Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry · 2007
Testing for IgG class antibodies in celiac disease patients with selective IgA deficiency. A comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of 9 IgG anti-tissue transglutaminase, 1 IgG anti-gliadin and 1 IgG anti-deaminated gliadin peptide antibody assays.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Villalta Danilo, Alessio Maria Grazia, Tampoia Marilina, Tonutti Elio, Brusca Ignazio, Bagnasco Marcello, Pesce Giampaola, Stella Sergio, Bizzaro Nicola
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: To evaluate the diagnostic characteristics of commercially available IgG anti-tTG assays in selective IgA deficiency (SIgAD), we tested different IgG anti-tTG methods and compared the results with those obtained from two other tests: one for IgG anti-gliadin (AGA) and one for IgG to deaminated gliadin peptides (DGP).
METHODS: 20 CD patients with SIgAD and 113 controls (9 patients with SIgAD without CD; 54 patients with chronic liver disease; 50 healthy subjects) were tested with 9 IgG anti-tTG assays (2 of which are enriched with gliadin peptides), one IgG AGA assay and one IgG anti-DGP assay.
RESULTS: Using optimal cutoffs as determined by ROC curves, the sensitivity of IgG anti-tTG methods ranged from 75% (1 kit) to 95% (7 kits) and the specificity from 94% (1 kit) to 100% (5 kits). Sensitivity and specificity were 40% and 87% for IgG AGA, and 80% and 98% for IgG anti-DGP, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: All IgG anti-tTG methods evaluated are reliable serologic assays for the diagnosis of CD in patients with SIgAD and perform better than the gliadin-based assays used in this study. The tests containing both tTG and gliadinic peptides are burdened by a lower specificity than the anti-tTG assays.
METHODS: 20 CD patients with SIgAD and 113 controls (9 patients with SIgAD without CD; 54 patients with chronic liver disease; 50 healthy subjects) were tested with 9 IgG anti-tTG assays (2 of which are enriched with gliadin peptides), one IgG AGA assay and one IgG anti-DGP assay.
RESULTS: Using optimal cutoffs as determined by ROC curves, the sensitivity of IgG anti-tTG methods ranged from 75% (1 kit) to 95% (7 kits) and the specificity from 94% (1 kit) to 100% (5 kits). Sensitivity and specificity were 40% and 87% for IgG AGA, and 80% and 98% for IgG anti-DGP, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: All IgG anti-tTG methods evaluated are reliable serologic assays for the diagnosis of CD in patients with SIgAD and perform better than the gliadin-based assays used in this study. The tests containing both tTG and gliadinic peptides are burdened by a lower specificity than the anti-tTG assays.