Evolution of Celiac Disease Testing The laboratory is challenged to provide guidance on test ordering and interpretation while ensuring accurate performance and appropriate test utilization

Vol. 23 • Issue 9 • Page 38 Celiac Disease Testing Celiac disease (CD) is an immune-mediated inflammatory process elicited by gluten that occurs in genetically susceptible individuals.1,2 The inflammatory response is triggered when partially digested gluten peptides (especially gliadin) reach the intestinal mucosa.2 These peptides are a substrate for tissue transglutaminase (TTG), which acts to deamidate gliadin, forming deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP).3 Both DGP and DGP-TTG complexes can be immunogenic, resulting in the production of antibodies against TTG and DGP, local inflammation, and damage to the intestinal mucosa causing malabsorption.3 This can lead to signs and symptoms such as anemia, failure to thrive, weight loss, diarrhea and bloating.1,3 HLA molecules encoded by the DQ2 and DQ8 haplotypes are associated with this immune process, forming part of the genetic basis of CD.4 Traditionally, CD diagnosis requires duodenal biopsy to characterize the degree of mucosal damage. Histological changes seen in CD include villous atrophy, crypt hyperplasia and increased intraepithelial lymphocytes. Classification of damage severity is outlined by the Marsh Criteria, which remains the gold standard for CD diagnosis.1,5-7 Histological analysis is not without its limitations, however (Table).8,9 Biopsy procedures are invasive, so other means of identifying CD patients have been sought. Serological tests, which detect antibodies produced during the mucosal immune reaction, provide a less invasive alternative. Serological Testing Early indirect immunofluorescence methods detected CD-specific antibodies in a semi-quantitative fashion. The anti-endomysial antibody test (EMA) remains the most sensitive and specific of these.10,11 A positive test is defined by the presence of staining restricted to smooth muscle fibers, and titers can be reported for semi-quantitative results. This assay can be challenging due to scarcity of tissue substrates, subjective interpretation and method heterogeneity between labs.11-13 Other immunofluorescence-based markers such as reticulin and gliadin antibodies have been shown to have inferior sensitivity and specificity to EMA, and should not be used for CD testing.1,14,15 The antigenic target of EMAs was later discovered to be TTG;16 DGP was also found to be a target of antibodies in CD patients.17,18 This led to the production of quantitative immunoassays for both anti-TTG and anti-DGP antibodies. Solid-phase immunoassays using immobilized TTG or DGP are commonly used. Following incubation with a patient's serum, anti-TTG or anti-DGP antibodies are detected using labeled anti-human, class-specific detection antibodies. Radiobinding assays have also been described.19 These assay formats allow for the use of a calibration curve and reporting in concentration units. A positive result is defined at a specific cut-off.1 However, because assay reagents vary by manufacturer, laboratories and clinicians need to be aware that cut-offs and results are not interchangeable.19-21 Other Testing Considerations Several other important considerations must be made when using serological testing in CD. First, mucosal immune responses typically involve IgA-class antibodies; therefore, serological testing commonly targets IgA class antibodies. However, IgA deficiency occurs more frequently in CD patients compared to population estimates (2.5% versus 0.25%),22 and IgA-based serological tests may not provide informative results in these patients. IgA quantitation can help interpret CD serology ADVANCE for Laboratory Administrators | Lab Admin Magazine | Print... http://laboratory-manager.advanceweb.com/Editorial/Content/PrintFriend...

[1]  W. Egner,et al.  High‐titre circulating tissue transglutaminase‐2 antibodies predict small bowel villous atrophy, but decision cut‐off limits must be locally validated , 2014, Clinical and experimental immunology.

[2]  R. Pai A practical approach to small bowel biopsy interpretation: celiac disease and its mimics. , 2014, Seminars in diagnostic pathology.

[3]  S. Guandalini,et al.  Can we really skip the biopsy in diagnosing symptomatic children with celiac disease. , 2013, Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition.

[4]  J. Murray,et al.  New aspects of the diagnosis of celiac disease in children, adolescents, and adults. , 2013, Mayo Clinic proceedings.

[5]  A. Rubio‐Tapia,et al.  ACG Clinical Guidelines: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease , 2013, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[6]  M. Hiele,et al.  Defining thresholds of antibody levels improves diagnosis of celiac disease. , 2013, Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association.

[7]  C. Ribes-Koninckx,et al.  Celiac Disease: The New Proposed ESPGHAN Diagnostic Criteria Do Work Well in a Selected Population , 2013, Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition.

[8]  D. Schuppan,et al.  World Gastroenterology Organisation global guidelines on celiac disease. , 2013, Journal of clinical gastroenterology.

[9]  A. Tebo,et al.  Testing for Antireticulin Antibodies in Patients with Celiac Disease Is Obsolete: a Review of Recommendations for Serologic Screening and the Literature , 2013, Clinical and Vaccine Immunology.

[10]  T. Matthias,et al.  Neo-epitope tissue transglutaminase autoantibodies as a biomarker of the gluten sensitive skin disease--dermatitis herpetiformis. , 2013, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[11]  N. Bizzaro,et al.  Cutting-Edge Issues in Celiac Disease and in Gluten Intolerance , 2012, Clinical Reviews in Allergy & Immunology.

[12]  K. Giersiepen,et al.  European Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition Guidelines for the Diagnosis of Coeliac Disease , 2012, Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition.

[13]  F. Valitutti,et al.  The anti-deamidated gliadin peptide antibodies unmask celiac disease in small children with chronic diarrhoea. , 2011, Digestive and liver disease : official journal of the Italian Society of Gastroenterology and the Italian Association for the Study of the Liver.

[14]  H. Uhlig,et al.  IgG antibodies against deamidated gliadin peptides for diagnosis of celiac disease in patients with IgA deficiency. , 2010, Clinical chemistry.

[15]  P. Howdle,et al.  Recognition and assessment of coeliac disease in children and adults: summary of NICE guidance , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  E. Bonifacio,et al.  A Report on the International Transglutaminase Autoantibody Workshop for Celiac Disease , 2009, The American Journal of Gastroenterology.

[17]  A. Ivarsson,et al.  Antigliadin Immunoglobulin A Best in Finding Celiac Disease in Children Younger Than 18 Months of Age , 2008, Journal of pediatric gastroenterology and nutrition.

[18]  M. Lyon,et al.  Celiac disease and IgA deficiency: complications of serological testing approaches encountered in the clinic. , 2008, Clinical chemistry.

[19]  A. Duggan,et al.  Diagnostic accuracy of coeliac serological tests: a prospective study , 2006, European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology.

[20]  Alessio Fasano,et al.  Mechanisms of Disease: the role of intestinal barrier function in the pathogenesis of gastrointestinal autoimmune diseases , 2005, Nature Clinical Practice Gastroenterology &Hepatology.

[21]  P. Green,et al.  Narrative Review: Celiac Disease: Understanding a Complex Autoimmune Disorder , 2005, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[22]  U. Sack,et al.  Serologic assay based on gliadin-related nonapeptides as a highly sensitive and specific diagnostic aid in celiac disease. , 2004, Clinical chemistry.

[23]  P. Roepstorff,et al.  Molecular Characterization of Covalent Complexes between Tissue Transglutaminase and Gliadin Peptides* , 2004, Journal of Biological Chemistry.

[24]  I. Korponay-Szabó,et al.  Elevation of IgG antibodies against tissue transglutaminase as a diagnostic tool for coeliac disease in selective IgA deficiency , 2003, Gut.

[25]  J. Murray,et al.  Prevalence of celiac disease in at-risk and not-at-risk groups in the United States: a large multicenter study. , 2003, Archives of internal medicine.

[26]  L. Greco,et al.  The first large population based twin study of coeliac disease , 2002, Gut.

[27]  M. Aleanzi,et al.  Celiac disease: antibody recognition against native and selectively deamidated gliadin peptides. , 2001, Clinical chemistry.

[28]  J. Murray,et al.  Serologic Testing for Celiac Disease in the United States: Results of a Multilaboratory Comparison Study , 2000, Clinical Diagnostic Laboratory Immunology.

[29]  G. Oberhuber,et al.  The histopathology of coeliac disease: time for a standardized report scheme for pathologists. , 1999, European journal of gastroenterology & hepatology.

[30]  D. Schuppan,et al.  Identification of tissue transglutaminase as the autoantigen of celiac disease , 1997, Nature Medicine.

[31]  U. Volta,et al.  IgA anti-endomysial antibodies on human umbilical cord tissue for celiac disease screening , 1995, Digestive Diseases and Sciences.

[32]  M. Marsh Grains of truth: evolutionary changes in small intestinal mucosa in response to environmental antigen challenge. , 1990, Gut.

[33]  S. Jabłońska,et al.  IgA anti‐endomysium antibody. A new immunological marker of dermatitis herpetiformis and coeliac disease , 1984, The British journal of dermatology.

[34]  C. Cellier,et al.  Celiac disease. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[35]  E. Seidman,et al.  Guideline for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Celiac Disease in Children : Recommendations of the North American Society for Pediatric Gastroenterology , Hepatology and Nutrition , 2004 .

[36]  L. Sollid Molecular basis of celiac disease. , 2000, Annual review of immunology.

[37]  A. Husebekk,et al.  Improved method for serological testing in celiac disease--IgA anti-endomysium antibody test: a comparison between monkey oesophagus and human umbilical cord as substrate in indirect immunofluorescence test. , 1998, Scandinavian journal of clinical and laboratory investigation.