Just talked to a lady at Enterolab. I wanted to test at Enterolab for the meats. I have already done the basic gluten, casein, etc and was positive for those. I have been tested twice by different doctors for IgA deficiency and am defiecient. 70 is the low end of normal and mine was 35. Sooooo the lady, I forget her name, said that if I am IgA deficient my test results from Enterolab would not be accurate. Meaning that I would probably have a false negative result. She said that if you have been taking immuno suppressants, like prednisone or entocort, that can make you IgA deficient, but I have not taken those in years ( 6 or 7 years ago) but I did have the IgA testing done less than 2 years ago maybe only 18 months ago.
Just FYI.
Pat
IgA deficiency and Enterolab
Moderators: Rosie, Stanz, Jean, CAMary, moremuscle, JFR, Dee, xet, Peggy, Matthew, Gabes-Apg, grannyh, Gloria, Mars, starfire, Polly, Joefnh
Hi Pat,
Yes, we have a surprising number of members who have that problem. Even without any immunosuppressant drugs, approximately 1 in 500 people in the general population have selective IgA deficiency, and among celiacs (and probably anyone else who is sensitive to gluten), the odds of having IgA deficiency are thought to be slightly better than 1 in 300.
Incidentally, that same caveat applies to the blood tests used to screen for celiac disease (that is to say, anyone who is IgA deficient will receive a negative result on the celiac blood test that may be a false negative result), but most doctors are apparently either unaware of the odds, or choose to ignore them, because I've never heard of a doctor mentioning to a patient that a negative result might be a false negative result if the patient is IgA deficient. Instead, they virtually always tell the patient that a negative test result means that they are not sensitive to gluten, and some even go so far as to tell the patient that a negative result means that they can never develop gluten sensitivity.
Thank you for sharing that information.
Tex
Yes, we have a surprising number of members who have that problem. Even without any immunosuppressant drugs, approximately 1 in 500 people in the general population have selective IgA deficiency, and among celiacs (and probably anyone else who is sensitive to gluten), the odds of having IgA deficiency are thought to be slightly better than 1 in 300.
Incidentally, that same caveat applies to the blood tests used to screen for celiac disease (that is to say, anyone who is IgA deficient will receive a negative result on the celiac blood test that may be a false negative result), but most doctors are apparently either unaware of the odds, or choose to ignore them, because I've never heard of a doctor mentioning to a patient that a negative result might be a false negative result if the patient is IgA deficient. Instead, they virtually always tell the patient that a negative test result means that they are not sensitive to gluten, and some even go so far as to tell the patient that a negative result means that they can never develop gluten sensitivity.
Thank you for sharing that information.
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Hi Pat. Yes, you are deficient, but you were still producing enough to have given you positive results for gluten, dairy and such, right? So why wouldn't the tests work for the next panel? When I read your numbers, I had to laugh because my IgA reading two years ago was LESS THAN 9 and a year ago was LESS THAN 6 !!!!! Now THAT is deficient!
Have a Happy New Year
leah
Have a Happy New Year
leah
Tex,
My present GI doc , #5, did retest me for IgA and when it showed a deficiency he did an IgG test for celiac but it was negative. I have been tested to death! He can't explain why I do better eliminating gluten or why I do better with the antihistamines even though the staining for mast cells was negative. What the lady at Enterolab recommended was to do an elimination for meats. She said to eliminate only one that I think is a problem for 4 weeks and see what results I get from that. If some improvement then eliminate another in addition to the first for 4 weeks. It's a long drawn out thing. I was hoping to get the stool test.
Leah,
The Enterolab lady said I must have not been deficient when I had the first Enterolab testing in 2007. Do you get sick a lot like colds, etc?
Pat
My present GI doc , #5, did retest me for IgA and when it showed a deficiency he did an IgG test for celiac but it was negative. I have been tested to death! He can't explain why I do better eliminating gluten or why I do better with the antihistamines even though the staining for mast cells was negative. What the lady at Enterolab recommended was to do an elimination for meats. She said to eliminate only one that I think is a problem for 4 weeks and see what results I get from that. If some improvement then eliminate another in addition to the first for 4 weeks. It's a long drawn out thing. I was hoping to get the stool test.
Leah,
The Enterolab lady said I must have not been deficient when I had the first Enterolab testing in 2007. Do you get sick a lot like colds, etc?
Pat
Pat,
Unless they have changed the celiac blood tests very recently, the classic celiac anti-gliadin blood test is actually a combination that tests for both IgG and IgA antibodies. However, the test is so weak (insensitive) that if IgA is low, then the result is almost always negative, even for a patient who has fully-developed celiac disease. I'm not sure that ordering a separate IgG test would provide any benefits, because it's not very useful for detecting celiac disease. That's why the combination test is used, (to gain sensitivity).
If you have been reacting for years, then you will have (relatively speaking) very high antibody levels. (The longer we react, the higher our antibody levels). And in that situation, your Immunoglobulin A test result (at roughly 50 % of a normal minimnum level), would probably show valid positive results on most of the foods to which you were sensitive (provided you had been eating them before collecting the sample). IOW, 50 % of an antibody level that should normally be twice as high, should still be adequate to show a positive test result. Do you see what I'm saying? Does this make sense?
The point is, one does not have to have a "normal" IgA capability in order to get a valid test result. One just has to produce enough IgA to trigger a positive result. 50 % should be adequate if you have been reacting long enough for your antibody levels to build up to relatively high levels. Compare your level with Leah's, for example, and it's easy to see why she would always show a false negative result. Your potential for producing antibodies is much higher than hers, since you can produce 50 % of minimal normal, whereas she can only produce less than 10 % of minimal normal. At least that's the way I see it
Tex
Unless they have changed the celiac blood tests very recently, the classic celiac anti-gliadin blood test is actually a combination that tests for both IgG and IgA antibodies. However, the test is so weak (insensitive) that if IgA is low, then the result is almost always negative, even for a patient who has fully-developed celiac disease. I'm not sure that ordering a separate IgG test would provide any benefits, because it's not very useful for detecting celiac disease. That's why the combination test is used, (to gain sensitivity).
If you have been reacting for years, then you will have (relatively speaking) very high antibody levels. (The longer we react, the higher our antibody levels). And in that situation, your Immunoglobulin A test result (at roughly 50 % of a normal minimnum level), would probably show valid positive results on most of the foods to which you were sensitive (provided you had been eating them before collecting the sample). IOW, 50 % of an antibody level that should normally be twice as high, should still be adequate to show a positive test result. Do you see what I'm saying? Does this make sense?
The point is, one does not have to have a "normal" IgA capability in order to get a valid test result. One just has to produce enough IgA to trigger a positive result. 50 % should be adequate if you have been reacting long enough for your antibody levels to build up to relatively high levels. Compare your level with Leah's, for example, and it's easy to see why she would always show a false negative result. Your potential for producing antibodies is much higher than hers, since you can produce 50 % of minimal normal, whereas she can only produce less than 10 % of minimal normal. At least that's the way I see it
Tex
It is suspected that some of the hardest material known to science can be found in the skulls of GI specialists who insist that diet has nothing to do with the treatment of microscopic colitis.
Tex,
It sort of makes sense to me what you are saying but that is why I called the lab itself to find out what they had to say and she said I would get false negatives. She thought that 50% of normal was pretty low. Leah's is really really low. They didn't recommend I do the testing but do an elimination test. I guess I will have to think about this. Thanks.
Pat
It sort of makes sense to me what you are saying but that is why I called the lab itself to find out what they had to say and she said I would get false negatives. She thought that 50% of normal was pretty low. Leah's is really really low. They didn't recommend I do the testing but do an elimination test. I guess I will have to think about this. Thanks.
Pat
Hi Pat. Yeah, I guess you have to think about and see what you want to do. Elimination really isn't too bad. it's how I had to do it all, but I went the opposite direction and eliminated everything I thought could be giving me problems. Then when I felt better, I tested one thing back in at a time (each food for a few days in a row) looking for a reaction. That's the correct way to do an elimination diet. Do you have a protein that you feel is your "safest"? You could just eat that protein for a while. THEN test the others one at a time.
To answer your question, no. I rarely get sick. How it was explained to me by the specialist is that people who have IgA deficiency usually EITHER respond by getting many upper respiratory infections OR get multiple autoimmune diseases. I am the latter. IgA antibodies are the ones that mainly fight things off in the mucus systems of the body (respiratory, intestinal,vaginal…etc). All my antibody levels were tested and I am also low in 2 of the 4 types of IgG antibodies. So, it's kind of crazy that I rarely get sick. I think my other antibody systems are on over drive…. plus, I am a personal trainer and nutrition specialist and have always taken care of myself. That can't hurt!
Good luck with whatever you try!
Leah
To answer your question, no. I rarely get sick. How it was explained to me by the specialist is that people who have IgA deficiency usually EITHER respond by getting many upper respiratory infections OR get multiple autoimmune diseases. I am the latter. IgA antibodies are the ones that mainly fight things off in the mucus systems of the body (respiratory, intestinal,vaginal…etc). All my antibody levels were tested and I am also low in 2 of the 4 types of IgG antibodies. So, it's kind of crazy that I rarely get sick. I think my other antibody systems are on over drive…. plus, I am a personal trainer and nutrition specialist and have always taken care of myself. That can't hurt!
Good luck with whatever you try!
Leah