Journals / Online Türk Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2

Serological Markers in Suspected Celiac Disease: Diagnostic Performance and Age-Dependent Seroprevalence

Çölyak Şüphesi ile Başvuran Hastalarda Serolojik Belirteçler: Tanısal Performans ve Yaşa Bağlı Seroprevalans

Hüseyin Haydar Kutlu(Uşak University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Medical Microbiology)0000-0001-6616-046X
Betül Günaydın(Uşak Training and Research Hospital, Department of Medical Microbiology)0000-0001-9864-838X
Pages
190–195
Publication Date
2026-06-21
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Its use may be more appropriately restricted to specific clinical indications, such as the 0-2 age group or suspected IgA deficiency.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic concordance of Tissue Transglutaminase (tTG), Endomysium (EMA), and Deamidated Gliadin Peptide (DGP) antibodies in patients with suspected Celiac Disease (CD), to examine age-related changes in seropositivity, and to identify differences between pediatric and adult populations.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Materials and Methods: Data from 4.489 patients tested for suspected CD at the Medical Microbiology Laboratory of … Training and Research Hospital between May 2024 and December 2025 were retrospectively analyzed. tTG antibodies (IgA/IgG) were assayed by micro-ELISA, whereas EMA and DGP antibodies (IgA/IgG) by indirect immunofluorescence.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Its use may be more appropriately restricted to specific clinical indications, such as the 0-2 age group or suspected IgA deficiency.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Çölyak hastalığı · deamide gliadin peptit · doku transglutaminaz

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic concordance of Tissue Transglutaminase (tTG), Endomysium (EMA), and Deamidated Gliadin Peptide (DGP) antibodies in patients with suspected Celiac Disease (CD), to examine age-related changes in seropositivity, and to identify differences between pediatric and adult populations. Materials and Methods: Data from 4.489 patients tested for suspected CD at the Medical Microbiology Laboratory of … Training and Research Hospital between May 2024 and December 2025 were retrospectively analyzed. tTG antibodies (IgA/IgG) were assayed by micro-ELISA, whereas EMA and DGP antibodies (IgA/IgG) by indirect immunofluorescence. Data were analyzed using chi-square and Cohen’s Kappa (κ) tests. Results: Of the patients, 63.2% were female. Seropositivity for tTG IgA was detected in 89 patients (2.0%). This rate increased significantly with age, rising from 0.9% in the 0-2 age group to 2.7% in the >18 age group (p=0.006). DGP IgA positivity was significantly higher in the 3-18 age group (5.2%). While EMA IgA showed the highest concordance with tTG IgA (κ=0.752), DGP IgG concordance was weak (κ=0.238). Isolated DGP IgG positivity was observed in 8.5% of tTG IgA-negative patients. Conclusion: The 2.0% prevalence detected in symptomatic patients is significantly higher than screenings of healthy populations in Türkiye and increases with age. The combination of tTG IgA and EMA IgA demonstrates strong serological concordance. However, due to its high discordance rate, the routine inclusion of DGP IgG in screening panels appears to offer limited additional value and may increase discordance. Its use may be more appropriately restricted to specific clinical indications, such as the 0-2 age group or suspected IgA deficiency.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, Çölyak hastalığı (ÇH) şüphesi olan hastalarda Doku Transglutaminaz (tTG), Endomisyum (EMA) ve Deamide Gliadin Peptit (DGP) antikorlarının tanısal uyumunu değerlendirmek, seropozitifliğin yaşla değişimini incelemek ve pediatrik ile erişkin popülasyon arasındaki farkları ortaya koymaktır. Materyal ve Metot: Mayıs 2024 – Aralık 2025 tarihleri arasında … Eğitim ve Araştırma Hastanesi Tıbbi Mikrobiyoloji Laboratuvarı’nda ÇH şüphesiyle test edilen 4.489 hastanın verileri retrospektif olarak incelendi. tTG antikorları (IgA/IgG) mikro-ELISA, EMA ve DGP antikorları ise (IgA/IgG) indirekt immünofloresan yöntemiyle çalışıldı. Veriler ki-kare ve Cohen’s Kappa (κ) testleri ile analiz edildi. Bulgular: Hastaların %63,2’si kadındı. tTG IgA seropozitifliği 89 hastada (%2,0) saptandı. Bu oran 0-2 yaşta %0,9 iken >18 yaş grubunda %2,7’ye yükselerek yaşla anlamlı artış gösterdi (p=0,006). DGP IgA pozitifliği ise 3-18 yaş grubunda (%5,2) diğer yaş gruplarına göre anlamlı derecede yüksek bulundu. tTG IgA ile en yüksek uyumu EMA IgA (κ=0,752) gösterirken, DGP IgG uyumu zayıf (κ=0,238) saptandı. tTG IgA negatif olan hastaların %8,5’inde izole DGP IgG pozitifliği görüldü. Sonuç: Semptomatik hastalarda saptanan %2,0’lık prevalans, Türkiye’deki sağlıklı popülasyon taramalarına göre belirgin şekilde yüksektir ve yaşla artmaktadır. Tanıda tTG IgA ve EMA IgA kombinasyonu yüksek serolojik uyum göstermektedir. Ancak DGP IgG'nin tTG IgA ile yüksek uyumsuzluk oranı göz önüne alındığında, rutin tarama panellerine eklenmesinin sınırlı ek değer sunduğu görülmektedir. Kullanımının 0-2 yaş grubu veya IgA eksikliği şüphesi gibi spesifik klinik durumlarla sınırlandırılması daha ihtiyatlı bir yaklaşım olabilir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Kutlu, H. H., Günaydın, B. (2026). Serological Markers in Suspected Celiac Disease: Diagnostic Performance and Age-Dependent Seroprevalence. Online Türk Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 11 Sayı: 2, 190–195. https://doi.org/10.26453/otjhs.1861424

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (21)

  1. Ludvigsson JF, Leffler DA, Bai JC, et al. The Oslo definitions for coeliac disease and related terms. Gut. 2013;62(1):43-52. doi:10.1136/gutjnl-2011-301346
  2. King JA, Jeong J, Underwood FE, et al. Incidence of Celiac Disease Is Increasing Over Time: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2020;115(4):507-25. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000000523
  3. Singh P, Arora A, Strand TA, et al. Global Prevalence of Celiac Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018;16(6):823-36. doi:10.1016/j.cgh.2017.06.037
  4. Catassi C, Kryszak D, Louis-Jacques O, et al. Detection of Celiac disease in primary care: a multicenter case-finding study in North America. Am J Gastroenterol. 2007;102(7):1454-60. doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01173.x
  5. Schuppan D, Zimmer KP. The diagnosis and treatment of celiac disease. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2013;110(49):835-46. doi:10.3238/arztebl.2013.0835
  6. Husby S, Koletzko S, Korponay-Szabo I, et al. European Society Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition Guidelines for Diagnosing Coeliac Disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2020;70(1):141-56. doi:10.1097/MPG.0000000000002497
  7. Volta U, Fabbri A, Parisi C, et al. Old and new serological tests for celiac disease screening. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2010;4(1):31-5. doi:10.1586/egh.09.66
  8. Al-Toma A, Volta U, Auricchio R, et al. European Society for the Study of Coeliac Disease (ESsCD) guideline for coeliac disease and other gluten-related disorders. United European Gastroenterol J. 2019;7(5):583-613. doi:10.1177/2050640619844125
  9. Doyle JB, Silvester J, Ludvigsson JF, Lebwohl B. Advances in the pathophysiology, diagnosis, and management of celiac disease. BMJ. 2025;391:e081353. doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081353
  10. Al-Toma A, Zingone F, Branchi F, et al. European Society for the Study of Coeliac Disease 2025 Updated Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Management of Coeliac Disease in Adults. Part 1: Diagnostic Approach. United European Gastroenterol J. 2025;13(10):1855-86. doi:10.1002/ueg2.70119
  11. Karakaya S KI, Yıldırım AM, Bulur O, Uzman M, Beyan E. The Invisible Part of “ICEBERG”:Extraintestinal Findings and Celiac Disease. Turk J Clin Lab. 2022;1:64-70. doi:10.18663/tjcl.1039075
  12. Sahin Y. Celiac disease in children: A review of the literature. World J Clin Pediatr. 2021;10(4):53-71. doi:10.5409/wjcp.v10.i4.53
  13. Sahin Y, Sevinc E, Varol FI, Akbulut UE, Bayrak NA, Bukulmez A. Diagnostic delay in children with coeliac disease: a national multicentre study in Turkey. BMC Gastroenterol. 2026. doi: 10.1186/s12876-026-04639-2. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 41572164
  14. Rubio-Tapia A, Hill ID, Semrad C, et al. American College of Gastroenterology Guidelines Update: Diagnosis and Management of Celiac Disease. Am J Gastroenterol. 2023;118(1):59-76. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000002075
  15. Comba A, Eren NB, Demir E. Prevalence of celiac disease among school-age children in Corum, Turkey. Turk J Gastroenterol. 2018;29(5):595-600. doi: 10.5152/tjg.2018.18020
  16. Ertekin V, Selimoglu MA, Kardas F, Aktas E. Prevalence of celiac disease in Turkish children. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2005;39(8):689-91. doi:10.1097/01.mcg.0000174026.26838.56
  17. Arslan M, Özkeçeci F, Yaprak D, Balamtekin N. Kronik kabızlığı olan çocuklarda çölyak hastalığı taraması akılcı bir yaklaşım mı? The Turkish Journal of Academic Gastroenterology. 2023;22:98-102. doi: https://doi.org/10.17941/agd.1321313
  18. Meena M, Narang M, Meena RK, Aggarwal A. Prevalence and Predictors of Celiac Disease in Children With Constipation. Indian Pediatr. 2024;61(4):331-36.
  19. Sahin Y, Sahin S, Barut K, et al. Serological screening for coeliac disease in patients with juvenile idiopathic arthritis. Arab J Gastroenterol. 2019;20(2):95-98. doi:10.1016/j.ajg.2019.05.005
  20. Elsurer R, Tatar G, Simsek H, Balaban YH, Aydinli M, Sokmensuer C. Celiac disease in the Turkish population. Dig Dis Sci. 2005;50(1):136-42. doi: 10.1007/s10620-005-1291-z
  21. Vilppula A, Kaukinen K, Luostarinen L, et al. Increasing prevalence and high incidence of celiac disease in elderly people: a population-based study. BMC Gastroenterol. 2009;9:49 doi:10.1186/1471-230X-9-49