Copyright
©The Author(s) 2017.
World J Gastroenterol. Feb 7, 2017; 23(5): 776-791
Published online Feb 7, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i5.776
Published online Feb 7, 2017. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i5.776
Study | Screening method | Number of positive patients | Typical duodenal biopsy12 | Response to gluten-free diet | Country, year | Ref. |
Prospective | Duodenal biopsy | 5/26 (19.2%) | 19, 2% | No improvement in liver biochemestry | Sweden, 1982 | Olsson et al[61] |
Retrospective | Previous diagnose | 2/18 (11.1%) | Not mentioned | No improvement in liver biochemestry or liver histology | Sweden, 1985 | Löfgren et al[65] |
Prospective | EmA IFI > 1:5 | 6/57 (11%) EmA (+) | 7% | No improvement in liver biochemestry | Ireland, 1997 | Dickey et al[73] |
Prospective cohort | AGA IgG IgA > 1 AU | 0/62 (0%) EmA (+) | 0/0 | - | United States/Italy | Volta et al[76] |
IgA EmA IFI | 11/62 (16%) AGA (+) | |||||
Prospective | malabsorption, haematinic | 4/67 (6%) | 4/67 (6%) | No improvement in liver biochemestry | United Kingdom, 1998 | Kingham et al[72] |
deficiency, positive antigliadin antibody, | ||||||
or CD family history | ||||||
Prospective | AGA IgA > 25 AU/mL | 4/11 (36, 4%) AGA IgA (+) | 18% | - | Argentina, 1998 | Niveloni et al[102] |
IgG > 28 AU/mL | 1/11 (9%) AGA IgG (+) | |||||
EmA IFI > 1:5 | 1/11 (9%) EmA (+) | |||||
Retrospective (stored sera) | EmA IFI > 1:5 | 10/378 (2.6%) EmA (+) + tTG (+) | 1.30% | - | United Kingdom, 2000 | Gillett et al[103] |
tTG IgA ELISA > 140 AU/mL | 44/378 (11.6%) EmA (-) + tTG (+) | |||||
Prospective | EmA IFI | 3/87 (3.4%) EmA (+) | 0/17 | - | Italy, 2002 | Floreani et al[80] |
tTG IgA > 10 IU | 24/87 (27.5%) tTG (+) | |||||
Prospective | AGA IgA > 50 U/mL | 13/62 (21%) AGA (+) | 0/10 | - | Greece, 2002 | Chatzicostas et al[78] |
AGA IgG > 50 U/mL | 0/62 EmA (+) | |||||
EmA IgA IFI ≥ 1:5 | 6/62 (10%) tTG (+) | |||||
IgA tTG > 30 U/mL | ||||||
Prospective cohort | EmA IFI > 1:5 | 7/173 (4%) EmA (+) | 7/7 | No improvement in liver biochemestry | Italy/Spain 2002. | Volta et al[52] |
tTG IgA > 7 AU | 5/173 (2.9%) tTG (+) | |||||
AGA IFI | ||||||
Prospective cohort | IgA tTG > 7 AU | 5/48 (10.4%) tTG (+) | - | - | Italy, 2003 | Bizzaro et al[104] |
IgG anti-Ttg > 30 AU | ||||||
EmA IFI | ||||||
tTG < 1:100 | 7/115 (6.1%) tTG (+) | 1/8 | Duodenal histological improvement | Poland, 2003 | Habior et al[105] | |
EmA IFI | 1/115 (0.9%) EmA (+) | |||||
AGA Elisa | 8/115 (7.0%) AGA (+) | |||||
Prospective cohort | Six different ELISA tTG | 28/105 (26.7%) tTG IgA (+) | 100% EmA (+) | - | Italy, 2006 | Bizzaro et al[25] |
6/105 (5.7%) tTG IgG (+) | 0% tTG (+) |
- Citation: Narciso-Schiavon JL, Schiavon LL. To screen or not to screen? Celiac antibodies in liver diseases. World J Gastroenterol 2017; 23(5): 776-791
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v23/i5/776.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v23.i5.776