genetic test results

[tragic_4]

I just received the results of my genetic tests which came back positive for having a genetic predisposition to celiac disease. The doctor said this does not mean that I have celiac disease for sure, but that I could. My blood antibody tests (when consuming gluten) were previously negative, and my own results to going on a gluten-free diet were

Comments

[jadesymb]

No, the DNA test just shows your risk factor, it does not confirm you have it.

Is there a reason you want to get the testing done? If you are already gluten free and doing great, why go back?

Basically if you're going to be gluten free either way, unless you've got a good reason for the testing, why put yourself through all of that?

[shesqueals]

I did the gluten challenge and all my tests came back negative, but I got sick within 2 days of the challenge and didn't come back fully to myself for months. I avoid all gluten now, even from cross contamination and though its hard, it's worth it.

[spaceprostitute]

The thing is, if you've already gone gluten-free, you're probably not going to get anything on your test results even if you do a gluten challenge. There aren't hard guidelines on it, but most things I've seen say you'd have to consume a moderate amount of gluten (1-3 slices of bread) every day for at least four weeks for it to be valid. Anything less than that and you likely won't produce enough antibodies or do enough intestinal damage to show a positive test result to get a conclusive answer. And even then, you'd probably be "safer" (in terms of getting an accurate result) by going even longer than four weeks. So unless you're prepared to consume gluten for a couple of months and wait it out, you're probably just wasting your time. And if you've already figured out on your own that when you eat it you feel like crap, what more is a diagnosis going to give you when pretty much the only solution for those with that diagnosis is "don't eat gluten", which you already are doing?

[celticdaisy]

It seems opinions on what is necessary for a positive test vary widely as well. My GP said I should be eating at least 2 slices of bread for 3 months for hope of an accurate test, while my endo didn't even seem to know that the test is virtually useless if you haven't been eating gluten.

To the OP, I understand the frustration of getting an accurate diagnosis. I'm currently undergoing testing for a number of autoimmune GI issues because I really don't know if what's going is celiac, crohns, chronic fatigue, allergies, complications from diabetes, etc. I'm hoping to either confirm a diagnosis or at least rule a number of things out. I feel like if I don't get at least a hint of a diagnosis than I don't know how to treat my body. I try to stick to a fairly strict diet but I think some of what is currently in my diet is likely screwing me up.

So no real advice on what you should do re: testing, but I feel your pain.

[snuck]

Predisposition is NOT a diagnosis. It is just that you are more likely than others to have it. About 40% of the population has the genes but only about 1% of the population has celiac. So unless you are testing positive other ways (which are testing for the disease itself, not a likelihood of being predisposed to it) I'd thank my lucky stars that I didn't have it!

[rainbow]

You'll need to be on gluten for a significant period before you can do a biopsy; it can take weeks to months for the damage to villi to show, depending on your own body

[beginning]

If the biopsy's negative, then you know what it's not and your doctors can start focusing on what it is. Take it as a positive step in the right direction.

[becala]

http://www.celiac.com/articles/23204/1/Intestinal-Biopsy-is-Not-Necessarily-Required-to-Diagnose-Celiac-Disease/Page1.html... )