Is there utility in testing IgA-endomysial antibodies in patients with weak-positive or equivocal IgA-tissue transglutaminase antibodies in the diagnosis of coeliac disease? A critique of current NICE guidance (NG20)

BackgroundCurrent coeliac disease (CD) NICE guidelines recommend testing IgA-endomysial antibodies (EMA) following a weak-positive IgA-tissue transglutaminase antibody (tTGA). Outside of patients with very high IgA-tTGA results, a positive IgA-EMA necessitates duodenal biopsy to confirm CD diagnosis, meaning a positive IgA-EMA does not alter the diagnostic pathway. Therefore, to be helpful, a negative IgA-EMA needs to reliably exclude CD.ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the negative predictive value (NPV) of IgA-EMA, following a weak-positive/positive IgA-tTGA, and to evaluate whether IgA-EMA result (positive or negative) affects duodenal biopsy rates.MethodsRetrospective patient cohort (<i>n</i> = 963) study of patients with IgA-EMA and IgA-tTGA testing, with or without evidence of duodenal biopsy. The NPV of IgA-EMA was assessed by comparison to duodenal biopsy. Duodenal biopsy rates were compared between patients with a positive/negative IgA-EMA (after positive/weak-positive IgA-tTGA).ResultsThe NPVs for CD of a negative IgA-EMA, in the context of a weak-positive or positive IgA-tTGA, were 41% and 0%, respectively (<i>n</i> = 45). There was a significant reduction in the proportion of patients who had a duodenal biopsy with a negative IgA-EMA (9.4%) compared to patients with a positive IgA-EMA (28.5%), following a positive/weak-positive IgA-tTGA (<i>n</i> = 963).ConclusionIgA-EMA does not reliably exclude CD following a positive/weak-positive IgA-tTGA result. Our data indicates that clinicians are utilizing a negative IgA-EMA, following a positive/weak-positive IgA-tTGA result, to inappropriately exclude CD. We recommend IgA-EMA be exclusively used in the context of a 'non-biopsy' approach to CD diagnosis, following a high positive IgA-tTGA, and that a negative IgA-EMA result should not be used to exclude CD in the context of a weak-positive/positive IgA-tTGA.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry International Journal of Laboratory Medicine
Published
2025-06-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00045632251350488
Primary Topic
Celiac Disease Research and Management
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Is there utility in testing IgA-endomysial antibodies in patients with weak-positive or equivocal IgA-tissue transglutaminase antibodies in the diagnosis of coeliac disease? A critique of current NICE guidance (NG20)

Amy Hayes, Philip Bright, Adrian Heaps, Alice Ogden et al.
Annals of Clinical Biochemistry International Journal of Laboratory Medicine
Celiac Disease Research and Management
article

Is there utility in testing IgA-endomysial antibodies in patients with weak-positive or equivocal IgA-tissue transglutaminase antibodies in the diagnosis of coeliac disease? A critique of current NICE guidance (NG20)

Amy Hayes, Philip Bright, Adrian Heaps, Alice Ogden, Samuel D. Brown, Newton A C S Wong, Jacqueline Hitchins
article en

Abstract

BackgroundCurrent coeliac disease (CD) NICE guidelines recommend testing IgA-endomysial antibodies (EMA) following a weak-positive IgA-tissue transglutaminase antibody (tTGA). Outside of patients with very high IgA-tTGA results, a positive IgA-EMA necessitates duodenal biopsy to confirm CD diagnosis, meaning a positive IgA-EMA does not alter the diagnostic pathway. Therefore, to be helpful, a negative IgA-EMA needs to reliably exclude CD.ObjectivesWe aimed to evaluate the negative predictive value (NPV) of IgA-EMA, following a weak-positive/positive IgA-tTGA, and to evaluate whether IgA-EMA result (positive or negative) affects duodenal biopsy rates.MethodsRetrospective patient cohort (<i>n</i> = 963) study of patients with IgA-EMA and IgA-tTGA testing, with or without evidence of duodenal biopsy. The NPV of IgA-EMA was assessed by comparison to duodenal biopsy. Duodenal biopsy rates were compared between patients with a positive/negative IgA-EMA (after positive/weak-positive IgA-tTGA).ResultsThe NPVs for CD of a negative IgA-EMA, in the context of a weak-positive or positive IgA-tTGA, were 41% and 0%, respectively (<i>n</i> = 45). There was a significant reduction in the proportion of patients who had a duodenal biopsy with a negative IgA-EMA (9.4%) compared to patients with a positive IgA-EMA (28.5%), following a positive/weak-positive IgA-tTGA (<i>n</i> = 963).ConclusionIgA-EMA does not reliably exclude CD following a positive/weak-positive IgA-tTGA result. Our data indicates that clinicians are utilizing a negative IgA-EMA, following a positive/weak-positive IgA-tTGA result, to inappropriately exclude CD. We recommend IgA-EMA be exclusively used in the context of a 'non-biopsy' approach to CD diagnosis, following a high positive IgA-tTGA, and that a negative IgA-EMA result should not be used to exclude CD in the context of a weak-positive/positive IgA-tTGA.

Annals of Clinical Biochemistry International Journal of Laboratory MedicineVol. 63(1)
North Bristol NHS Trust (GB), Royal Sussex County Hospital (GB), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust (GB), University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 80%
Celiac Disease Research and Management
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.