum tests some are
> unreliable, and one, Tissue Transglutaminase (tTG), a new
> one, is considered to be fairly reliable.

If it involves tissue read your sampling error statement
below.

>
>
> This page includes a lot of info on serum testing. tTG is
> near the bottom.
> http://www.enabling.org/ia/celiac/diag-tst.html
>
> These three are the older tests, and are still in use:
>
> SENSITIVITY- the proportion of subjects with the disease who
> have a positive test. It indicates how good a test is at
> identifying the diseased. IgA AGA: average: 78% range:
> 46-100% IgG AGA: average: 79% range: 57-94% IgA EMA:
> average: 97% range: 89-100%
>
> The last one, IgA EMA, is expensive, and rarely done. tTG is
> new, and I do not know how many labs are doing it. Most
> people have the first two above, and if you get a bad lab
> there is about a 50% probability of a false negative. Also
> if one is IgG deficient, the second one will always be
> negative.

IgG deficient? I don't think so. IgA deficiency is a genetic
condition.

>
>
> >Or a definitive test of any sort?
>
> For celiac disease an intestinal biopsy is considered
> definitive. Except that it can also produce false negatives.
> The damage can be spotty, and if only a few samples taken it
> can be missed, then the pathologist can slice the tissue
> sample wrong, and most pathologists don't know how to read
> the sample,

??? meaning most biopsy are wrong. Meaning biopsy is not
considered definitive.

> and won't make a positive diagnosis unless they see complete
> flatness, which it need not be.

Loss of crypts is a judgment call. Again if you don't see
these findings then it can be a false negative because of the
histology and not because of error on reading. If you start to
change your histological criteria to pick up these early cases
then you will get false positives and make the biopsy less
reliable. It is definitive because it is definitely there and
not just well maybe it's there so will call it positive to get
all cases of celiac disease.

>
>
> Then all of the above is assuming one is consuming gluten.
> No gluten consumption and one can't be tested, though the
> saliva test people claim they still can.
>
> Don <www.gluten-free.org>.

[Watchman]

Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

Don .. gluten is used as a 'thickener' in baking and such. I
was wondering what your opinion would be as to this scenario.

If gluten were to be placed in the microvessels of the blood
system .. would /could this gluten thicken the blood
sufficiently to disallow the blood to no longer flow
sufficiently in the microvessels which line the gut?

Much the same as when polycythemia .. too many red blood cells
cause hyperviscosity and therefor necrotizing enterocolitis?

Who loves ya. Tom
--
Jesus was a Vegetarian! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman Moses
was a Mystic! http://www.nucleus.com/watchman/light.html