COMPARISON OF SERUM, SALIVARY, AND RAPID WHOLE-BLOOD DIAGNOSTIC-TESTSFOR HELICOBACTER-PYLORI AND THEIR VALIDATION AGAINST ENDOSCOPY BASED TESTS

Citation
Tg. Reilly et al., COMPARISON OF SERUM, SALIVARY, AND RAPID WHOLE-BLOOD DIAGNOSTIC-TESTSFOR HELICOBACTER-PYLORI AND THEIR VALIDATION AGAINST ENDOSCOPY BASED TESTS, Gut, 40(4), 1997, pp. 454-458
Citations number
16
Categorie Soggetti
Gastroenterology & Hepatology
Journal title
GutACNP
ISSN journal
00175749
Volume
40
Issue
4
Year of publication
1997
Pages
454 - 458
Database
ISI
SICI code
0017-5749(1997)40:4<454:COSSAR>2.0.ZU;2-N
Abstract
Background-A rapid, reliable, and accurate test for the diagnosis of i nfection with Helicobacter pylori is needed for screening dyspeptic pa tients before referral for endoscopy. Aim-To compare a new rapid whole blood test (Helisal rapid blood, Cortecs), two serum enzyme linked im munosorbent assays (ELISAs; Helico-G, Shield and Helisal serum, Cortec s), and a salivary assay (Helisal saliva, Cortecs), with slide biopsy urease, C-13-urea breath test, and histology. Methods-Three hundred an d three consecutive dyspeptic patients attending for gastroscopy under went two antral biopsies for histology, and one for rapid slide biopsy urease test for assessment of H pylori status. Blood and saliva were also collected. One hundred of the patients also underwent a C-13-urea breath test. Gold standard positives were defined as those with at le ast two positive tests among slide urease, breath test, or histology, and gold standard negatives as those with all these (or two when the b reath test was not done) negative. Results-Of 300 patients (median age 63, range 28-89) eligible for analysis, 137 (46%) were gold standard positives, of which Helisal rapid blood identified 116, Helico-G 129, Helisal serum 130, and Helisal saliva 120; 137 (46%) were gold standar d negatives of which the number falsely identified as positive was 30 by Helisal rapid blood, 45 by Helico-G, 41 by Helisal serum, and 41 by Helisal saliva. Sensitivities and specificities were: for the whole b lood test 85% and 78% respectively; for Helico-G 94% and 67%, for Heli sal serum 95% and 70%, and for Helisal saliva 84% and 70%. Conclusions -If endoscopy had been undertaken only on patients with positive tests two of 16 duodenal ulcers would have been missed if the Helisal rapid blood test was used, and one if any of the ELISA tests were used. Non e of the blood tests would have missed any of six gastric ulcers, but the salivary test would have missed one.