Comparative evaluation of serologic tests for celiac disease: a European initiative toward standardization.

BACKGROUND: Serologic methods have been used widely to test for celiac disease and have gained importance in diagnostic definition and in new epidemiologic findings. However, there is no standardization, and there are no reference protocols and materials. METHODS: The European working group on Serological Screening for Celiac Disease has defined robust noncommercial test protocols for immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgA gliadin antibodies and for IgA autoantibodies against endomysium and tissue transglutaminase. Standard curves were linear in the decisive range, and intra-assay variation coefficients were less than 5% to 10%. Calibration was performed with a group reference serum. Joint cutoff limits were used. Seven laboratories took part in the final collaborative study on 252 randomized sera classified by histology (103 pediatric and adult patients with active celiac disease, 89 disease control subjects, and 60 blood donors). RESULTS: IgA autoantibodies against endomysium and tissue transglutaminase rendered superior sensitivity (90% and 93%, respectively) and specificity (99% and 95%, respectively) over IgA and IgG gliadin antibodies. Tissue transglutaminase antibody testing showed superior receiver operating characteristic performance compared with gliadin antibodies. The K values for interlaboratory reproducibility showed superiority for IgA endomysium (0.93) in comparison with tissue transglutaminase antibodies (0.83) and gliadin antibodies (0.82 for IgG, 0.62 for IgA). CONCLUSIONS: Basic criteria of standardization and quality assessment must be fulfilled by any given test protocol proposed for serologic investigation of celiac disease. The working group has produced robust test protocols and reference materials available for standardization to further improve reliability of serologic testing for celiac disease.

Seroprotection against tetanus in patients attending an emergency department in Belgium and evaluation of a bedside immunotest.

BACKGROUND: In most emergency departments, tetanus prophylaxis currently relies on vaccination history. Bedside evaluation of tetanus immunity may improve this process. OBJECTIVES: (i) To determine the seroprevalence of tetanus immunity; (ii) to evaluate the accuracy of vaccination history in assessing tetanus immunity; (iii) to identify factors predictive of seroprotection and incorrect history. METHOD: In a prospective observational study, tetanus immunity was assessed in 784 adults using Tétanos Quick Stick (TQS). A questionnaire was completed to obtain vaccination and general histories. Immunity assessed by TQS and by vaccination history were compared with anti-tetanus antibody levels measured by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (seroprotection threshold >0.15 IU/ml). RESULTS: Overall, 64.2% of patients were protected according to TQS results. Four independent predictors of seroprotection were identified: young age, birthplace in Belgium, male sex and occupational medicine consultation. TQS performance was good: kappa=0.71, sensitivity 85.3%, specificity 87.2%, positive predictive value 92.1% and negative predictive value 77.2%. Seven hundred and sixty-two participants responded to the vaccination history: 23.4% said they were protected, 22.1% that they were not and 54.5% did not know. History performance was poor: kappa=0.27, sensitivity 60.3%, specificity 73.3%, positive predictive value 81.8% and negative predictive value 45.8%. Compared with history, TQS offered a significantly better sensitivity, negative and positive predictive values, but specificity was similar. No predictor of an incorrect history was identified. CONCLUSION: Lack of protective immunity against tetanus is frequent but poorly evaluated by history taking. Several demographic characteristics are good predictors of seroprotection. TQS could be a valuable tool in selected patients to improve tetanus prophylaxis in the emergency department.