OBJECTIVES: Diagnosis of celiac disease is difficult when treatment with gluten-free diet (GFD) is started before diagnosis and/or when the results of tests are inconsistent. The objective of this study was to evaluate the in vitro gliadin challenge. METHODS: The study cohort included patients without celiac disease (negative controls, n=57), patients with celiac disease (positive controls, n=166 untreated and n=55 on GFD), and patients with difficult diagnosis (n=59). All patients underwent endoscopy for collection of duodenal samples, which served for the diagnosis of celiac disease and for the in vitro evaluation of the gliadin-induced mucosal expression of seven inflammatory markers: PY99, ICAM-1 (intercellular cell adhesion molecule), HLA-DR, CD3, CD25, CD69, and transglutaminase 2 IgA. Diagnostic work-up for celiac disease included the search of specific serum antibodies. Patients of the difficult diagnosis group were asked to stop GFD for repeated search of these antibodies under untreated conditions. The area under the receptor-operated curve (ROC) was used for statistical analyses on accuracy. RESULTS: HLA-DR had the highest accuracy for celiac disease diagnosis in analyses on negative controls and positive controls also excluding patients on GFD (area under ROC=0.99). Accuracy of test did not increase combining data of HLA-DR with data of other markers. Findings were similar in the 39 patients of the difficult diagnosis group undergoing the search celiac disease-specific antibodies under untreated conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The in vitro response of mucosal HLA-DR to gliadin is an accurate tool for the diagnosis of celiac disease also in patients with difficult diagnosis.

In Vitro Gliadin Challenge: Diagnostic Accuracy and Utility for the Difficult Diagnosis of Celiac Disease.

RUSSO, ILARIA;ZINGONE, FABIANA;IOVINO, Paola;CIACCI, Carolina
2012-01-01

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Diagnosis of celiac disease is difficult when treatment with gluten-free diet (GFD) is started before diagnosis and/or when the results of tests are inconsistent. The objective of this study was to evaluate the in vitro gliadin challenge. METHODS: The study cohort included patients without celiac disease (negative controls, n=57), patients with celiac disease (positive controls, n=166 untreated and n=55 on GFD), and patients with difficult diagnosis (n=59). All patients underwent endoscopy for collection of duodenal samples, which served for the diagnosis of celiac disease and for the in vitro evaluation of the gliadin-induced mucosal expression of seven inflammatory markers: PY99, ICAM-1 (intercellular cell adhesion molecule), HLA-DR, CD3, CD25, CD69, and transglutaminase 2 IgA. Diagnostic work-up for celiac disease included the search of specific serum antibodies. Patients of the difficult diagnosis group were asked to stop GFD for repeated search of these antibodies under untreated conditions. The area under the receptor-operated curve (ROC) was used for statistical analyses on accuracy. RESULTS: HLA-DR had the highest accuracy for celiac disease diagnosis in analyses on negative controls and positive controls also excluding patients on GFD (area under ROC=0.99). Accuracy of test did not increase combining data of HLA-DR with data of other markers. Findings were similar in the 39 patients of the difficult diagnosis group undergoing the search celiac disease-specific antibodies under untreated conditions. CONCLUSIONS: The in vitro response of mucosal HLA-DR to gliadin is an accurate tool for the diagnosis of celiac disease also in patients with difficult diagnosis.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11386/3094166
 Attenzione

Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo

Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 9
  • Scopus 25
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 23
social impact