Pre-endoscopy screening for helicobacter

Helicobacter pylori "test-and-scope" strategy for dyspeptic patients. Is it useful and safe?

AIM

To evaluate outcome of test-and-scope strategy using 13C-urea breath test, Helicobacter pylori IgG serology, and CagA serology.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

A series of 100 dyspeptic patients were studied. Biopsies were obtained for histology and rapid urease test (gold standard). Serum samples were obtained for Helicobacter pylori IgG and CagA serology, and 13C-urea breath test was carried out.

RESULTS

If endoscopy had not been performed in Helicobacter pylori patients based on 13C-urea breath test, <45 years, without alarm symptoms, and without non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, 15% of endoscopies would have been saved, and one gastric ulcer and two oesophagitis would have been missed. Based on Helicobacter pylori IgG serology, 21% of endoscopies would have been saved. Finally, if endoscopy had been performed only in CagA+ patients, 31% of endoscopies would have been saved, missing one gastric ulcer and two cases of oesophagitis.

CONCLUSIONS

In our geographical area, the test-and-scope strategy based on 13C-urea breath test or Helicobacter pylori IgG serology would have saved only 15-20% of endoscopies. Although some relevant pathology would have been missed, it is not of a malignant type. 13C-urea breath test is the preferred non-invasive method to be used in this strategy, while Helicobacter pylori IgG serology is of limited value due to its low accuracy. With the use of CagA serology a larger number of unnecessary endoscopic examinations can be avoided.

Serologic screening before endoscopy: the value of Helicobacter pylori serology, serum recognition of the CagA and VacA proteins, and serum pepsinogen I

BACKGROUND

We wanted to assess the diagnostic value of pre-endoscopy screening by Helicobacter pylori serology, serum recognition of the CagA and VacA proteins, and serum pepsinogen I levels (sPGI) in patients up to 55 years of age with uncomplicated simple dyspepsia.

METHODS

Consecutive dyspeptic patients referred for open-access endoscopy, excluding patients with alarm symptoms, recent intake of acid suppressants, or ingestion of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. H. pylori status was determined by histology and urease testing. H. pylori serologic status was determined with the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and Western blotting, serum recognition of CagA and VacA with Western blot, and sPGI levels by radioimmunoassay.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifteen patients were studied (mean age, 40 years: range, 20-55 years), of whom 58 were H. pylori-positive in biopsy-based tests. Twenty-one patients (18%) had significant gastroduodenal lesions (erosions, ulcers, or cancer). The sensitivity (specificity) of the ELISA (optimized) and Western blot in determining H. pylori status was 94.8% (89.5%) and 100% (96.4%), respectively. Screening strategies based on the ELISA or Western blot for determining H. pylori serologic status would have detected 95% or 100% of significant lesions, respectively, and each 'saved' 47% of endoscopies for simple dyspepsia. Serum recognition of the CagA protein would have detected 95% of significant lesions and 'saved' 55% of endoscopies, whereas recognition of the VacA protein would have detected only 81% of the lesions. Screening by H. pylori serology plus a 'low' (<55 ng/ml) or 'high' sPGI (>125 ng/ml) would detect only 57% of significant lesions, although the only case of cancer was included in the hypopepsinogenaemic subgroup of just 11 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with uncomplicated, simple dyspepsia up to 55 years of age, screening by H. pylori serology identified 95%-100% of patients with significant gastroduodenal lesions while potentially saving 46.9% of endoscopies. Serum recognition of the CagA protein identified 95% of lesions and would have saved an additional number of endoscopies (7.9%) compared with basic serology. Measurement of sPGI was of limited diagnostic value.