Banner
    New Blood Test Could Simplify Diagnosis Of Celiac Disease
    By News Staff | January 13th 2014 06:15 PM | 3 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments

    A new blood test developed by ImmusanT in Boston and the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute can rapidly and accurately diagnose celiac disease without the need for prolonged gluten exposure, according to a preliminary result with 48 participants.

    The new diagnostic test gave a result within 24 hours and the preliminary findings indicated it could accurately detect celiac disease. Larger studies will be needed to verify the results.


    Celiac disease is caused by an abnormal immune (T cell) reaction to gluten in the diet, leading to damage to the small intestine. It can cause digestive symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, bloating, and diarrhea, as well as lethargy, anemia, headaches and weight loss. According to the authors, as many as one in 60 women and one in 80 men in Australia have celiac disease, but they say that four out of five remain undiagnosed.


    Dr. Jason Tye-Din, Ms. Cathy Pizzey, Mr. Adam Girardin, and Dr. Melinda Hardy (left to right) from the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute. Credit: Walter and Eliza Hall Institute

    "Current diagnosis of coeliac disease is limited by the need for intestinal biopsies and patients to be eating gluten," says Dr. Jason Tye-Din, gastroenterologist and head of celiac research at the Walter and Eliza Hall Institute in Melbourne. "For the many people who follow gluten-free diets without a formal diagnosis, reliable testing for coeliac disease requires them to consume gluten again, which is often unpleasant and difficult. Our findings reveal this novel blood test is accurate after only three days of gluten consumption, not the several weeks or months traditionally required to make a diagnosis using intestinal biopsies."

    Tye-Din said that the blood test built on fundamental research discoveries the team had made about celiac disease. "This 'cytokine release' test measures the T cell response to gluten after three days of consumption, and a positive response is highly predictive of celiac disease.. With this test, we were able to detect a T cell response in the majority of study participants known to have celiac disease and importantly, the test was negative in all of the patients who did not have celiac disease, even though they followed a gluten-free diet and thought gluten was the cause of their symptoms."

    Tye-Din said that many 'gluten sensitive' people found it distressing to reintroduce gluten into their diet in order to be tested properly for celiac disease. "People are fearful about experiencing unpleasant symptoms and end up stopping prematurely or avoiding testing altogether." 

    "A test that simplifies diagnosis for patients is likely to significantly enhance disease detection. This new diagnostic approach is encouraging and we hope that larger studies can validate these findings and establish its role in the diagnosis of celiac disease, with the possibility of avoiding intestinal biopsies for diagnosis altogether."

    Dr Bob Anderson, chief scientific officer at ImmusanT, said that the blood test could also assist in the monitoring of a therapeutic vaccine for celiac disease. "This is an important step toward a tool that could monitor changes in the small population of circulating T cells responsible for coeliac disease when using treatments intended to restore tolerance to gluten, such as Nexvax2®, the compound currently being developed by ImmusanT."

    Citation: N. Ontiveros, J. A. Tye-Din, M. Y. Hardy and R. P. Anderson, 'Ex-vivo whole blood secretion of interferon (IFN)-γ and IFN-γ-inducible protein-10 measured by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay are as sensitive as IFN-γ enzyme-linked immunospot for the detection of gluten-reactive T cells in human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-DQ2·5+-associated coeliac disease', Clinical&Experimental Immunology Volume 175, Issue 2, February 2014, Pages: 305–315. DOI: 10.1111/cei.12232. Source: Walter and Eliza Hall Institute


    Comments

    And we talked about it earlier mentioning this blood test. That's great, a test COULD do it, easy...

    But for now my physician, who does not read English scientific literature or press release, has not even a clue about the symptoms I am suffering from, and doesn't even believe in anything that could be caused by wheat flour... He's not that old, not that young either, he's not a super physician, he's the one I can see where I am located. What do I do with this test if I cannot take it though?

    Should I keep on suffering the same painful symptoms? Until one day eventually a national general press release get to inform my physician about the abstract general fact? And mind you, he might as well have all sorts of preventions about it still at that point, because of the absurd ideal-scientism lobbying of someone who has got hidden interests in the GMO industry...

    Hank
    because of the absurd ideal-scientism lobbying of someone who has got hidden interests in the GMO industry...
    You were going all fine until you devolved into conspiracy theory. Sorry, but this does not hold up. You need to show some evidence that everyone who disagrees with your self diagnosis is being bought off. While I agree some doctors are not evidence-based and can't keep up with the latest literature, just like anyone else, you seem to not like your doctor because he doesn't do symptom-based medicine.  And good doctors stopped doing that 50 years ago.
    You have a point, I admit you are right about the fact that I have no proof of anything concerning this alleged collusion, and I add I don't care about it at all.

    There are sometimes conspiracies, but they usually are revealed sooner or later and become public scandals. No such thing here. But the way the national (and worldwide nowadays) press works out its matters and chew its bones is the way it is and you hardly can ignore it unless you are very very naive or biases in your view in some way : if you call (at your turn) again and again a conspiracy the fact that many more people start eating gluten free, you cannot be surprised in the end that some idea of your argument is being retained by the press, the general public, and soon the physicians themselves who are also part of the general public.

    So you have a responsibility in this question to know if tomorrow people who are really suffering from something like a possible sensibility to gluten, are denied medical procedures because of his lobbying you pursue for a long time now. You have a responsibility in the fact that your scientism applied to human sociology (call this human matter medicine in most cases throughout the world, even if it can be considered indeed 50 years late on the program, that's the way physicians do heal their patients outside the advanced areas where we live) may well in fact promote an epidemiology of under-diagnosed, denied, or simply ignored, more or less serious celiac troubles.

    Laying the stress on this new blood test is a good idea, but think about it, it won't reach the pharmacy shelves for the general public for a good decade certainly, and as far as you are concerned as an opinion maker and a public writer, it would still depend on your pursuit or not of the fad theory bs.

    Be it only about the right to be right, it wouldn't matter, but as these unrecognised various sensibilities to environmental factors like the gluten engage the health of billions of people in the developing world today and tomorrow, is not only neutral to reduce such or such mass phenomenon to a fashion, because it has and will have a massive impact on public health, including lives shortened, poor comfort in the crucial every day aspect of fooding, and delays in the public health response to these phenomenons.

    You will disagree, but you can also temper your ill destined message about this question, and moderate your own opinion and the way you treat this question without regards towards the possible longer term consequences of your writings. If you don't moderate your view in some way, and I'm sure you will (beyond your response which is the usual game of arguing and treating names, no offence taken nor meant), you would be called a fanatic because of this blind scientism with some accuracy, and the world would be a worse place in the end because of that.

    If the world is what you make it, then the least obligation you have is not to make it worst. (And I'm certain this question will be regarded as well beyond our personal ids, for you are read very far from your loan if you mind..)