Faecal antigen tests in the confirmation of the effect of Helicobacter eradication therapy

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: Changes towards the Future

Since the first evidence demonstrating the dramatically high incidence of H. pylori infection and the subsequent medical challenges it incurs, health management of H. pylori infection has been a high priority for health authorities worldwide. Despite a decreasing rate of infection in western countries, prevalence of H. pylori infection in developing and in some industrial countries is still very high. Whereas treatment and vaccination against H. pylori is a contemporary issue in medical communities, selective treatment and prior high-throughput screening of the subject population is a major concern of health organizations. So far, diagnostic tests are either elaborative and require relatively advanced medical care infrastructure or they do not fulfill the criteria recommended by the Maastricht IV/Florence consensus report. In this review, in light of recent scientific studies, we highlight current and possible future approaches for the diagnosis of H. pylori. We point out that novel non-invasive tests may not only cover the requirements of gold standard methods in H. pylori detection but also offer the potential for risk stratification of infection in a high throughput manner.

Detection of Helicobacter pylori: A faster urease test can save resources

AIM: To investigate whether differences in the rapidity of a positive result for Helicobacter pylori can save resources, by comparing two commercially available urease kits.

METHODS: One hundred and eighty-five adults (130 outpatients, 55 inpatients) undergoing gastroscopy were entered prospectively. Patients were divided into two groups: Group 1 (if they were not on PPIs, antibiotics, H₂A, bismuth or sucralfate for up to 14 d prior to the endoscopy) and Group 2 (if they were on, or had been on, any of the above medication in the previous 14 d). At endoscopy two sets of biopsies, taken in random order, were placed in the wells of the Campylobacter-like organism (CLO) test (Kimberly-Clark, Utah, USA) and the Quick test (Biohit Plc, Helsinki, Finland). Five additional gastric biopsies were taken for histology/Giemsa and immunohistochemical study. The two urease test slides were read at 2 min, 30 min, 2 h and 24 h. Sensitivity and specificity at 24 h were determined.

RESULTS: At 24 h, for all patients, there was no difference in sensitivity (100% vs 97.5%), specificity (99.3%), positive (97.5%) and negative predictive values (100% vs 99.3%) between the CLO and Quick tests, respectively. There was a positive result at 30 min in 17/41 (41.5%) CLO tests, and in 28/40 (70%) Quick tests, P = 0.05. Quick test enabled the prescription of eradication therapy before discharge in all 28/40 patients. Only 12 (30%) follow-up appointments were needed. If the CLO test had been used alone, only 17 (41.5%) prescriptions would have been possible prior to discharge and 24 (58%) follow-up appointments would be needed (P = 0.001). Of 2000 gastroscopies performed annually at our unit, a saving of 123 follow-up appointments (total: 8856 Euros or 11 808 USD) would be achieved if we switched to the Quick test.

CONCLUSION: Direct comparison of locally available urease test kits is worthwhile, since the appropriate choice results in a significant saving of resources. Local costs and follow-up protocols will determine the magnitude of these savings.