--I would go gluten-free.

Transglutaminase IgA titers are most closely associated with the existence of gluten-mediated intestinal damage (some of the other tests, like anti-gliadin, are less well correlated with that and may be more correlated with manifestations of gluten sensitivity outside the gastrointestinal tract).

In the end, of course, no one needs ANY doctor's permission to remove gluten from diet. We can all get along quite nicely without gluten, even if we do not have issues with it. Going gluten-free can certainly be inconvenient, but one does not need to miss out on anything essential in going gluten free, as all essential nutrients can be obtained through non-gluten sources. The process just requires vigilance and planning.

Thanks,
I guess my real question is are those numbers enough to be called celiac?

--for frank celiac would be a gastrointestinal biopsy with evidence of compromised villi in the small intestine. Even this is not always certain, as, depending on where the samples are taken, evidence of this may be missed, especially if the damage in early and patchy.

But, failing that, the blood test results to seem to show at least some reactivity to gluten, so it couldn't hurt to gluten free, and certainly might help.

As I said in the previous post, there are manifestations of gluten sensitivity that occur outside the small intestine that some would not refer to as celiac (dermatitis hepatiformis, gluten ataxia, etc.) that would still indicate a need for a gluten-free diet.