Coeliac disease (CD) is an autoimmune disease, triggered by the ingestion of gluten in genetically susceptible individuals, and causing an inflammatory reaction and damage to the small intestine. The diagnostic “gold standard” is the normalisation of the small intestinal mucosa when gluten is eliminated from the diet. Population studies have shown that CD is relatively common in white populations, with about 0.5%–1% estimated to have undetected CD.1-3
In 2001, our group published the results of anti-endomysial antibody (anti-EMA) testing of 3011 adults in the Busselton (Western Australia) population, finding a prevalence of CD of about 0.4% (1 : 250).4 The Busselton Health Study comprises a series of cross-sectional general population surveys conducted every 3 years from 1966 to 1981, with a follow-up study of all available previous participants in 1994–1995. At this follow-up, serum samples suitable for serological and HLA testing were taken for long-term storage. These samples were used in our 2001 study.4
Studies of CD prevalence with anti-EMA testing have shown a wide variation in the sensitivity (74%–100%) and specificity (64%–100%) of this test, which may have arisen from differences in the laboratory techniques employed.5-11 These variations suggest that anti-EMA testing may not be suitable as a screening tool. Testing for human anti-tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG) antibodies appears to give more consistent results and is likely to be the best test for CD; initial reports have shown a sensitivity of 95%–98% and a specificity of 94%.12,13 An even higher sensitivity (99.5%) and specificity (99.6%) have been achieved using recombinant human anti-tTG in a radioligand assay,14 confirming the reliability of anti-tTG testing.15
In December 2004, we performed AESKULISA IgA and IgG anti-tTG assays (AESKU.DIAGNOSTICS, Wendelsheim, Germany) on the 3011 stored serum samples of subjects attending the 1994–1995 Busselton Health Study follow-up (the same samples tested for anti-EMA in our 2001 study).4
Serum samples giving at least one positive result, or equivocal results, of the AESKULISA IgA anti-tTG assay (cut-off, > 10 U/mL) and the AESKULISA IgG anti-tTG assay (cut-off, > 15 U/mL) were tested with the Genesis IgA anti-tTG assay (cut-off > 7 U/mL; Genesis Diagnostics Ltd, Cambridge, UK). In samples with negative results of the anti-tTG assays, serum IgA levels were measured. The procedure is summarised in Box 1.
Attempts were made to contact all subjects whose serum samples returned one or more positive results of three anti-tTG assays.
Available subjects were reviewed by a gastroenterologist between December 2004 and July 2005, and a symptom questionnaire was completed. Blood was taken for repeat AESKULISA IgA/IgG anti-tTG and Genesis IgA anti-tTG testing; HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8 haplotyping; full blood examination; measurement of serum ferritin, vitamin B12, vitamin D and blood sugar levels; and liver function tests.
In unavailable subjects, HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8 haplotyping was performed on their stored sera.
If available for clinical review, subjects with low IgA levels were clinically assessed, had a repeat AESKULISA IgG anti-tTG assay and haplotyping performed. If appropriate, they were offered gastroscopy and distal duodenal biopsy. In unavailable subjects haplotyping was performed.
The 3011 serum samples came from 1491 women and 1520 men, with an age range of 20–79 years; 99% of subjects were of Anglo-Celtic origin.
Forty-seven serum samples gave positive results for at least one anti-tTG assay, a prevalence of 1.56%. The serological and duodenal biopsy results of the 47 subjects with at least one positive result of anti-tTG assays are summarised in Box 2.
Sixteen of the 47 subjects whose serum samples gave positive results of anti-tTG assays were unable to be clinically reviewed: five had died, 10 had changed their address (ie, could not be contacted), and one was too ill to participate in our study.
Seventeen subjects met our criteria for definite CD, giving a prevalence of at least 0.56%. Of these, six subjects had histologically proven CD diagnosed outside our study; eight were diagnosed with histologically proven CD during our study; and three had three positive results of antibody assays, and an HLA haplotype consistent with CD, but were not available for clinical review or gastroscopy. By our definition, they were also considered to have definite CD.
Twelve subjects who had one or more positive results of anti-tTG assays, and an HLA haplotype consistent with CD, but were not available for clinical review or gastroscopy, were defined by our study to be of equivocal status.
In 17 subjects with one or more positive results of anti-tTG assays, CD was excluded: 13 subjects had normal results of a distal duodenal biopsy; and four subjects were unable to have a gastroscopy and biopsy and were diagnosed as not having CD on the basis of negative results of repeat anti-tTG assays.
All the subjects assessed had normal haemoglobin levels, but three subjects with confirmed CD were iron deficient. If CD was confirmed histologically, bone densitometry was recommended. Four of those with CD were diagnosed with osteoporosis.
Based only on subjects with definite CD (diagnosed on biopsy criteria), the positive predictive value of at least one positive anti-tTG assay result was 45.2%. This was low compared with the positive predictive value of three positive assay results, which was 94%.
We found that the prevalence of anti-tTG antibodies in a predominantly Anglo-Celtic Australian population was 1.56%. This is about three times higher than the prevalence of anti-EMA that we reported in the same population in 2001.4 To our knowledge, this is the largest study published to date of the prevalence of anti-tTG antibodies and CD in a general healthy population. About two-thirds of the subjects with positive results of at least one anti-tTG assay were reviewed clinically, and just over two-thirds of the reviewed group underwent upper gastrointestinal gastroscopy, and distal duodenal biopsy.
This cohort of subjects has been followed up for up to 40 years as part of the Busselton Health Study. In 27 subjects, positive anti-tTG assay results were obtained in two serum samples taken with a gap of 12 years between them. Despite this long period of stable seropositivity, we were able to definitely refute the diagnosis of CD in 17 of these subjects by gastroscopy or negative results of repeat anti-tTG assays. Latent or potential CD is an entity that is sometimes used to describe patients with few or no symptoms, abnormal results of serological tests for CD and normal histological findings.17 Although there is debate and controversy about how to manage these patients,18 we have shown in our study that a significant proportion of them do not go on to develop active CD.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine (i) the prevalence of positive results of anti-tissue transglutaminase (anti-tTG) antibody assays and coeliac disease (CD) in a rural Australian community; and (ii) whether confirmatory testing of a positive assay result with an alternative anti-tTG assay improved the positive predictive value of the test in population screening for CD.
Design: Retrospective analysis in December 2004 of stored serum samples taken in 1994–1995 from 3011 subjects in the Busselton Health Study follow-up. Assays for IgA and IgG anti-tTG antibodies were performed, and positive or equivocal samples were retested with a different commercial anti-tTG assay. Available subjects with one or more positive assay results were interviewed, had serum collected for repeat anti-tTG assays and for HLA-DQ2 and HLA-DQ8 haplotyping and, if appropriate, gastroscopy and duodenal biopsy were performed. In unavailable subjects, HLA-DQ2 and -DQ8 haplotyping was performed on stored sera. Total serum IgA levels were assessed in subjects with initially negative assay results.
Main outcome measure: Prevalence of anti-tTG positivity and biopsy-proven CD.
Results: In 47 of 3011 serum samples (1.56%), at least one anti-tTG assay gave positive results: 31 of the subjects who provided these sera were available for clinical review, and 21 were able to have a gastroscopy. Seventeen subjects (0.56%) were diagnosed with definite CD (14 were confirmed at gastroscopy, and three unavailable subjects had three positive results of anti-tTG assays and an HLA haplotype consistent with CD); in a further 12 unavailable subjects, CD status was considered equivocal, with one or more positive anti-tTG assay results and an HLA haplotype consistent with CD. If these subjects were regarded as having CD, the prevalence of CD would be 0.96%. The positive predictive value when all three anti-tTG assays gave positive results was 94%, but fell to 45.2% with only one positive result.
Conclusions: The prevalence of anti-tTG antibodies in this population is 1.56%; the prevalence of CD is at least 0.56%. The utility of a single, positive result of an anti-tTG assay in screening for CD in the community is poor, and repeat and/or collateral assessment with different assays may decrease the need for gastroscopy and distal duodenal biopsy.