Immunoglobulin G antibody against Helicobacter pylori is an accurate test for atrophic gastritis

Helicobacter pylori eradication improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients with asymptomatic active Helicobacter pylori infection

AIMS/INTRODUCTION

Helicobacter pylori infection is associated with insulin resistance and glycemia in non-diabetes. However, the relationship between H. pylori infection and glycemia in diabetes remains inconclusive. Therefore, we explored the effect of H. pylori infection status and its eradication on glycemic control and antidiabetic therapy in type 2 diabetes patients.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 549 diabetes patients were recruited for sequential two-step approach (immunoglobulin G [IgG] serology followed by 13 C-urea breath test [UBT]) to discriminate "active" (IgG+ and UBT+) from "non-active" (UBT- or IgG-) H. pylori infection, and "past" (IgG+ but UBT-) from "never/remote" (IgG-) infection. The differences in hemoglobin A1c (A1C) and antidiabetic regimens between groups were compared. In the "active" infection group, the differences in A1C changes between participants with and without 10-day eradication therapy were compared after 3 months.

RESULTS

Despite no between-group difference in A1C, the "active" infection group (n = 208) had significantly more prescriptions of oral antidiabetic drug classes (2.1 ± 1.1 vs 1.8 ± 1.1, P = 0.004) and higher percentages of sulfonylurea use (67.3% vs 50.4%, P < 0.001) than the "non-active" infection group (n = 341). There were no differences in A1C and oral antidiabetic drug classes between "past" (n = 111) and "never/remote" infection groups (n = 230). Compared with the non-eradication group (n = 99), the eradication group (n = 98) had significant within-group (-0.17 ± 0.80%, P = 0.036) and between-group (-0.23 ± 0.10%, P = 0.024) improvements in A1C.

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes patients with active H. pylori infection need higher glycemic treatment intensity to achieve comparable glycemia. Furthermore, H. pylori eradication decreases A1C, and thus improves glycemic control.

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.

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.