Association between abnormal gastric function risk and Helicobacter pylori infection assessed by ELISA and 14C-urea breath test

Association of serum pepsinogens and gastrin-17 with Helicobacter pylori infection assessed by urea breath test

Background

Association of gastric atrophy or cancer with levels of serum pepsinogens, gastrin-17 and anti-Helicobacter pylori IgG antibody have been extensively studied. However, the association of serum pepsinogen and gastrin-17 with H. pylori infection has not been studied in a large population.

Aim

To investigate the impact of H. pylori infection on serum levels of pepsinogens and gastrin-17.

Methods

A total of 354, 972 subjects who underwent health check-ups were included. Serum levels of pepsinogens and gastrin-17 were measured using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. H. pylori infection was detected using ¹⁴C-urea breath test (UBT). Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to investigate the association of serum pepsinogen and gastrin-17 with H. pylori infection.

Results

H. pylori prevalence was 33.18% in this study. The mean levels of pepsinogens and gastrin-17 were higher, while the mean pepsinogen-I/II ratio were lower among H. pylori-positive than -negative subjects. In H. pylori-positive subjects, pepsinogen and gastrin-17 levels correlated positively, whereas the pepsinogen-I/II ratio correlated negatively with UBT values (e.g., the mean serum level of pepsinogen-I in subjects with UBT values in the range of 100-499dpm, 500-1499dpm, and ≥1500dpm was 94.77 ± 38.99, 102.77 ± 43.59, and 111.53 ± 47.47 ng/mL, respectively). Compared with H. pylori-negative subjects, the adjusted odds ratio (aOR) of having pepsinogen-I ≤ 70 ng/mL in the three H. pylori-positive but with different UBT value groups was 0.31 (p<0.001), 0.16 (p<0.001), and 0.08 (p<0.001), respectively; while the aOR of having G-17>5.70 pmol/L was 4.56 (p<0.001), 7.43 (p<0.001), and 7.12 (p<0.001). This suggested that H. pylori-positive subjects with higher UBT values were less likely to have pepsinogen-I ≤70 ng/mL (a serum marker for gastric atrophy), but more likely to have gastrin-17 >5.70 pmol/L (a marker for peptic ulcer).

Conclusions

H. pylori-positive subjects with higher UBT values are unlikely to have gastric atrophy, but may have greater risk of severe gastritis or peptic ulcers. Our study suggests that H. pylori-positive patients with high UBT values may benefit the most from H. pylori eradication.

Analysis of serum gastrin-17 and Helicobacter pylori antibody in healthy Chinese population

BACKGROUND

Gastrin-17 (G-17) and Helicobacter pylori (H pylori) antibody are widely used in the screening of gastric diseases, especially in gastric cancer. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the value of G-17 and H pylori antibody in gastric disease screening.

METHODS

Healthy males and females (1368 and 1212, respectively) aged between 21-80 years were recruited for the study. Serum G-17 value was measured using ELISA, and H pylori antibodies were measured using Western blotting. Statistical analyses were performed using the chi-square, Mann-Whitney U, and Kruskal-Wallis H tests.

RESULTS

Serum G-17 level was higher in the H pylori-positive group than in the negative group. Serum G-17 level was higher in the type 1 H pylori-positive group than in the type 2 H pylori-positive group. Further, serum G-17 level was higher in females than in males and showed significant differences among different age-groups, with changes in trend proportional to the age. The positive rate of H pylori infection in all the subjects was 58.29% and did not show a significant difference between males and females. However, it showed significant differences among different age-groups, with the changing trend proportional to the age.

CONCLUSION

Analysis of serum G-17 level and H pylori antibody typing is valuable in gastric disease screening. Every laboratory should establish its own reference interval for G-17 level.

Diagnostic methods for Helicobacter pylori infection: ideals, options, and limitations

Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) resides in the stomach, colonizes gastric epithelium, and causes several digestive system diseases. Several diagnostic methods utilizing invasive or non-invasive techniques with varying levels of sensitivity and specificity are developed to detect H. pylori infection. Selection of one or more diagnostic tests will depend on the clinical conditions, the experience of the clinician, cost, sensitivity, and specificity. Invasive methods require endoscopy with biopsies of gastric tissues for the histology, culture, and rapid urease test. Among non-invasive tests, urea breath test and fecal antigen tests are a quick diagnostic procedure with comparable accuracy to biopsy-based techniques and are methods of choice in the test and treatment setting. Other techniques such as serological methods to detect immunoglobulin G antibodies to H. pylori can show high accuracy as other non-invasive and invasive biopsies, but do not differentiate between current or past H. pylori infections. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is an emerging option that can be categorized as invasive and non-invasive tests. PCR method is beneficial to detect H. pylori from gastric biopsies without the need for the cultures. There is no other chronic gastrointestinal infection such as H. pylori with a set of comparable diagnostic methodologies. Despite the availability of multiple diagnostic methods, it remains unclear on the choice of any one method as the gold standard for detecting H. pylori infection, especially in epidemiological studies. In this work, we review the principal diagnostic methods used to detect H. pylori infection and their advantages and disadvantages, and applications in clinical practice.

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: Current options and developments

Accurate diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is a crucial part in the effective management of many gastroduodenal diseases. Several invasive and non-invasive diagnostic tests are available for the detection of H. pylori and each test has its usefulness and limitations in different clinical situations. Although none can be considered as a single gold standard in clinical practice, several techniques have been developed to give the more reliable results. Invasive tests are performed via endoscopic biopsy specimens and these tests include histology, culture, rapid urease test as well as molecular methods. Developments of endoscopic equipment also contribute to the real-time diagnosis of H. pylori during endoscopy. Urea breathing test and stool antigen test are most widely used non-invasive tests, whereas serology is useful in screening and epidemiological studies. Molecular methods have been used in variable specimens other than gastric mucosa. More than detection of H. pylori infection, several tests are introduced into the evaluation of virulence factors and antibiotic sensitivity of H. pylori, as well as screening precancerous lesions and gastric cancer. The aim of this article is to review the current options and novel developments of diagnostic tests and their applications in different clinical conditions or for specific purposes.

Correlation between bad breath and Helicobacter pylori infection

AIM: To assess the correlation between bad breath (also known as halitosis) and Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection.

METHODS: A total of 236 patients or healthy volunteers were randomly seleted. Based on the presence of halitosis or not, the subjects were divided into a halitosis and a no-halitosis group. All patients underwent ¹⁴C-urea breath test, and according to the presence of H. pylori infection or not, the subjects were divided into a H. pylori infection group and a no-infection group. The incidence of halitosis in the H. pylori infection and no-infection groups was compared, and the correlation of H. pylori infection with halitosis was analyzed.

RESULTS: Of the 236 subjects included, 109 (46.19%) had halitosis, including 74 (67.89%) who were positive for H. pylori infection, and 127 (53.81%) had no halitosis, including 36 (28.35%) who were positive for H. pylori infection. The rate of H. pylori infection between the two groups was statistically significant (χ² = 31.53, P < 0.05), and there was a significant correlation between halitosis and H. pylori infection (r = 0.33). There were 135 (57.20%) H. pylori positive cases, of which 93 (68.89%) had halitosis. There were 101 (42.80%) H. pylori negative cases, of which only 4 (3.96%) had halitosis. The rate of halitosis between the two groups was statistically significant (χ² = 52.57, P < 0.05), and there was a significant correlation between H. pylori infection and halitosis (r = 0. 61).

CONCLUSION: In people with halitosis, many have H. pylori infection, and in H. pylori positive people, many have halitosis. There is a close correlation between H. pylori infection and halitosis.

Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection: Current options and developments

Accurate diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection is a crucial part in the effective management of many gastroduodenal diseases. Several invasive and non-invasive diagnostic tests are available for the detection of H. pylori and each test has its usefulness and limitations in different clinical situations. Although none can be considered as a single gold standard in clinical practice, several techniques have been developed to give the more reliable results. Invasive tests are performed via endoscopic biopsy specimens and these tests include histology, culture, rapid urease test as well as molecular methods. Developments of endoscopic equipment also contribute to the real-time diagnosis of H. pylori during endoscopy. Urea breathing test and stool antigen test are most widely used non-invasive tests, whereas serology is useful in screening and epidemiological studies. Molecular methods have been used in variable specimens other than gastric mucosa. More than detection of H. pylori infection, several tests are introduced into the evaluation of virulence factors and antibiotic sensitivity of H. pylori, as well as screening precancerous lesions and gastric cancer. The aim of this article is to review the current options and novel developments of diagnostic tests and their applications in different clinical conditions or for specific purposes.