Jump to content
This site uses cookies. Continued use is acceptance of our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. More Info... ×

  • Welcome to Celiac.com!

    You have found your celiac tribe! Join us and ask questions in our forum, share your story, and connect with others.



  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A1):

    Celiac.com Sponsor (A1-M):

  • Get Celiac.com Updates:
    Support Our Content
    eNewsletter
    Donate

Reliability Of Blood Tests In Toddlers

covsooze

Recommended Posts

covsooze Enthusiast
covsooze
Posted

DS was screened after I got my dx and his blood tests were negative. that was at the beginning of the year when he was coming up to 3. I know there's always an issue of false negatives, but I was wondering - is the chance of a false negative increased when kids are young? If he was tested again now (assuming he does have celiac disease) is it more likely to be positive? What concerns me is that, for the past 6-8 weeks, he's had very loose bms (not quite D) with undigested food in at times. He's also been complaining of stomach ache a lot. It's often after he drinks milk or eats something with gluten in. I'm thinking of doing the enterolab testing so that he doesn't have to have another blood test. How reliable is that in little kids?

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):


dahams04 Apprentice
dahams04
Posted
DS was screened after I got my dx and his blood tests were negative. that was at the beginning of the year when he was coming up to 3. I know there's always an issue of false negatives, but I was wondering - is the chance of a false negative increased when kids are young? If he was tested again now (assuming he does have celiac disease) is it more likely to be positive? What concerns me is that, for the past 6-8 weeks, he's had very loose bms (not quite D) with undigested food in at times. He's also been complaining of stomach ache a lot. It's often after he drinks milk or eats something with gluten in. I'm thinking of doing the enterolab testing so that he doesn't have to have another blood test. How reliable is that in little kids?

I dont think they are reliable at all! My son (3) was biopsied first w/ positive results then had a blood test and it showed no Celiac! So now I question my other sons blood work. He is showing some syptoms now but his blood work came back normal... I say its not even worth it now! I have no faith in the labs at this point. GL to you though. I can tell you my neice (5) did show pos. blood tests a few weeks ago. So I'm not sure where they age is where it becomes more reliable. HTH!!

High-Tech Mom Rookie
High-Tech Mom
Posted

The blood tests aren't reliable. My child, who had classic celiac symptoms, was tested around 3 and everything came back inconclusive, even the hailed Promethius genetics test came back negative. We re-tested at 5 and the blood tests indicated a severe reaction to gluten. Even the genetics blood test was re-ordered with a different lab and that came out positive.

From our experience, testing in the toddler years is inaccurate, and possibly testing at any age inaccurate. Celiac disease/gluten intolerance has to progress to significant damage before it can be detected with blood tests. We will be using EnteroLab for further testing. It's less invasive and claims to detect the disease earlier than the blood tests.

Good luck.

ravenwoodglass Mentor
ravenwoodglass
Posted
From our experience, testing in the toddler years is inaccurate, and possibly testing at any age inaccurate. Celiac disease/gluten intolerance has to progress to significant damage before it can be detected with blood tests. We will be using EnteroLab for further testing. It's less invasive and claims to detect the disease earlier than the blood tests.

Good luck.

I have to agree with this. Relying on blood tests as a adult delayed my diagnosis by many years. No doctor ever told me anything about the diet other than I should be glad the tests were negative because I wouldn't be able to eat anything. :angry: The blood tests are horribly unreliable even for adults but for children it is even more of a 'crap shoot'. I would go either with enterolab or dietary exclusion.

covsooze Enthusiast
covsooze
Posted
  • Author

Thanks everyone. It's true - I had the blood test atfer my sister was diagnosed as I'd had stomach problems for a while. It was negative. I wish I'd known about this board at the time! 5 years later and I retested having become quite ill - the GI said no one could fail to diagnose me from either my bloods or the endo! I think I'll go with enterolab as it's not invasive. Just have to persude DH that we should shell out the money!

gerharts Newbie
gerharts
Posted

Hi all, i'm a newbie..or at least I think I am! It never really occurred to me that a blood test could be unreliable. my daughter is 5 yrs old weighing 28 lbs 36". with not health issues to be concerned about other than the low weight/height. my primary dr. sent me to an endocronologist..who ran a battery of blood test with a positive for celiacs..while the norm range is 20 (or so i was told), her test came back with 40. We just came back from the gastro. Dr. and he drew more blood to do more detailed testing. Stefanie has no symptons other than the low weight/height..i have the endoscopy scheduled for 9/26..Oh, Yeah; i believe she was tested for celiacs at age 3 and that was negative..am still awaiting the results from the detailed testing..looking for advise as to whether i should put her through the torture of the endoscopy. I'm having difficulty believing she has celiacs as she does not have any GI issues. apologize for being long!

any insight would be appreciated.

liz

gerharts Newbie
gerharts
Posted
The blood tests aren't reliable. My child, who had classic celiac symptoms, was tested around 3 and everything came back inconclusive, even the hailed Promethius genetics test came back negative. We re-tested at 5 and the blood tests indicated a severe reaction to gluten. Even the genetics blood test was re-ordered with a different lab and that came out positive.

From our experience, testing in the toddler years is inaccurate, and possibly testing at any age inaccurate. Celiac disease/gluten intolerance has to progress to significant damage before it can be detected with blood tests. We will be using EnteroLab for further testing. It's less invasive and claims to detect the disease earlier than the blood tests.

Good luck.

To High-Tech Mom

I'm new & I posted lasted night about the above issue. Would you mind taking a look at Posting #6?, could really use some feedback!

Regards,

Liz

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):
Celiac.com Sponsor (A8):

Celiac.com Sponsor (A8-M):


Guest nini
Guest nini
Posted
Hi all, i'm a newbie..or at least I think I am! It never really occurred to me that a blood test could be unreliable. my daughter is 5 yrs old weighing 28 lbs 36". with not health issues to be concerned about other than the low weight/height. my primary dr. sent me to an endocronologist..who ran a battery of blood test with a positive for celiacs..while the norm range is 20 (or so i was told), her test came back with 40. We just came back from the gastro. Dr. and he drew more blood to do more detailed testing. Stefanie has no symptons other than the low weight/height..i have the endoscopy scheduled for 9/26..Oh, Yeah; i believe she was tested for celiacs at age 3 and that was negative..am still awaiting the results from the detailed testing..looking for advise as to whether i should put her through the torture of the endoscopy. I'm having difficulty believing she has celiacs as she does not have any GI issues. apologize for being long!

any insight would be appreciated.

liz

many people with Celiac are completely asymptomatic and only find out they have celiac through screening because a first degree relative was dx'ed with it. Testing for gluten intolerance/Celiac is unreliable because of the high rate of false negatives, meaning that there are a lot of us who tested negative for years only to continue to get sicker and sicker until we finally accumulated enough damage for it to register on the tests. If the tests are positive then yes it's a done deal, but if the tests are negative, it only means they are "not positive"

my daughter was tested at three after my dx of celiac, and her tests were negative (or not positive) but after she continued to have tummy issues and diarrhea and vomiting as well as unexplained hives, I got her pediatrician to support us in a trial of the gluten-free diet. The response was miraculous and now at six she is a very healthy kid. So what that her "official" dx is gluten intolerance, I believe that by getting her gluten-free early we have prevented her from developing full blown celiac like her mother and therefore prevented her from suffering from the same kinds of illnesses I suffered with for years.

chrissy Collaborator
chrissy
Posted

liz----an endoscopy is not torture for them, they don't remember a thing. but, if you are wary of it, you can always just try the diet and see if her growth improves.

High-Tech Mom Rookie
High-Tech Mom
Posted
To High-Tech Mom

I'm new & I posted lasted night about the above issue. Would you mind taking a look at Posting #6?, could really use some feedback!

Regards,

Liz

Hello Liz,

Which of your daughter's blood tests came back positive? I agree with nini's feedback - positive results for gluten intolerance are positive, negatives can still be positive. Sound like your daughter has a severe enough gluten intolerance that it is showing up on the blood tests. I don't think that she can get an "official" diagnosis of celiac disease without a biopsy, but does have a diagnosis (at this point) of gluten intolerance (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

Either way, sounds like damage is occurring internally, and getting your daughter gluten-free will help improve her health and reduce her risk of getting other celiac-related diseases such as diabetes, osteoperosis, etc.

We are struggling ourselves as to how to proceed with our kids. My oldest child, now 5, has enough positive results with blood tests, genetic tests and symptoms that we don't feel a biopsy is necessary to diagnose celiac disease. Currently, the rest of the family is getting tested - blood tests, genetic tests and even EnteroLab tests. Properly diagnosing our 3 year old is more difficult. We don't want to uncecessarily put our 3-year old on the gluten-free diet, but we also don't want to just sit and wait for our child to have severe intestinal damage before taking action.

Read Dr. Fine's essay, he is pioneering research in this area and explains the pitfalls of the current methods of testing and diagnosis of celiac disease: Open Original Shared Link

I don't know what to tell you regarding whether to proceed with the biopsy or not. The biopsy is hit-or-miss. Your daughter could have an inconclusive biopsy - what will you do then? On the other hand, a biopsy might confirm celiac disease for you, and possibly uncover other co-existing conditions.

Good luck to you!

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A19):


  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      128,014
    • Most Online (within 30 mins)
      7,748
    Beki
    Newest Member
    Beki
    Joined
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A20):

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      121k
    • Total Posts
      70.6k
  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A22):



  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Celiac.com Sponsor (A21):


  • Upcoming Events

  • Posts

    • trents
      How many people here are aware that there are 9 types of gluten that Celiacs should be aware of?

      By trents · Posted

      The NIH article you link actually supports what I have been trying to explain to you: "Celiac disease (celiac disease) is an autoimmune-mediated enteropathy triggered by dietary gluten in genetically prone individuals. The current treatment for celiac disease is a strict lifelong gluten-free diet. However, in some celiac disease patients following a strict gluten-free diet, the symptoms do not remit. These cases may be refractory celiac disease or due to gluten contamination; however, the lack of response could be related to other dietary ingredients, such as maize, which is one of the most common alternatives to wheat used in the gluten-free diet. In some celiac disease patients, as a rare event, peptides from maize prolamins could induce a celiac-like immune response by similar or alternative pathogenic mechanisms to those used by wheat gluten peptides. This is supported by several shared features between wheat and maize prolamins and by some experimental results. Given that gluten peptides induce an immune response of the intestinal mucosa both in vivo and in vitro, peptides from maize prolamins could also be tested to determine whether they also induce a cellular immune response. Hypothetically, maize prolamins could be harmful for a very limited subgroup of celiac disease patients, especially those that are non-responsive, and if it is confirmed, they should follow, in addition to a gluten-free, a maize-free diet." Notice that those for whom it is suggested to follow a maize-free diet are a "very limited subgroup of celiac disease patients". Please don't try to make your own experience normative for the entire celiac community.  Notice also that the last part of the concluding sentence in the paragraph does not equate a gluten-free diet with a maize-free diet, it actually puts them in juxtaposition to one another. In other words, they are different but for a "limited subgroup of celiac disease patients" they produce the same or a similar reaction. You refer to celiac reactions to cereal grain prolamins as "allergic" reactions and "food sensitivity". For instance, you say, "NIH sees all these grains as in opposition to celiacs, of which I am one and that is science, not any MD with a good memory who overprescribes medications that contain known food allergens in them, of which they have zero knowledge if the patient is in fact allergic to or not, since they failed to do simple 'food sensitivity' testing" and "IF a person wants to get well, they should be the one to determine what grains they are allergic to and what grains they want to leave out, not you. I need to remind you that celiac disease is not an allergy, it is an autoimmune disorder. Neither allergy testing nor food sensitivity testing can be used to diagnose celiac disease. Allergy testing and food sensitivity testing cannot detect the antibodies produced by celiac disease in reaction to gluten ingestion.  You say of me, "You must be one of those who are only gluten intolerant . . ." Gluten intolerance is synonymous with celiac disease. You must be referring to gluten sensitivity or NCGS (Non Celiac Gluten Sensitivity). Actually, I have been officially diagnosed with celiac disease both by blood antibody testing and by endoscopy/positive biopsy. Reacting to all cereal grain prolamins does not define celiac disease. If you are intent on teaching the truth, please get it straight first.
    • Bebygirl01
      How many people here are aware that there are 9 types of gluten that Celiacs should be aware of?

      By Bebygirl01 · Posted

      Perhaps you would still like to answer the questions I posed on this topic, because that is all I asked. I am curious to know the answers to those questions, I do not care about the background of Dr. Osborne as I am more aware of the situation than you are, and he is also one of the best known authors out there on Celiac disease. But did you even bother to read the three Research Papers I posted by NIH? You must be one of those who are only gluten intolerant and not yet reacting to all glutens aka grains, but I AM one of those who react to ALL the glutens, and again, that is one of the two questions I originally posted on this matter. NIH sees all these grains as in opposition to celiacs, of which I am one and that is science, not any MD with a good memory who overprescribes medications that contain known food allergens in them, of which they have zero knowledge if the patient is in fact allergic to or not, since they failed to do simple 'food sensitivity' testing. I started with the failed FDA explanation of what Gluten Free is and I stayed sick and got even sicker. It wasn't until I came across NIH's papers and went off all grains that I realized that in fact, I am Celiac and reacting to all the glutens. IF a person wants to get well, they should be the one to determine what grains they are allergic to and what grains they want to leave out, not you. Those who are just getting started with learning about grains etc., can take it easy by just being "grain free' and eating a lot of meat, vegetables, etc. or whole foods as God has intended, without buying so called gluten free garbage out there that is making them sick and the whole reason they are not better. I tried the stupid gluten free garbage and it didn't work, and that will make anyone want to give up, it is better to teach the entire truth and let the patient decide, rather than give them misinformation and lies.
    • Nicola McGuire
      My son newly diagnosed

      By Nicola McGuire · Posted

      Thank you so much I will speak to the doctor for dietician apt . Thank you for your advice Beth much appreciated 
    • Scott Adams
      Celiac pain relief

      By Scott Adams · Posted

      Oh no, I'm sorry to hear about the accidental gluten! This article, and the comments below it, may be helpful:    
    • Karmmacalling
      Celiac pain relief

      By Karmmacalling · Posted

      I was born with celiac disease im 20 years old. And I've been gluten free my whole life. Yes my diet is 100 percent gluten free and no i don't eat at restaurants at all. I got glutened by a chips that was marked as gluten free but it wasn't the company said the packaging was old and the recipe was new. 
×
×
  • Create New...