3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Accurate detection of Helicobacter pylori antigen in human stool specimens by two novel immunoassays

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Stool antigen tests are recommended for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection. Here, we compared two novel assays, i.e., one enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and one immunochromatography assay (ICA), with a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) that had previously been compared with rapid urease test, histology, and urea breath test. Two hundred sixty-six frozen stool samples with defined CLIA results (42 positives, 219 negatives, and 5 samples with borderline results) collected between January and May 2018 were thawed and immediately tested by EIA, ICA, and CLIA.

          In 248 samples with repeatedly positive/negative CLIA results, EIA and ICA were positive for 40 and 37 of 41 CLIA-positive samples and yielded negative results for 206 and 201 of 207 CLIA-negative samples, respectively. There was a high positive percent agreement (EIA, 97.6%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 86.3–100%; ICA, 90.2%; 95% CI, 76.9–96.7%), as well as a negative percent agreement between the assays (EIA, 99.5%; 95% CI, 97.0–100%; ICA, 97.1%; 95% CI, 93.7–98.8%). This was further supported by kappa values indicating very good agreement (CLIA vs. EIA, 0.971; CLIA vs. ICA, 0.857). In conclusion, both EIA and ICA comprise valuable assays for the detection of H. pylori antigen in stool samples.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 14

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Second Asia-Pacific Consensus Guidelines for Helicobacter pylori infection.

          The Asia-Pacific Consensus Conference was convened to review and synthesize the most current information on Helicobacter pylori management so as to update the previously published regional guidelines. The group recognized that in addition to long-established indications, such as peptic ulcer disease, early mucosa-associated lymphoid tissue (MALT) type lymphoma and family history of gastric cancer, H. pylori eradication was also indicated for H. pylori infected patients with functional dyspepsia, in those receiving long-term maintenance proton pump inhibitor (PPI) for gastroesophageal reflux disease, and in cases of unexplained iron deficiency anemia or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura. In addition, a population 'test and treat' strategy for H. pylori infection in communities with high incidence of gastric cancer was considered to be an effective strategy for gastric cancer prevention. It was recommended that H. pylori infection should be tested for and eradicated prior to long-term aspirin or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy in patients at high risk for ulcers and ulcer-related complications. In Asia, the currently recommended first-line therapy for H. pylori infection is PPI-based triple therapy with amoxicillin/metronidazole and clarithromycin for 7 days, while bismuth-based quadruple therapy is an effective alternative. There appears to be an increasing rate of resistance to clarithromycin and metronidazole in parts of Asia, leading to reduced efficacy of PPI-based triple therapy. There are insufficient data to recommend sequential therapy as an alternative first-line therapy in Asia. Salvage therapies that can be used include: (i) standard triple therapy that has not been previously used; (ii) bismuth-based quadruple therapy; (iii) levofloxacin-based triple therapy; and (iv) rifabutin-based triple therapy. Both CYP2C19 genetic polymorphisms and cigarette smoking can influence future H. pylori eradication rates.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection: Current options and developments.

            Accurate diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is a crucial part in the effective management of many gastroduodenal diseases. Several invasive and non-invasive diagnostic tests are available for the detection of H. pylori and each test has its usefulness and limitations in different clinical situations. Although none can be considered as a single gold standard in clinical practice, several techniques have been developed to give the more reliable results. Invasive tests are performed via endoscopic biopsy specimens and these tests include histology, culture, rapid urease test as well as molecular methods. Developments of endoscopic equipment also contribute to the real-time diagnosis of H. pylori during endoscopy. Urea breathing test and stool antigen test are most widely used non-invasive tests, whereas serology is useful in screening and epidemiological studies. Molecular methods have been used in variable specimens other than gastric mucosa. More than detection of H. pylori infection, several tests are introduced into the evaluation of virulence factors and antibiotic sensitivity of H. pylori, as well as screening precancerous lesions and gastric cancer. The aim of this article is to review the current options and novel developments of diagnostic tests and their applications in different clinical conditions or for specific purposes.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Accuracy of monoclonal stool antigen test for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

              To perform a systematic review and a meta-analysis of accuracy of monoclonal stool antigen test (SAT) for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection. assessing the accuracy of monoclonal SAT for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. electronic and manual bibliographical searches. independently done by two reviewers. meta-analyses combining the sensitivities, specificities, and likelihood ratios (LRs) of the individual studies. Twenty-two studies, including 2,499 patients, evaluated the monoclonal SAT before eradication therapy. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- were: 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.95), 0.97 (0.96-0.98), 24 (15-41), and 0.07 (0.04-0.12). The accuracy of both monoclonal and polyclonal SAT was evaluated together in 13 pretreatment studies, and higher pooled sensitivity was demonstrated with the monoclonal technique (0.95 vs 0.83). Twelve studies, including 957 patients, assessed the monoclonal SAT to confirm eradication after therapy. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+, and LR- were 0.93 (0.89-0.96), 0.96 (0.94-0.97), 17 (12-23), and 0.1 (0.07-0.15). Both tests were evaluated together in eight post-treatment studies and, again, the monoclonal technique showed higher sensitivity (0.91 vs 0.76). Heterogeneity among studies disappeared when a single outlier study was excluded. Subanalysis depending on the reference method, the study population, or the study quality showed similar results. Monoclonal SAT is an accurate noninvasive method both for the initial diagnosis of H. pylori infection and for the confirmation of its eradication after treatment. The monoclonal technique has higher sensitivity than the polyclonal one, especially in the post-treatment setting.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                1886
                European Journal of Microbiology and Immunology
                EuJMI
                Akadémiai Kiadó
                2062-8633
                June 2019
                : 9
                : 2
                : 29-31
                Affiliations
                [1 ] MVZ Labor 28 , Mecklenburgische Str. 28, 14197 Berlin, Germany
                [2 ] Department of Microbiology and Infection Immunology, Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin , Campus Benjamin Franklin, Hindenburgdamm 30, 12200 Berlin, Germany
                [3 ] R-Biopharm , An der neuen Bergstraße 17, 64297 Darmstadt, Germany
                Author notes
                [*]

                Author for correspondence: MVZ Labor 28, Mecklenburgische Str. 28, 14197 Berlin, Germany; r.ignatius@ 123456labor28.de ; Phone: +49-30-82093-262; Fax: +49-30-82093-301.

                Article
                10.1556/1886.2019.00008
                6563681
                © 2019 The Author(s)

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License ( https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium for non-commercial purposes, provided the original author and source are credited, a link to the CC License is provided, and changes - if any - are indicated.

                Page count
                Pages: 3
                Categories
                Original Research Paper

                Comments

                Comment on this article