Catalogo Articoli (Spogli Riviste)

OPAC HELP

Titolo:
Endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibodies in coeliac sera: a comparison not influenced by previous serological testing
Autore:
Biagi, F; Pezzimenti, D; Campanella, J; Vadacca, GB; Corazza, GR;
Indirizzi:
Univ Pavia, Policlin San Matteo, IRCCS, Gastroenterol Unit, I-27100 Pavia,Italy Univ Pavia Pavia Italy I-27100 , Gastroenterol Unit, I-27100 Pavia,Italy Univ Pavia, Policlin San Matteo, IRCCS, Serv Anal Chimicoclin, I-27100 Pavia, Italy Univ Pavia Pavia Italy I-27100 rv Anal Chimicoclin, I-27100 Pavia, Italy
Titolo Testata:
SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
fascicolo: 9, volume: 36, anno: 2001,
pagine: 955 - 958
SICI:
0036-5521(200109)36:9<955:EATTAI>2.0.ZU;2-4
Fonte:
ISI
Lingua:
ENG
Soggetto:
GLUTEN-SENSITIVE ENTEROPATHY; CELIAC-DISEASE; DERMATITIS-HERPETIFORMIS; ANTITISSUE TRANSGLUTAMINASE; GLIADIN; MARKERS; AUTOANTIBODIES; REACTIVITY; PREVALENCE; DIAGNOSIS;
Keywords:
coeliac disease; endomysial antibody; gliadin; small bowel; transglutaminase;
Tipo documento:
Article
Natura:
Periodico
Settore Disciplinare:
Clinical Medicine
Life Sciences
Citazioni:
33
Recensione:
Indirizzi per estratti:
Indirizzo: Biagi, F Univ Pavia, Policlin San Matteo, IRCCS, Gastroenterol Unit, Ple Golgi 19, I-27100 Pavia, Italy Univ Pavia Ple Golgi 19 Pavia Italy I-27100 I-27100 Pavia, Italy
Citazione:
F. Biagi et al., "Endomysial and tissue transglutaminase antibodies in coeliac sera: a comparison not influenced by previous serological testing", SC J GASTR, 36(9), 2001, pp. 955-958

Abstract

Background: Since transglutaminase was shown to be the antigen of endomysial antibodies (EMA), it has become possible to screen for coeliac disease (CD) with an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for transglutaminase antibodies (TTA). However, it is possible that sera used to show that TTA are found in CD were obtained from patients diagnosed because they were positive for EMA. So, a comparison between EMA and TTA has not been possible sofar. Methods: EMA and TTA were tested in sera from 52 controls and 56 untreated CD patients, who had not undergone serological testing. Samples were tested for TTA with an ELISA kit. Based on the ROC analysis of a pilot study, results were considered as either positive, borderline, or negative. EMAwere analysed by indirect immunofluorescence on monkey oesophagus. Results: Forty-nine CD patients were positive for TTA, six borderline, one negative. Forty-four controls were negative, seven borderline, one positive. If weconsider borderline results to be positive, sensitivity is 98.2% and specificity 84.6%. EMA were positive in 53 CD patients; the controls were all negative. Performing TTA in all cases and EMA only in the few TTA borderline cases (12.0%) would have a sensitivity of 94.6% and a specificity of 98.1%. Conclusions: This study is the first to compare TTA with EMA. Due to 100% specificity and high sensitivity, EMA seems to be the most accurate coeliacantibody. Conversely, TTA offer advantages in terms of sensitivity and simplicity. A satisfactory strategy is to use TTA first and then EMA to confirm the borderline results.

ASDD Area Sistemi Dipartimentali e Documentali, Università di Bologna, Catalogo delle riviste ed altri periodici
Documento generato il 05/12/20 alle ore 13:23:22