Evaluation of two stool antigen tests for the detection of Helicobacter pylori infection in the Chinese population

Chinese Consensus Report on Family-Based Helicobacter pylori Infection Control and Management (2021 Edition)

OBJECTIVE

Helicobacter pylori infection is mostly a family-based infectious disease. To facilitate its prevention and management, a national consensus meeting was held to review current evidence and propose strategies for population-wide and family-based H. pylori infection control and management to reduce the related disease burden.

METHODS

Fifty-seven experts from 41 major universities and institutions in 20 provinces/regions of mainland China were invited to review evidence and modify statements using Delphi process and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation system. The consensus level was defined as ≥80% for agreement on the proposed statements.

RESULTS

Experts discussed and modified the original 23 statements on family-based H. pylori infection transmission, control and management, and reached consensus on 16 statements. The final report consists of three parts: (1) H. pylori infection and transmission among family members, (2) prevention and management of H. pylori infection in children and elderly people within households, and (3) strategies for prevention and management of H. pylori infection for family members. In addition to the 'test-and-treat' and 'screen-and-treat' strategies, this consensus also introduced a novel third 'family-based H. pylori infection control and management' strategy to prevent its intrafamilial transmission and development of related diseases.

CONCLUSION

H. pylori is transmissible from person to person, and among family members. A family-based H. pylori prevention and eradication strategy would be a suitable approach to prevent its intra-familial transmission and related diseases. The notion and practice would be beneficial not only for Chinese residents but also valuable as a reference for other highly infected areas.

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.

Performance of a one-step fecal sample-based test for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in primary care and mass screening settings

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

An alternative screening test is needed to efficiently eradicate Helicobacter pylori from a population with prevalent upper gastrointestinal lesions. We evaluated the performance of a new one-step fecal test for H. pylori for diagnosis of H. pylori infection in Taiwan.

METHODS

We developed a fecal test to detect H. pylori based on the immunochronomatographic assay and a mixture of monoclonal antibodies. We first recruited symptomatic patients from the primary care setting to evaluate fecal test performance using a reference standard consisting of (13)C urea breath test, rapid urease test, and histology. We also compared the performance of the fecal test with that of others. Next, we recruited asymptomatic participants from the mass screening setting to evaluate population attendance for the fecal test and compared its performance with that of (13)C urea breath test.

RESULTS

In the primary care setting, 117 patients were recruited; H. pylori infection was confirmed in 58 (49.6%). Fecal test sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy were 88.0% [95% confidence interval (CI): 79.6-96.4%], 100%, 100%, 89.4% (95% CI, 82.0-96.8%), and 94% (95% CI, 89.7-98.3%), respectively. Fecal test specificity and positive predictive value were significantly higher than those of the serological test, whereas the sensitivity and negative predictive value were lower than those of the (13)C urea breath test (p < 0.05). In the mass screening setting, 2720 of 3520 invited individuals participated (77.3%; 95% CI, 76-78.7%); 649 (23.9%) showed positive results. Concordance rate and kappa statistic between the fecal test and (13)C urea breath test were 91.7% (563/614; 95% CI, 89.9-94.1%) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.73-0.84), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Given the acceptable sensitivity, excellent specificity, and high participation rate to screening, the one-step H. pylori stool antigen test is feasible for wide application in the community.

Evaluation of the monoclonal stool antigen test for Helicobacter pylori in an Asian population with dyspepsia

OBJECTIVE

Although well established in the West, stool antigen tests (SAT) are not widely used in Asia. Data on the accuracy of this test in Asia is sparse and, to date, there have been no studies looking at the more refined monoclonal SAT. The aim of this study is to validate the diagnostic accuracy of a stool antigen test, Hp STAR, for the detection of Helicobacter pylori.

METHODS

Consecutive new patients with dyspepsia, referred to the endoscopy unit were recruited. At endoscopy, biopsies were taken for rapid urease tests and histology. Stool specimens were collected before any therapy was given and were tested for H. pylori using the monoclonal SAT HpSTAR test. Samples were collected from 90 patients. The stool antigen results were compared with the results of rapid urease tests and histopathology, which were used together as the gold standard test in the diagnosis of H. pylori.

RESULTS

Of the 90 patients tested, 45 were H. pylori positive and 45 were H. pylori negative. There was one false positive and one false negative test. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value for the Hp STAR were identical: 97.8% with a 95% confidence interval of 88.2-99.9%. The diagnostic accuracy was 97.8% with a 95% confidence interval of 92.2-99.7%.

CONCLUSION

The monoclonal stool antigen test, HpSTAR is a highly accurate test for the diagnosis of H. pylori.

Application of a stool antigen test to evaluate the incidence of Helicobacter pylori infection in children and adolescents from Tehran, Iran

Helicobacter pylori infection is acquired mainly in childhood, especially in developing countries, where a low-cost, rapid diagnostic technique which is reliable for all age groups may be useful for the management of H. pylori infection. For this purpose, we used an HpSA test (Equipar) to detect H. pylori infection in children and adolescents from Tehran, Iran. Thirty-five children who were positive or negative for H. pylori infection by endoscopy-based tests were used as positive and negative controls for the HpSA test. Stools were collected from 430 randomly selected children and adolescents (4 to 18 years old) from southwest, near the center, and northwest of Tehran. A questionnaire that included presence of recurrent abdominal pain (RAP), family history of infection and/or peptic ulcer disease (PUD), and income of parents was completed. A good agreement was found between the results of endoscopy-based tests and those of the HpSA test; the sensitivity and specificity of the Equipar-HpSA test were 100% and 83.4%, respectively. Among 430 children and adolescents, 47% were positive by the HpSA test, of whom 82% had RAP. No difference in incidence was observed between the two sexes; the various categories of age showed an increasing incidence, ranging from 24% (ages 4 to 6) to 58% (ages 16 to 18). The rate of infection in children and adolescents from the southwest was significantly higher (70%) than the rate in those from the northwest (32%), and a family history of H. pylori infection or PUD was observed in 59% of the HpSA positive subjects. The HpSA test is a useful test to detect H. pylori infection in children and adolescents from developing countries.

Evaluation of urine ELISA test for detecting Helicobacter pylori infection in Taiwan: A prospective study

AIM: To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of a new ELISA (URINELISA) test for detecting Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) antibody in the urine of Taiwanese population.

METHODS: In this prospective study, 317 consecutive dyspeptic patients (171 men, 146 women; mean age, 51.0 years) were included. They underwent gastroendoscopy for evaluation. Invasive tests, including culture, histology, and rapid urease test (RUT), and non-invasive 13C-urea breath test were preformed. At the same time, urine specimens were collected for URINELISA. The status of H pylori infection was considered as positive when either culture was positive, or when two of the other, RUT, histology or 13C-UBT, were positive.

RESULTS: The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of URINELISA are 91.7% (211/230), 90.8% (79/87), 96.3% (211/219), and 80.6% (79/98) respectively.

CONCLUSION: This URINELISA test is reliable, inexpensive and easy-to-use. The high diagnostic accuracy warrants the use of URINELISA as a first-line screening tool for diagnosis of H pylori infection in untreated patients.

Stool antigen test for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection: a systematic review

Our aim was to review systematically the diagnostic accuracy of the Helicobacter pylori stool antigen test. Bibliographical searches were performed in several electronic databases and abstracts from congresses up to May 2003. Eighty-nine studies (10,858 patients) evaluated the stool antigen test in untreated patients. Mean sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 91%, 93%, 92% and 87%, respectively. Analysis of the eight studies (1399 patients) in which pretreatment evaluation of the monoclonal stool antigen test was performed showed better (p < .001) results (96%, 97%, 96% and 97%, respectively), with a clearer distinction between positive and negative results. Thirty-nine studies (3147 patients) evaluated the stool antigen test for the confirmation of H. pylori eradication 4-8 weeks after therapy, with accuracies of 86%, 92%, 76% and 93% for mean sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value, respectively. Results were similar when a gold standard based on at least two methods was used. Relatively low accuracy was reported in some posttreatment studies with the polyclonal stool antigen test. However, excellent results (p < .001) were achieved in all the six studies evaluating the monoclonal stool antigen test 4-8 weeks posttreatment. Results evaluating the stool antigen test < 4 weeks posttreatment are contradictory. Proton-pump inhibitors seem to affect the accuracy of the stool antigen test. Sensitivity and/or specificity in patients with gastrointestinal bleeding may be suboptimal. The stool antigen test performs well in children. Finally, the stool antigen test seems to be a cost-effective method.

Non-invasive diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection: simplified 13C-urea breath test, stool antigen testing, or DNA PCR in human feces in a clinical laboratory setting?

OBJECTIVES

(1) To compare two stool antigen EIAs (HpSA, FemtoLab) and PCR of ureaseA and cagA in feces, with (13)C-urea breath test (UBT). (2) To ascertain whether a simplified UBT (breath collection time = 10 min) is as reliable as the standard assay (30 min).

DESIGN AND METHODS

Helicobacter pylori status was recorded in Group 1 (n = 187) by UBT, H. pylori stool antigen, ureA and cagA PCR in feces. UBT with 10, 20 and 30 min sampling was performed in Group 2 patients (n = 283).

RESULTS

The sensitivity and specificity of HpSA, FemtoLab, and ureA were 67% and 99%, 90% and 96%, 35% and 98%, respectively. cagA results were positive in 16/48 H. pylori-positive, and in 5/100 H. pylori-negative patients. The results of UBT with a 10- and 30-min sampling strictly overlapped.

CONCLUSION

UBT with 10 min breath collection and FemtoLab stool antigen assay are the most reliable non-invasive tests to diagnose H. pylori infection.

Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection

Numerous studies are still published on diagnostic tests for Helicobacter pylori, essentially for noninvasive tests. The urea breath test is applied in different types of patients, and there are attempts to have quicker and simpler protocols. Stool tests using monoclonal antibodies are now evaluated while serology is still a subject of interest. The progress in PCR (multiplex PCR, real-time PCR) has also stimulated the research in this area of invasive tests, in order to get insight into virulence factors, macrolide susceptibility and to detect H. pylori in nonconventional specimens.