Diagnostic characteristics of anti-endomysial antibody in the diagnosis of celiac disease-A multicenter prospective observational study.

IF 0.5
Alka Kumari, Aditya V Pachisia, Sanjay Kumar, Divya Sharma, Anam Ahmed, Sonu Sharma, Ashish Chauhan, Rimlee Dutta, Prasenjit Das, Sushil Falodia, Saroj K Sinha, Vineet Ahuja, Govind K Makharia
{"title":"Diagnostic characteristics of anti-endomysial antibody in the diagnosis of celiac disease-A multicenter prospective observational study.","authors":"Alka Kumari, Aditya V Pachisia, Sanjay Kumar, Divya Sharma, Anam Ahmed, Sonu Sharma, Ashish Chauhan, Rimlee Dutta, Prasenjit Das, Sushil Falodia, Saroj K Sinha, Vineet Ahuja, Govind K Makharia","doi":"10.4103/ijpm.ijpm_1027_25","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Anti-endomysial antibody (EMA) has demonstrated high specificity and reasonable sensitivity for the diagnosis of celiac disease (CeD). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EMA in our patients with CeD.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>In this prospective study, we included patients of treatment-naïve CeD as cases who were recruited under an Indian National CeD Biorepository and had already tested positive for IgA anti-tTG, hence diagnosed as CeD based on standard criteria. Patients with other enteropathies, functional dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease, in whom IgA anti-tTG was negative, were taken as controls. Both cases and controls underwent testing for EMA using an immunofluorescence-based assay (Inova Diagnostic, USA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The mean age of patients with CeD and controls was 28.3 ± 12.2 and 35.5 ± 10.72, respectively ( P < 0.001). EMA was positive in only 50.9% (141 of 277) patients with CeD, while in the control group, 1 out of 90 (1.1%) had positive EMA. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 50.9, 98.9, 99.3, and 39.6%, respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio, positive LR, and negative LR were 92.3, 45.8, and 0.49, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>EMA test has high specificity and low sensitivity. Only half of adult CeD patients had positive EMA.</p>","PeriodicalId":502106,"journal":{"name":"Indian journal of pathology & microbiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian journal of pathology & microbiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ijpm.ijpm_1027_25","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Anti-endomysial antibody (EMA) has demonstrated high specificity and reasonable sensitivity for the diagnosis of celiac disease (CeD). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of EMA in our patients with CeD.

Materials and methods: In this prospective study, we included patients of treatment-naïve CeD as cases who were recruited under an Indian National CeD Biorepository and had already tested positive for IgA anti-tTG, hence diagnosed as CeD based on standard criteria. Patients with other enteropathies, functional dyspepsia and gastroesophageal reflux disease, in whom IgA anti-tTG was negative, were taken as controls. Both cases and controls underwent testing for EMA using an immunofluorescence-based assay (Inova Diagnostic, USA). Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated.

Results: The mean age of patients with CeD and controls was 28.3 ± 12.2 and 35.5 ± 10.72, respectively ( P < 0.001). EMA was positive in only 50.9% (141 of 277) patients with CeD, while in the control group, 1 out of 90 (1.1%) had positive EMA. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 50.9, 98.9, 99.3, and 39.6%, respectively. Diagnostic odds ratio, positive LR, and negative LR were 92.3, 45.8, and 0.49, respectively.

Conclusion: EMA test has high specificity and low sensitivity. Only half of adult CeD patients had positive EMA.

抗肌内膜抗体在乳糜泻诊断中的诊断特点——一项多中心前瞻性观察研究
背景:抗肌内膜抗体(EMA)对乳糜泻(CeD)的诊断具有较高的特异性和合理的敏感性。我们的目的是评估EMA在我们的CeD患者中的诊断准确性。材料和方法:在这项前瞻性研究中,我们纳入了treatment-naïve CeD患者作为病例,这些患者是在印度国家CeD生物库下招募的,并且已经检测出IgA抗ttg阳性,因此根据标准诊断为CeD。以IgA - ttg阴性的其他肠病、功能性消化不良、胃食管反流病患者为对照。病例和对照组均使用基于免疫荧光的测定法(美国Inova诊断公司)进行EMA检测。计算敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)和阴性预测值(NPV)。结果:CeD患者和对照组的平均年龄分别为28.3±12.2岁和35.5±10.72岁(P < 0.001)。277例CeD患者中仅有141例EMA阳性,而在对照组中,90例患者中有1例EMA阳性(1.1%)。敏感性、特异性、PPV和NPV分别为50.9、98.9、99.3和39.6%。诊断优势比、阳性LR和阴性LR分别为92.3、45.8和0.49。结论:EMA检测特异性高,灵敏度低。只有一半的成年CeD患者有EMA阳性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书