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...
Saved in:
Published in: | Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 2008-09, Vol.28 (6), p.805-813 |
---|---|
Main Authors: | , , , |
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 > 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.</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 & 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&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 & 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 > 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.</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 & 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 & 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 > 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.</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 |