Effects of stool dilution on the faecal Helicobacter pylori antigen test

Evaluation of a Novel Stool Antigen Rapid Test Kit for Detection of Helicobacter pylori Infection

The Quick Chaser H. pylori (QCP), which is a novel antigen detection kit for Helicobacter pylori, was developed recently. The previous examination kits targeted the catalase of H. pylori; however, this new test kit, to the best of our knowledge, is the first kit to target the flagellar protein of H. pylori The present study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of QCP compared with that of the already commercially available rapid test kit Testmate Rapid Pylori Antigen (TRP). TRP and QCP were utilized in 71 participants. The positive and negative concordance ratios of QCP to TRP were 100% (57/57) and 92.9% (13/14), respectively. Sensitivity based on the rapid urease test and culture test was 92.3%. Results of the dilution sensitivity test showed that QCP was eight times more sensitive to an H. pylori standard strain and the clarithromycin (CAM)-resistant clinical isolate and four times more sensitive to a CAM-susceptible clinical isolate than TRP. For the cross-reactivity test, 27 strains that exist in human feces, such as the Helicobacter genus, Bifidobacterium genus, Lactobacillus genus, and other resident bacteria, were selected. The results obtained using QCP were all negative, and no cross-reaction was observed. In conclusion, compared with TRP, QCP can detect H. pylori using clinical specimens with high sensitivity, regardless of CAM susceptibility and tolerance. No cross-reactivity was observed with other intestinal bacteria in humans. The kit is considered extremely useful in clinical settings.

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.

Lack of diagnostic accuracy of the monoclonal stool antigen test for detection of Helicobacter pylori infection in young Australian aboriginal children

BACKGROUND

: The prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection among Aboriginal Australians children is unclear. The aims of the present study are to determine the prevalence of H. pylori infection among young Aboriginal children recovering from acute diarrheal disease in hospital and to evaluate the H. pylori stool antigen test as a noninvasive diagnostic test in this setting.

METHODS

: This was a prospective comparative study using the C-Urea Breath Test as reference standard. Fifty-two children between 4 months and 2 years of age were consecutively enrolled. These children comprised a representative sample of Australian Aboriginal children admitted to hospital with acute diarrheal disease from remote and rural communities across Northern Territory of Australia.

RESULTS

: The overall prevalence of H. pylori was 44.2%. The stool antigen test had a sensitivity of 0.55 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.35-0.73) with a positive predictive value of 0.65 (95% CI: 0.42-0.82). The specificity was 0.68 (95% CI: 0.46-0.84) with a negative predictive value of 0.58 (95% CI: 0.39-0.75). Analysis of receiver operator characteristic curve yielded an overall accuracy of the stool antigen test of 61% (48%-75%).

CONCLUSIONS

: The prevalence of H. pylori infection among very young Aboriginal children from remote and rural communities was high and consistent with early acquisition. The diagnostic accuracy of the stool antigen test to diagnose H. pylori in this setting was poor.

Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in a high-prevalence pediatric population: a comparison of 2 fecal antigen testing methods and serology

OBJECTIVES

Accurate methods for diagnosing active Helicobacter pylori infection in children have been limited to invasive or time-consuming techniques. Recently, fecal antigen testing has been used successfully for the diagnosis of H pylori infection in the pediatric population. We compared 2 monoclonal fecal antigen diagnostic methods in a population of children with a suspected high prevalence of H pylori infection. We also assessed the diagnostic performance of H pylori immunoglobulin G serology.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In a cross-sectional study of African refugee children (<16 years) we compared an immunochromatographic technique (ICT) and serology with a monoclonal fecal antigen enzyme immunoassay (MFAT) method for the detection of active H pylori infection. Following the manufacturer's instructions, an optical density of >or=0.190 was used as a cutoff for MFAT. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated.

RESULTS

Of the 193 eligible children enrolled, active H pylori infection was detected in 149 of 182 (81.9%) in whom MFAT was performed. The prevalence of active infection increased with age; children with active infection were significantly older, and there were no sex differences. ICT and serology underperformed in comparison with MFAT (ICT sensitivity 74.6%, specificity 63.6%, positive predictive value 89.8%, negative predictive value 36.8%; and serology sensitivity 57.9%, specificity 77.4%, positive predictive value 92.0%, negative predictive value 29.9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Monoclonal enzyme immunoassay fecal antigen testing is a practical and feasible alternative to traditional invasive diagnostic methods in high-prevalence pediatric populations. Neither immunochromatography nor serology is useful for the diagnosis of active H pylori infection in these children.

Sensitivity and specificity of various tests for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori in Egyptian children

OBJECTIVES

Many noninvasive methods (using breath, blood, and stool samples) are available to diagnose Helicobacter pylori. However, because the noninvasive tests are proxy measures of the infection, they need validation before use. Factors that may affect test validity include patient age, gender, and geographic location. Because no data were available on the validation of noninvasive tests for the diagnosis of H. pylori among children in the Middle East, this study was performed.

METHODS

Children between 2 and 17 years of age evaluated at the Cairo University School of Medicine pediatric gastroenterology clinic who were already scheduled for upper endoscopy were eligible for enrollment in the study. At the time of endoscopy, 3 biopsies were collected and used for rapid urease, histology, and culture, respectively. All children also donated a sample of stool and blood and had a urea breath test performed. Stool and serum samples were tested for the presence of H. pylori by using commercially available enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based technology. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated for each noninvasive test used in the study. Receiver operating curves also were charted to determine optimal cut points for the various tests when used in the current study cohort.

RESULTS

One hundred eight children were enrolled in the study, with 52 children being under 6 years of age. The urea breath test and HpStar (DakoCytomation, Norden, Denmark) stool enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit had the highest sensitivity and specificity (sensitivity and specificity: 98 and 89 [urea breath test] and 94 and 81 [HpStar], respectively), whereas the serologic kit had an unacceptably low sensitivity (50%). The sensitivity of neither the urea breath test nor the HpStar tests was affected by subject age, but specificity of the HpStar test, although still high, was significantly lower among children under 6 years. Receiver operating curves found optimal cut points of the urea breath test at 6.2 delta over baseline and of the HpStar at 0.25 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units.

CONCLUSION

The urea breath test and HpSTAR stool antigen kit are reliable tests for the noninvasive diagnosis of H. pylori among children living in the Middle East.

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.