| | Celiac diagnosis & the need for biopsy with no/minimal symptoms
I was recently diagnosed with Celiac disease through a blood test. I've researched on my own and been told that the blood test markers for these particular antibodies are very specific to Celiac disease and not often a false positive.
Also, I realize that the endoscopy + biopsy are considered the "gold standard", however, it is my understanding that this biopsy merely confirms "damage" to the vili, rather than confirms whether or not I have the disease. So given that, I have no idea what in the wold "gold standard" is supposed to mean.
That said, I'm wondering if I even need the endoscopy and biopsy at all. It's rather expensive with my current insurance deductible, and if it's not going to confirm anything I don't already know, then I feel like it may be a waste of time and money. I have absolutely no symptoms, so it would seem logical that I simply bypass the biopsy and go straight to my lifelong, gluten-free diet.
It's my thinking that regardless of the outcome of the biopsy, the gluten-free diet is needed, since I've been told by two physicians that I have Celiac disease. A GI doctor told me yesterday that I'll need to go on the diet anyways whether I have the biopsy or not, so I don't see how the biopsy confirms anything. Maybe the lack of symptoms means my vili are fine...and if they aren't, they'll heal anyways after a few years of being on my new diet.
My Celiac extended blood panel results:
I had another, separate blood test yesterday to assess anemia, and all levels tested (not shown here) were normal, so I believe I'm good there.
My wife has been contesting everything I've heard from doctors so far (denial?...not sure), and I'm looking for clarification to these specific questions so that I may show her something in writing, rather than what I'm trying to convey verbally from a physician.