Usefulness and influence of age of a novel Rapid HpStAR™ stool antigen for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in children

Non-invasive diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori infection

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) infection has been implicated in a number of malignancies and non-malignant conditions including peptic ulcers, non-ulcer dyspepsia, recurrent peptic ulcer bleeding, unexplained iron deficiency anaemia, idiopathic thrombocytopaenia purpura, and colorectal adenomas. The confirmatory diagnosis of H pylori is by endoscopic biopsy, followed by histopathological examination using haemotoxylin and eosin (H & E) stain or special stains such as Giemsa stain and Warthin-Starry stain. Special stains are more accurate than H & E stain. There is significant uncertainty about the diagnostic accuracy of non-invasive tests for diagnosis of H pylori.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of urea breath test, serology, and stool antigen test, used alone or in combination, for diagnosis of H pylori infection in symptomatic and asymptomatic people, so that eradication therapy for H pylori can be started.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Science Citation Index and the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Database on 4 March 2016. We screened references in the included studies to identify additional studies. We also conducted citation searches of relevant studies, most recently on 4 December 2016. We did not restrict studies by language or publication status, or whether data were collected prospectively or retrospectively.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies that evaluated at least one of the index tests (urea breath test using isotopes such as 13C or 14C, serology and stool antigen test) against the reference standard (histopathological examination using H & E stain, special stains or immunohistochemical stain) in people suspected of having H pylori infection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened the references to identify relevant studies and independently extracted data. We assessed the methodological quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed meta-analysis by using the hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model to estimate and compare SROC curves. Where appropriate, we used bivariate or univariate logistic regression models to estimate summary sensitivities and specificities.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 101 studies involving 11,003 participants, of which 5839 participants (53.1%) had H pylori infection. The prevalence of H pylori infection in the studies ranged from 15.2% to 94.7%, with a median prevalence of 53.7% (interquartile range 42.0% to 66.5%). Most of the studies (57%) included participants with dyspepsia and 53 studies excluded participants who recently had proton pump inhibitors or antibiotics.There was at least an unclear risk of bias or unclear applicability concern for each study.Of the 101 studies, 15 compared the accuracy of two index tests and two studies compared the accuracy of three index tests. Thirty-four studies (4242 participants) evaluated serology; 29 studies (2988 participants) evaluated stool antigen test; 34 studies (3139 participants) evaluated urea breath test-13C; 21 studies (1810 participants) evaluated urea breath test-14C; and two studies (127 participants) evaluated urea breath test but did not report the isotope used. The thresholds used to define test positivity and the staining techniques used for histopathological examination (reference standard) varied between studies. Due to sparse data for each threshold reported, it was not possible to identify the best threshold for each test.Using data from 99 studies in an indirect test comparison, there was statistical evidence of a difference in diagnostic accuracy between urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology and stool antigen test (P = 0.024). The diagnostic odds ratios for urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test were 153 (95% confidence interval (CI) 73.7 to 316), 105 (95% CI 74.0 to 150), 47.4 (95% CI 25.5 to 88.1) and 45.1 (95% CI 24.2 to 84.1). The sensitivity (95% CI) estimated at a fixed specificity of 0.90 (median from studies across the four tests), was 0.94 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.97) for urea breath test-13C, 0.92 (95% CI 0.89 to 0.94) for urea breath test-14C, 0.84 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.91) for serology, and 0.83 (95% CI 0.73 to 0.90) for stool antigen test. This implies that on average, given a specificity of 0.90 and prevalence of 53.7% (median specificity and prevalence in the studies), out of 1000 people tested for H pylori infection, there will be 46 false positives (people without H pylori infection who will be diagnosed as having H pylori infection). In this hypothetical cohort, urea breath test-13C, urea breath test-14C, serology, and stool antigen test will give 30 (95% CI 15 to 58), 42 (95% CI 30 to 58), 86 (95% CI 50 to 140), and 89 (95% CI 52 to 146) false negatives respectively (people with H pylori infection for whom the diagnosis of H pylori will be missed).Direct comparisons were based on few head-to-head studies. The ratios of diagnostic odds ratios (DORs) were 0.68 (95% CI 0.12 to 3.70; P = 0.56) for urea breath test-13C versus serology (seven studies), and 0.88 (95% CI 0.14 to 5.56; P = 0.84) for urea breath test-13C versus stool antigen test (seven studies). The 95% CIs of these estimates overlap with those of the ratios of DORs from the indirect comparison. Data were limited or unavailable for meta-analysis of other direct comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people without a history of gastrectomy and those who have not recently had antibiotics or proton ,pump inhibitors, urea breath tests had high diagnostic accuracy while serology and stool antigen tests were less accurate for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection.This is based on an indirect test comparison (with potential for bias due to confounding), as evidence from direct comparisons was limited or unavailable. The thresholds used for these tests were highly variable and we were unable to identify specific thresholds that might be useful in clinical practice.We need further comparative studies of high methodological quality to obtain more reliable evidence of relative accuracy between the tests. Such studies should be conducted prospectively in a representative spectrum of participants and clearly reported to ensure low risk of bias. Most importantly, studies should prespecify and clearly report thresholds used, and should avoid inappropriate exclusions.

Accuracy of stool antigen test for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in children: a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) is regarded as a major pathogen in gastrointestinal diseases and the infection rate is still at a high level in children. Therefore, the diagnosis is of great clinical importance. The objective was to perform a meta-analysis on H. pylori stool antigen test (SAT) for the diagnosis of the infection in children.

METHODS

Published information on the sensitivity and specificity of stool antigen test in each study was collected to assess the accuracy of the test for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. Forty-five eligible studies were selected for analysis. Data on the publication year, H. pylori prevalence, eradication rate and gold standard of each study were summarized.

RESULT

Forty-five studies, including 5931 patients, evaluated the accurancy of H. pylori SAT. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, LR+ and LR- were: 92.1%, 94.1%, 17.01, 0.085, respectively. Subgroup analyses were conducted to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of H. pylori SAT in different situations and found that sensitivity and specificity were significantly higher when monoclonal H. pylori SAT and two or more reference methods were used.

CONCLUSIONS

Detection of H. pylori antigen in stools with ELISA monoclonal antibodies is a non-invasive efficient test for the diagnosis of infection in children. However, the available one-step and polyclonal SAT tests are still unreliable.

Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori Infection

When an endoscopy is performed, it now becomes easier to observe indirect evidence of the presence of a Helicobacter pylori infection, given the progress of new methods including magnifying narrow band imaging or confocal laser endomicroscopy. Out of the biopsy-based tests, the novel original method proposed concerned culture in a broth medium with or without antibiotics and ELISA detection of H. pylori. New stool antigen tests are still appearing with no major improvement in comparison with the monoclonal-based tests already on the market. The combination of pepsinogen detection to H. pylori serology is now more and more evaluated to detect preneoplastic lesions.

Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection

If we had to give a general view of the articles published in the year 2010, we should conclude that the evidence in the year 2010 suggests that, also in Helicobacter pylori diagnosis, "the devil is in the details". In this sense, different studies suggested that skipping citric acid pretreatment or local validation or reducing the (13) C-urea dose markedly decreases the accuracy of the urea breath test. The studies also implied that, even between monoclonal stool tests, there are large differences between the marketed tests. Finally, even histology does not work adequately in patients with gastric cancer or extensive areas of intestinal metaplasia. In these cases, specific gastric sites should be biopsied to improve the reliability of histology.