Blood Test Question - Are There Different Reference Limits For Gluten Intolerance Versus Celiac?

[Tim86]

I recently received my results from blood testing for Celiac. They are calling the results "negative for Celiac", since everything is within their reference limits. Are the limits different for gluten intolerance? For example, on the IgA, let's imagine there were a limit of 200 to indicate intolerance, but you have to be over 400 to call it Celiac. If that were true, I would be positive for gluten intolerance (I had a 247). Just wondering...because it seems that gluten intolerance is simply a milder version of Celiac.

My results:

Tiss Transglutamin IgA - 1 U/mL (0-3 reference)

Tiss Transglutamin IgG - 1 U/mL (0-3 reference)

Anti-Gliadin IgG Ab - 2.4 U/mL (0-10 reference)

Anti-Gliadin IgA Ab - 3.3 U/mL (0-10 reference)

Endomysial IgA Ab - Negative

IgA - 247 MG/DL (70-400 reference)

[Korwyn]

I recently received my results from blood testing for Celiac. They are calling the results "negative for Celiac", since everything is within their reference limits. Are the limits different for gluten intolerance? For example, on the IgA, let's imagine there were a limit of 200 to indicate intolerance, but you have to be over 400 to call it Celiac. If that were true, I would be positive for gluten intolerance (I had a 247). Just wondering...because it seems that gluten intolerance is simply a milder version of Celiac.

My results:

Tiss Transglutamin IgA - 1 U/mL (0-3 reference)

Tiss Transglutamin IgG - 1 U/mL (0-3 reference)

Anti-Gliadin IgG Ab - 2.4 U/mL (0-10 reference)

Anti-Gliadin IgA Ab - 3.3 U/mL (0-10 reference)

Endomysial IgA Ab - Negative

IgA - 247 MG/DL (70-400 reference)

Gluten intolerance is not just a milder version of Celiac. Celiac is a auto-immune disease triggered secondary to a pathological response to the gluten protein. Simple gluten intolerance will not cause auto-immune disorder. However that said, GI can be a sickening as celiac disease and can lead to a host of other issues such as leaky gut, which can cause a huge number of secondary or tertiary related conditions, not the least of which are nutrient deficiencies.

[nora-n]

This IgA test here is not a celiac test per se, it is to check if you are IgA deficient. 10% are IgA deficient and in that case, the IgA version of the tests here (ttg IgA, Antigliadin IgA) are not valid since the total Ig is low.

Yours is normal I think.

Note that your tests have a number, they are not 0, maybe that means something.

Those tests are calibrated so they do not turn positive until there is a lot of gut damage. Usually it is hard or impossible to detect early celiac. Scientists have tested relatives of celiacs over a period of years, and first the antigliadin IgG tests turned positive, then the others. (that is shy doctors regard those tests for unreliable, because they can tur out positive even though the biopsy is still negative)

[Tim86]

Gluten intolerance is not just a milder version of Celiac. Celiac is a auto-immune disease triggered secondary to a pathological response to the gluten protein. Simple gluten intolerance will not cause auto-immune disorder.

If they are not the same thing, then does gluten intolerance require the same "all or nothing" approach to a gluten-free diet as Celiac? For example, if you unknowingly consume a small amount of gluten, is it not as big of a deal if you are gluten intolerant, compared to if you had Celiac?

[elle's mom]

Good question Tim86, I am wondering the same thing. If a "gluten-intolerant" person cannot be detected by antibodies or endoscopy, even though they have symptoms, wouldn't it stand to reason that simply lowering the gluten intake enough to alleviate symptoms would be OK, since there isn't an actual autoimmune component harming their intestines? Does anyone know the answer to this?

[ang1e0251]

I don't think there is a consensus on this question. I understood it to be the way you described when I started out but since then I have read so many opposing medical opinions that I don't know who is right. I tend to think, just my personal opinion, the GI is the starting point to further damage that can at the correct point of intestinal damage be labeled as celiac disease. And how do we know which tests are accurate or not, or interpreted correctly or not. It seems like kind of a crap shoot to me.

If I suspected I was GI, I think I would try to be concientous about the diet. Just because dr's might now say you aren't sustaining other damage, doesn't mean I believe that. After all you are experiencing strong symptoms and how can that be if there is no kind of inflammation or damage. And it wasn't that long ago that Dr's said children could be healed from celiac disease and go back to eating gluten. Many have been harmed by that advice.

[jamied]

i just received fibromyalgia diagnosis few months ago after 10yrs of off/on problems.

it was severe enough around Good Friday that I ultimately could not climb the stairs in my house, my bf had to carry me!!??

since the diagnosis i been doing ALOT of reading...

was my ingestion of gluten causing my inflammatory markers to be high from last October to May??

i have stopped eating 99% of all gluten (except that lil bit that gets thru the ingredient detection radar, lol)

and have had REMARKABLE results to date.

so, will i benefit frm genetic testing??

i am UNWILLING to begin consuming gluten again.

side note: i used to vomit on a daily basis for no apparent reason at all....since childhood,

after 32yrs of getting sick, i have not been nausea or vomited since going gluten-free.

crazy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

ive had brain scans, mri, cat scans, nuclear testing etc....im thinking this is what was making me sick!

[JennyC]

Note that your tests have a number, they are not 0, maybe that means something.

Those tests are calibrated so they do not turn positive until there is a lot of gut damage. Usually it is hard or impossible to detect early celiac. Scientists have tested relatives of celiacs over a period of years, and first the antigliadin IgG tests turned positive, then the others. (that is shy doctors regard those tests for unreliable, because they can tur out positive even though the biopsy is still negative)

Only numbers above the reference range are indicative of celiac disease. The values seen within the reference ranges can frequently be seen in the healthy population, and it also gives a little "wiggle room" for slight error that may be inherent in the test or differences between technologists in their reporting.