Loading…

Combination testing for antibodies in the diagnosis of coeliac disease: comparison of multiplex immunoassay and ELISA methods

Summary Background  Tissue transglutaminase (TTG) antibodies and newly developed deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) antibodies have better accuracy than native gliadin antibodies. Multiplex immunoassay (MIA) measures multiple antibodies simultaneously providing a complete antibody phenotype with reduc...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 2008-09, Vol.28 (6), p.805-813
Main Authors: RASHTAK, S., ETTORE, M. W., HOMBURGER, H. A., MURRAY, J. A.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5337-b6c7ba6c940178c6586e865ed4910820c7e7448f86f9e813662c5ab5789fe7383
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5337-b6c7ba6c940178c6586e865ed4910820c7e7448f86f9e813662c5ab5789fe7383
container_end_page 813
container_issue 6
container_start_page 805
container_title Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics
container_volume 28
creator RASHTAK, S.
ETTORE, M. W.
HOMBURGER, H. A.
MURRAY, J. A.
description Summary Background  Tissue transglutaminase (TTG) antibodies and newly developed deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) antibodies have better accuracy than native gliadin antibodies. Multiplex immunoassay (MIA) measures multiple antibodies simultaneously providing a complete antibody phenotype with reduced turnaround time and cost. Aim  To evaluate the agreement between MIA and enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test results for coeliac antibodies in biopsy‐proven coeliac patients and controls and to model the diagnostic utility of combination testing. Methods  We compared the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MIA and ELISA methods for TTG and DGP antibodies in mainly adult untreated coeliac patients (n = 92) and controls (n = 124). Results  There was excellent agreement and a significant correlation between the results of MIA and ELISA methods (κ > 0.8, r > 0.7) for all tests, except TTG IgG. Diagnostic indices of individual and combination tests measured by the MIA method did not differ significantly from those measured by ELISA. The combination tests slightly increased sensitivity (if any test was positive) and specificity (if all tests were positive) compared to the individual tests. Conclusions  Multiplex immunoassay testing for antibodies is as accurate as ELISA for coeliac disease diagnosis and has practical advantages over ELISA method. Rational combination testing can help identify patients who need intestinal biopsy and may reduce unnecessary biopsies.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03797.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2666354</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>21049264</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5337-b6c7ba6c940178c6586e865ed4910820c7e7448f86f9e813662c5ab5789fe7383</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkUuP0zAUhS0EYjoDfwF5A7sEv-IHEkhVNQMjVQKJYW05jtO6SuwSJ9Au-O84tCqwAm9s3fPdo3t9AIAYlTif17sSU14VBFFeEoRkiahQojw8AouL8BgsEOGqIBLTK3Cd0g4hxAUiT8EVVphVgvIF-LGKfe2DGX0McHRp9GED2zhAE0Zfx8a7BH1Wtg423mxCTD7B2EIbXeeNzcXkTHJvcqHfm8GnbJPlfupGv-_cAfq-n0I0KZlj9mzg7fr-8xL2btzGJj0DT1rTJff8fN-AL3e3D6sPxfrj-_vVcl3YilJR1NyK2nCrGMJCWl5J7iSvXMMURpIgK5xgTLaSt8rldTkntjJ1JaRqnaCS3oB3J9_9VPeusS6Mg-n0fvC9GY46Gq__VoLf6k38pgnnnFYsG7w6Gwzx65S_Sfc-Wdd1Jrg4Jc2VYkzIf4MEI6YIn0F5Au0QUxpce5kGIz2HrHd6zlLPWeo5ZP0rZH3IrS_-3OZ34znVDLw8AyZZ07WDCdanC0dQpZhkInNvT9x337njfw-gl58e5hf9CT-YxOc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>21049264</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Combination testing for antibodies in the diagnosis of coeliac disease: comparison of multiplex immunoassay and ELISA methods</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>RASHTAK, S. ; ETTORE, M. W. ; HOMBURGER, H. A. ; MURRAY, J. A.</creator><creatorcontrib>RASHTAK, S. ; ETTORE, M. W. ; HOMBURGER, H. A. ; MURRAY, J. A.</creatorcontrib><description>Summary Background  Tissue transglutaminase (TTG) antibodies and newly developed deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) antibodies have better accuracy than native gliadin antibodies. Multiplex immunoassay (MIA) measures multiple antibodies simultaneously providing a complete antibody phenotype with reduced turnaround time and cost. Aim  To evaluate the agreement between MIA and enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test results for coeliac antibodies in biopsy‐proven coeliac patients and controls and to model the diagnostic utility of combination testing. Methods  We compared the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MIA and ELISA methods for TTG and DGP antibodies in mainly adult untreated coeliac patients (n = 92) and controls (n = 124). Results  There was excellent agreement and a significant correlation between the results of MIA and ELISA methods (κ &gt; 0.8, r &gt; 0.7) for all tests, except TTG IgG. Diagnostic indices of individual and combination tests measured by the MIA method did not differ significantly from those measured by ELISA. The combination tests slightly increased sensitivity (if any test was positive) and specificity (if all tests were positive) compared to the individual tests. Conclusions  Multiplex immunoassay testing for antibodies is as accurate as ELISA for coeliac disease diagnosis and has practical advantages over ELISA method. Rational combination testing can help identify patients who need intestinal biopsy and may reduce unnecessary biopsies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0269-2813</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1365-2036</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03797.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 19145736</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Antibodies - blood ; Biological and medical sciences ; Biopsy ; Case-Control Studies ; Celiac Disease - diagnosis ; Celiac Disease - immunology ; Celiac Disease - pathology ; Child ; Child, Preschool ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Digestive system ; Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay ; Female ; Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen ; Humans ; Immunoassay - methods ; Immunoglobulin A - immunology ; Immunoglobulin G - immunology ; Male ; Medical sciences ; Middle Aged ; Other diseases. Semiology ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics, 2008-09, Vol.28 (6), p.805-813</ispartof><rights>2008 Mayo Foundation. Journal compilation © 2008 Blackwell Publishing Ltd</rights><rights>2008 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5337-b6c7ba6c940178c6586e865ed4910820c7e7448f86f9e813662c5ab5789fe7383</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c5337-b6c7ba6c940178c6586e865ed4910820c7e7448f86f9e813662c5ab5789fe7383</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=20594847$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19145736$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>RASHTAK, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ETTORE, M. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOMBURGER, H. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MURRAY, J. A.</creatorcontrib><title>Combination testing for antibodies in the diagnosis of coeliac disease: comparison of multiplex immunoassay and ELISA methods</title><title>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics</title><addtitle>Aliment Pharmacol Ther</addtitle><description>Summary Background  Tissue transglutaminase (TTG) antibodies and newly developed deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) antibodies have better accuracy than native gliadin antibodies. Multiplex immunoassay (MIA) measures multiple antibodies simultaneously providing a complete antibody phenotype with reduced turnaround time and cost. Aim  To evaluate the agreement between MIA and enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test results for coeliac antibodies in biopsy‐proven coeliac patients and controls and to model the diagnostic utility of combination testing. Methods  We compared the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MIA and ELISA methods for TTG and DGP antibodies in mainly adult untreated coeliac patients (n = 92) and controls (n = 124). Results  There was excellent agreement and a significant correlation between the results of MIA and ELISA methods (κ &gt; 0.8, r &gt; 0.7) for all tests, except TTG IgG. Diagnostic indices of individual and combination tests measured by the MIA method did not differ significantly from those measured by ELISA. The combination tests slightly increased sensitivity (if any test was positive) and specificity (if all tests were positive) compared to the individual tests. Conclusions  Multiplex immunoassay testing for antibodies is as accurate as ELISA for coeliac disease diagnosis and has practical advantages over ELISA method. Rational combination testing can help identify patients who need intestinal biopsy and may reduce unnecessary biopsies.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Antibodies - blood</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Case-Control Studies</subject><subject>Celiac Disease - diagnosis</subject><subject>Celiac Disease - immunology</subject><subject>Celiac Disease - pathology</subject><subject>Child</subject><subject>Child, Preschool</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Digestive system</subject><subject>Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Immunoassay - methods</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin A - immunology</subject><subject>Immunoglobulin G - immunology</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Other diseases. Semiology</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0269-2813</issn><issn>1365-2036</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkUuP0zAUhS0EYjoDfwF5A7sEv-IHEkhVNQMjVQKJYW05jtO6SuwSJ9Au-O84tCqwAm9s3fPdo3t9AIAYlTif17sSU14VBFFeEoRkiahQojw8AouL8BgsEOGqIBLTK3Cd0g4hxAUiT8EVVphVgvIF-LGKfe2DGX0McHRp9GED2zhAE0Zfx8a7BH1Wtg423mxCTD7B2EIbXeeNzcXkTHJvcqHfm8GnbJPlfupGv-_cAfq-n0I0KZlj9mzg7fr-8xL2btzGJj0DT1rTJff8fN-AL3e3D6sPxfrj-_vVcl3YilJR1NyK2nCrGMJCWl5J7iSvXMMURpIgK5xgTLaSt8rldTkntjJ1JaRqnaCS3oB3J9_9VPeusS6Mg-n0fvC9GY46Gq__VoLf6k38pgnnnFYsG7w6Gwzx65S_Sfc-Wdd1Jrg4Jc2VYkzIf4MEI6YIn0F5Au0QUxpce5kGIz2HrHd6zlLPWeo5ZP0rZH3IrS_-3OZ34znVDLw8AyZZ07WDCdanC0dQpZhkInNvT9x337njfw-gl58e5hf9CT-YxOc</recordid><startdate>20080915</startdate><enddate>20080915</enddate><creator>RASHTAK, S.</creator><creator>ETTORE, M. W.</creator><creator>HOMBURGER, H. A.</creator><creator>MURRAY, J. A.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><general>Blackwell</general><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080915</creationdate><title>Combination testing for antibodies in the diagnosis of coeliac disease: comparison of multiplex immunoassay and ELISA methods</title><author>RASHTAK, S. ; ETTORE, M. W. ; HOMBURGER, H. A. ; MURRAY, J. A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5337-b6c7ba6c940178c6586e865ed4910820c7e7448f86f9e813662c5ab5789fe7383</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Antibodies - blood</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Case-Control Studies</topic><topic>Celiac Disease - diagnosis</topic><topic>Celiac Disease - immunology</topic><topic>Celiac Disease - pathology</topic><topic>Child</topic><topic>Child, Preschool</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Digestive system</topic><topic>Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Immunoassay - methods</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin A - immunology</topic><topic>Immunoglobulin G - immunology</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Other diseases. Semiology</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>RASHTAK, S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>ETTORE, M. W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>HOMBURGER, H. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>MURRAY, J. A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>RASHTAK, S.</au><au>ETTORE, M. W.</au><au>HOMBURGER, H. A.</au><au>MURRAY, J. A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Combination testing for antibodies in the diagnosis of coeliac disease: comparison of multiplex immunoassay and ELISA methods</atitle><jtitle>Alimentary pharmacology &amp; therapeutics</jtitle><addtitle>Aliment Pharmacol Ther</addtitle><date>2008-09-15</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>6</issue><spage>805</spage><epage>813</epage><pages>805-813</pages><issn>0269-2813</issn><eissn>1365-2036</eissn><abstract>Summary Background  Tissue transglutaminase (TTG) antibodies and newly developed deamidated gliadin peptide (DGP) antibodies have better accuracy than native gliadin antibodies. Multiplex immunoassay (MIA) measures multiple antibodies simultaneously providing a complete antibody phenotype with reduced turnaround time and cost. Aim  To evaluate the agreement between MIA and enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) test results for coeliac antibodies in biopsy‐proven coeliac patients and controls and to model the diagnostic utility of combination testing. Methods  We compared the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of MIA and ELISA methods for TTG and DGP antibodies in mainly adult untreated coeliac patients (n = 92) and controls (n = 124). Results  There was excellent agreement and a significant correlation between the results of MIA and ELISA methods (κ &gt; 0.8, r &gt; 0.7) for all tests, except TTG IgG. Diagnostic indices of individual and combination tests measured by the MIA method did not differ significantly from those measured by ELISA. The combination tests slightly increased sensitivity (if any test was positive) and specificity (if all tests were positive) compared to the individual tests. Conclusions  Multiplex immunoassay testing for antibodies is as accurate as ELISA for coeliac disease diagnosis and has practical advantages over ELISA method. Rational combination testing can help identify patients who need intestinal biopsy and may reduce unnecessary biopsies.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>19145736</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03797.x</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0269-2813
ispartof Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics, 2008-09, Vol.28 (6), p.805-813
issn 0269-2813
1365-2036
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_2666354
source Wiley
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Aged, 80 and over
Antibodies - blood
Biological and medical sciences
Biopsy
Case-Control Studies
Celiac Disease - diagnosis
Celiac Disease - immunology
Celiac Disease - pathology
Child
Child, Preschool
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Digestive system
Enzyme-Linked Immunosorbent Assay
Female
Gastroenterology. Liver. Pancreas. Abdomen
Humans
Immunoassay - methods
Immunoglobulin A - immunology
Immunoglobulin G - immunology
Male
Medical sciences
Middle Aged
Other diseases. Semiology
Pharmacology. Drug treatments
Sensitivity and Specificity
Stomach. Duodenum. Small intestine. Colon. Rectum. Anus
Young Adult
title Combination testing for antibodies in the diagnosis of coeliac disease: comparison of multiplex immunoassay and ELISA methods
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T12%3A08%3A18IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Combination%20testing%20for%20antibodies%20in%20the%20diagnosis%20of%20coeliac%20disease:%20comparison%20of%20multiplex%20immunoassay%20and%20ELISA%20methods&rft.jtitle=Alimentary%20pharmacology%20&%20therapeutics&rft.au=RASHTAK,%20S.&rft.date=2008-09-15&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=805&rft.epage=813&rft.pages=805-813&rft.issn=0269-2813&rft.eissn=1365-2036&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1365-2036.2008.03797.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E21049264%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c5337-b6c7ba6c940178c6586e865ed4910820c7e7448f86f9e813662c5ab5789fe7383%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=21049264&rft_id=info:pmid/19145736&rfr_iscdi=true