Secondary Logo

Journal Logo

Tissue Transglutaminase Antibodies Are a Useful Serological Marker for the Diagnosis of Celiac Disease in Patients With Down Syndrome

Shamaly, Hussein*,†; Hartman, Corina*; Pollack, Shimon; Hujerat, Mohammad; Katz, Rina; Gideoni, Osnat; Shamir, Raanan*

Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition: May 2007 - Volume 44 - Issue 5 - p 583–586
doi: 10.1097/MPG.0b013e3180320679
Original Articles: Gastroenterology

Background: Celiac disease (CD) is overrepresented among patients with Down syndrome (DS), who frequently lack any typical symptoms. Therefore, screening for CD is recommended in this high-risk group. The aim of the study was to determine the prevalence of CD in Arab children with DS and evaluate the contribution of immunoglobulin (Ig) A and IgG anti-gliadin antibodies (AGA), IgA and IgG tissue transglutaminase (TTG) antibodies, and IgA anti-endomysial antibodies (EMA) to screen for CD in children with DS.

Patients and Methods: A total of 52 Arab patients with DS and 52 healthy Arab control subjects were studied for CD using various serological markers. Data on age, sex, weight, height, gastrointestinal symptoms, and endocrine abnormalities were recorded. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA) was studied in patients undergoing small intestinal biopsy.

Results: Five patients with DS were IgA TTG–positive and only 1 patient with DS was IgG TTG–positive. EMA was negative in all patients with DS. TTG (IgA and IgG) and EMA were negative in all control children. IgA AGA was positive in 12 patients with DS and 3 control subjects (P = 0.02), whereas IgG AGA was positive in 41 patients with DS and 26 control subjects (P = 0.004). Only children testing positive for TTG underwent upper endoscopy with duodenal biopsy. Two children with DS were diagnosed with CD. Both patients were IgA TTG–positive. One was HLA DQ2–positive and another was negative for HLA DQ2 and DQ8.

Conclusions: CD is prevalent (3.8%) in Arab patients with DS. Based on our cohort, IgA TTG is useful in diagnosing patients with CD and DS.

*Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Meyer's Children Hospital

Pediatric Gastroenterology Unit, French Hospital, Nazareth

Institute of Clinical Immunology, Allergy & AIDS, Rambam Medical Center, Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel

Received 30 April, 2006

Accepted 11 November, 2006

Address correspondence and reprint requests to Raanan Shamir, MD, Division of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition, Meyer Children's Hospital of Haifa, Rambam Medical Center, PO Box 9602, Haifa 31096, Israel (e-mail:

Back to Top | Article Outline


Celiac disease (CD) is a gluten-dependent immune-mediated enteropathy characterized by a typical but not unique lesion of the small intestinal mucosa, permanent intolerance to gluten, and full recovery with a gluten-free diet (1,2). The prevalence of CD, based on screening populations with serological markers, ranges between 0.5% and 1.3% (3), and is significantly higher in the presence of several genetic conditions, such as Down syndrome (DS) (3).

Down syndrome, also known as trisomy 21, has been associated with several gastrointestinal disorders (eg, duodenal atresia, Hirschsprung disease) and immune disorders (eg, insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus, autoimmune thyroiditis, Sjogren syndrome). Since 1975, several studies have reported a significantly high prevalence of CD in patients with DS (4). Depending on the screening strategy, CD has been reported in 4% to 17% of children with DS (5–11).

CD is prevalent in Arab populations (12,13) and is underdiagnosed in high-risk groups (14). The prevalence of serological markers for CD in Arab children with DS was found to be higher than 10% in 1 study (15), but only 1 of the 27 patients described underwent intestinal biopsy. Our study aims were to examine the prevalence of CD in Arab children diagnosed with DS compared with healthy Arab control subjects and to evaluate the contribution of immunoglobulin (Ig) IgA and IgG anti-gliadin antibodies (AGA), IgA and IgG tissue transglutaminase (TTG) antibodies, and IgA anti-endomysial antibodies (EMA) to screening for CD in children with DS.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The study population included 52 Arab children with DS and 52 healthy Arab children who were recruited as control subjects. The local ethics committee approved the study protocol, and informed consent from children's parents or legal guardians was obtained before they were included in the study. Demographic and clinical data collected from each child included age, weight, height, gastrointestinal symptoms, and the presence of anemia or endocrine disorders.

In addition, 5 mL of venous blood was drawn for further analyses. The samples were centrifuged and stored at −80°C until testing. All of the samples were tested for IgA and IgG AGA, IgA and IgG TTG, and IgA EMA as described previously (16).

Immunoglobulin A and IgG antibodies against TTG were measured using a commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (Orgentec Diagnostika, Mainz, Germany) based on recombinant human TTG as an antigen. Values >15 U/mL were considered positive as established by the manufacturer.

Parents of children with positive TTG (IgA or IgG) were informed of these results and were advised to have their child undergo upper endoscopy with multiple duodenal biopsies. At that time, 5 mL of blood was drawn for DQ2 and DQ8 human leukocyte antigen (HLA) testing. In short, DNA typing was done to identify HLA DQB1*02 or DQB1*0302. Every case that was negative for both of these alleles was tested for DQA1*05.

The diagnosis of CD was established according to the current criteria published by the European Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition (17).

Back to Top | Article Outline

Statistical Analysis

Differences between groups were evaluated with a 2-tailed Student t test. For single parameters, the Fisher exact test was used. P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Back to Top | Article Outline


The demographic, anthropometric, and clinical data of the study participants are presented in Table 1. Overall, gastrointestinal symptoms were present in 8 children with DS and 2 healthy control subjects (P = 0.09, not significant). Anemia (P = 0.06, not significant) and thyroid disorders (P = 0.11, not significant) were present only in children with DS.



The prevalence of positive AGA (IgA or IgG) was significantly higher in patients with DS compared with healthy control subjects (Table 1). TTG antibodies (IgG or IgA) were detected only in patients with DS, whereas IgA EMA was negative in all of the children (Table 1).

Children with DS who had positive TTG serology findings (n = 6) were 11 ± 5.4 years of age and had normal nutritional status (body mass index, 19.3 ± 3). Two reported symptoms of abdominal pain, 1 had anemia, and 1 had hyperthyroidism. Their serological results, HLA status, and histological findings are presented in Table 2. Only 5 of the 6 patients with DS underwent endoscopy with duodenal biopsies and HLA testing. Two of the 5 patients tested had typical CD histology (3.8%), 1 was HLA DQ2–positive, and the other tested negative for DQ2 and DQ8.



Back to Top | Article Outline


This study investigated the value of different serological markers in the diagnosis of CD in children with DS. The main findings of this study are that IgA TTG is a useful marker when screening for CD in patients with DS. In addition, the prevalence of CD in Arab patients with DS (3.8%) was 3 to 4 times higher than the prevalence of CD among the general population, and was in the lower range of CD prevalence in patients with DS reported in the literature (5–11).

Various serological markers and strategies have been used to diagnose CD in patients with DS, including AGA, EMA, and TTG antibodies. Historically, AGAs were the first used for screening of CD, but these antibodies were found in a large percentage of patients with DS with normal mucosal histology (9,18,19). In our cohort 23% of patients with DS and 5% of control subjects were IgA AGA–positive, whereas 80% of patients with DS and 50% of control subjects were IgG AGA–positive. The existence of these antibodies in patients with DS with normal duodenal biopsy findings is probably the result of a general increase in immunoglobulin levels in these patients (20,21) related to an altered immune response or nonspecific mucosal anomalies resulting in gluten permeability (18,19). As a result of the high incidence of these antibodies in the general population and in patients with DS and because of the low specificity and sensitivity of these antibodies, intestinal biopsy based on screening with these antibodies is not recommended (19,22,23).

Tissue transglutaminase antibodies have been widely used in the last few years as a screening tool in the diagnosis of CD in the general population and in patients with DS because they are highly sensitive, inexpensive, and are easy to perform. In our study IgA TTG were positive in 9.6% of DS patients (5/52), whereas only 2 of these patients were diagnosed with CD (40%). Because the TTG-positive patients with normal histology were not available for follow-up, the true prevalence of CD in this cohort cannot be determined. Another obstacle to establishing the true prevalence of CD is that children with negative serological markers did not undergo biopsy. Because of this limitation, we could not calculate the sensitivity and specificity of the markers, but both had been reported to be high (24,25). Hansson et al had tested 52 DS patients and reported 98% sensitivity for IgA TTG, and similar results were found by Rumbo and colleagues (9,26). Recently, however, it was suggested that performance of TTG may be lower than previously reported and varies between laboratories (27). In that report sensitivity range was 40% to 86% and specificity was in the range of 42% to 100%. This may explain differences in the detection rate of patients with histological abnormalities between the various cohorts of DS patients.

Immunoglobulin G TTG was positive only in 1 patient with DS who had normal intestinal biopsy findings (but was HLA DQ2–positive), suggesting that IgG TTG is not useful in CD screening in patients with DS. These findings are in agreement with other investigators that showed these antibodies to be of low value in screening patients with DS as a result of low sensitivity and specificity (9,18,19). Rumbo et al found that 11 of 56 patients with DS were IgG TTG–positive but only 2 of 56 were IgA TTG–positive and were diagnosed with CD, indicating a high false-positive rate with these antibodies (9).

The prevalence of IgA deficiency among patients with CD is estimated to be 5% (2). Therefore, in our study design we elected to measure IgG AGA and IgG TTG rather than measure IgA levels as suggested by others (28,29). In addition, we performed these measurements (ie, total IgA) only in IgG AGA–positive or TTG-positive patients. The high prevalence of IgG AGA in both study groups and the low value of IgG TTG demonstrate such an algorithm to be impractical.

In this study IgA EMA was negative in patients with DS and control subjects. Thus, in our cohort, the use of EMA as the only screening marker would have missed the diagnosis of CD in the 2 patients who were IgA TTG–positive. EMAs are highly sensitive and specific serological markers for CD and have been used for screening in patients with DS and in the general population (5,19,23). However, several investigators have reported on patients diagnosed with CD with negative EMA, including a recent article that tested the prevalence of CD in Israel (16). We believe that the low sensitivity of EMA in our cohort is not a result of technical difficulties because in a cohort of infertile women treated by the same laboratory personnel and with the same equipment, EMA was more sensitive than TTG in the diagnosis of CD (14). Nevertheless, the possibility that the EMA-negative, IgA TTG–positive cases do not represent true CD cannot be ruled out.

More than 90% of patients with CD carry a variant of HLA-DQ2 and the rest carry HLA-DQ8. In patients who are positive for these HLA haplotypes, repeated serological marker testing is recommended (18,19,30–33), and it has been suggested that follow-up of patients with DS may be based on HLA testing (30). In our cohort 1 patient with DS diagnosed with CD did not have a classical HLA allotype, suggesting that such a strategy may miss patients with DS and CD. In agreement with our observation, it was recently reported that patients with DS may have typical histological findings without the typical HLA DQ allotype (34). However, in that study, only HLA-DQA1*0501 and DQB1*0201 were examined.

In summary, our study shows that IgA TTG is useful in diagnosing patients with CD and DS and that, similar to the findings of previous studies, there is a high prevalence of positive CD serology with compatible histology in these patients.

Back to Top | Article Outline


1. Walker-Smith JA. Celiac disease. In: Walker WA, Durie PR, Hamilton JR, et al., editors. Pediatric Gastrointestinal Disease. 3rd ed Hamilton, ON: BC Decker; 2000. pp. 727–746.
2. Farrell R, Kelly C. Celiac sprue. N Engl J Med 2002; 346:180–188.
3. Shamir R. Advances in celiac disease. Gastroenterol Clin North Am 2003; 32:931–947.
4. Bentley D. A case of Down syndrome complicated by retinoblastoma and celiac disease. Pediatrics 1975; 56:131–133.
5. Carlsson A, Axelsson I, Borulf S, et al. Prevalence of IgA-antigladin and IgA-antiendomesial antibodies related to celiac disease in children with Down syndrome. Pediatrics 1998; 101:272–275.
6. George EK, Mearin ML, Bouquet J, et al. High frequency of celiac disease in Down syndrome. J Pediatr 1996; 128:555–557.
7. Failla P, Ruberto C, Pagano MC, et al. Celiac disease in Down's syndrome with HLA serological and molecular studies. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1996; 23:303–306.
8. Bonamico M, Mariani P, Danesi HM, et al. Prevalence and clinical picture of celiac disease in Italian Down syndrome patients: a multicenter study. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2001; 33:139–143.
9. Rumbo M, Chirdo FG, Ben R, et al. Evaluation of celiac disease markers in Down syndrome patients. Dig Liver Dis 2002; 34:116–121.
10. Cogulu O, Ozkinay F, Gunduz C, et al. Celiac disease in children with Down syndrome: importance of follow-up and serological screening. Pediatr Int 2003; 45:395–399.
11. Sciberras C, Vella C, Grech V. The prevalence of celiac disease in Down syndrome in Malta. Ann Trop Paediatr 2004; 24:81–83.
12. Rawashdeh MO, Khalil B, Raweily E. Celiac disease in Arabs. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 1996; 23:415–418.
13. Al-Tawaty AI, Elbargathy SM. Coeliac disease in northeastern Libya. Ann Trop Paediatr 1998; 18:27–30.
14. Shamaly H, Mahameed A, Sharony A, et al. Infertility and celiac disease: do we need more than one serological marker? Acta Obst Gynecol Scand 2004; 83:1184–1188.
15. Zitouni M, Gharbi Yermani M, Laadhar Kharrat L, et al. Prevalence of serological markers in celiac disease in trisomy 21 in Tunisia. Ann Biol Clin 2003; 61:673–677.
16. Shamir R, Lerner A, Shinar E, et al. The use of a single serological marker underestimates the prevalence of celiac disease in Israel: a prevalence study of blood donors. Am J Gastroenterol 2002; 97:2589–2594.
17. Walker-Smith JA, Guandalini S, Schmitz J, et al. Revised criteria for the diagnosis of celiac disease. Arch Dis Child 1990; 65:909–911.
18. Agardh D, Nilsson A, Carlsson A, et al. Tissue transglutaminase autoantibodies and human leucocytes antigen in Down's syndrome patients with celiac disease. Acta Paediatr 2002; 91:34–38.
19. Bonamico M. Which is the best screening test for celiac disease in Down syndrome children? J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2005; 40:125–127.
20. Balaita C, Christodorescu D, Gherghina I, et al. Humoral immunity in Down's syndrome. Rom J Neurol Psychiatry 1992; 30:55–61.
21. Nespoli L, Burgio GR, Ugazio AG, et al. Immunological features of Down's syndrome: a review. J Intellect Disabil Res 1993; 37:543–551.
22. Lagerqvist C, Ivarsson A, Juto P, et al. Screening for adult coeliac disease—which serological marker(s) to use? J Intern Med 2001; 250:241–248.
23. Ciclitira PJ, King AL, Fraser JS. AGA technical review on celiac sprue. Gastroenterology 2001; 120:1526–1540.
24. Hill ID. What are the sensitivity and specificity of serologic tests for celiac disease? Do sensitivity and specificity vary in different populations? Gastroenterology 2005; 128(Suppl 1):S25–32.
25. Viola L, Lugli L, Melegari A, et al. Antitransglutaminase enzyme-linked immune-adsorbed assay in coeliac disease diagnosis: evaluation of a diagnostic algorithm. Pediatr Med Chir 2004; 2612:6–31.
26. Hansson T, Dahlbom I, Rogberg S, et al. Antitissue transglutaminase and antithyroid autoantibodies in children with Down syndrome and celiac disease. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2005; 40:170–174.
27. Abrams JA, Brar P, Diamond B, et al. Utility in clinical practice of immunoglobulin A anti-tissue transglutaminase antibody for the diagnosis of celiac disease. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2006; 4:726–730.
28. Dahlbom I, Olsson M, Forooz NK, et al. Immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-tissue transglutaminase antibodies used as markers for IgA-deficient celiac disease patients. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2005; 12:254–258.
29. Korponay-Szabo IR, Dahlbom I, Laurila K, et al. Elevation of IgG antibodies against tissue transglutaminase as a diagnostic tool for coeliac disease in selective IgA deficiency. Gut 2003; 52:1567–1571.
30. Csizmadia CG, Mearin ML, Oren A, et al. Accuracy and cost-effectiveness of a new strategy to screen for celiac disease in children with Down syndrome. J Pediatr 2000; 137:756–761.
31. Walker-Smith JA. Celiac disease and Down syndrome. J Pediatr 2000; 137:743–744.
32. Sollid LM, Thorsby E. HLA susceptibility genes in celiac disease: genetic mapping and role in pathogenesis. Gastroenterology 1993; 105:910–922.
33. Sollid LM, Lie BA. Celiac disease genetics: current concepts and practical applications. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol 2005; 3:843–851.
34. Uibo O, Teesalu K, Metskula K, et al. Screening for celiac disease in Down's syndrome patients revealed cases of subtotal villous atrophy without typical for celiac disease HLA-DQ and tissue transglutaminase antibodies. World J Gastroenterol 2006; 12:1430–1434.

Anti-endomysial antibodies; Anti-gliadin antibodies; Celiac disease; Down syndrome; Immunoglobulins; Tissue transglutaminase antibodies

© 2007 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc.