Accurate diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori. Stool tests

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.

Evaluation of the stool antigen test for Helicobacter pylori in children and adolescents

The stool antigen test for Helicobacter pylori is a noninvasive immunoassay to diagnose active infection with Helicobacter pylori in human fecal samples. Its performance in children and teenagers has been tested in some developed countries, showing a sensitivity and specificity above 90%, however, its accuracy in developing countries and in children under 6 years is not well established. To determine the accuracy of the test for diagnosing Helicobacter pylori infection in children and teenagers, we evaluated 133 patients (4 months to 17 years old). The gold standard was a positive culture or positive histology and rapid urease test. The test was done according to the manufacturer's instructions. However, modifications were introduced for better reproducibility. Samples were analyzed twice and results are expressed as optical density (OD) determined spectrophotometrically at 450 nm. HpSA was considered positive at OD > or =0.160 and negative at OD <0.140. One hundred twenty-seven of the 133 (95.5%) patients were included. There were no infected infants. The test showed a 94.6% sensitivity (95% CI: 90.6-98.5) and a 96.5% specificity (95% CI: 93.3-99.7). At ages 2 to 6 years the specificity was 96.4% (95% CI: 85.1-99.2) and the sensitivity was 80.0% (95% CI: 64.8-89.7), at ages 6 to 10 years the sensitivity was 100.0% and the specificity 95.7%, and above 10 years the sensitivity and specificity were 100.0%. We conclude that the test is efficient in adolescents and children, however there is a need for further studies with a greater number of patients for evaluation of its accuracy in infants.

Non-invasive diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in adult dyspeptic patients by stool antigen detection: does the rapid immunochromatography test provide a reliable alternative to conventional ELISA kits?

Stool antigen-testing allows non-invasive detection of Helicobacter pylori that is indicative of active infection. Three commercial kits are currently marketed in the UK for stool antigen-testing. The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative evaluation of the performances of each of these tests, compared with culture and histological examination of gastric biopsies, for pre-treatment diagnosis of infection in an adult dyspeptic population in south-east England. Examination of 112 stool samples by the Premier Platinum HpSA ELISA (Meridian Diagnostics) and by the Amplified IDEIA HpStAR ELISA (DakoCytomation) kits demonstrated that the latter was more sensitive (81.3 versus 93.8%, respectively) and specific (91.7 versus 100.0%, respectively). Additionally, the IDEIA HpStAR was easier to interpret, with OD readings of positive and negative results being far from the recommended cut-off, whereas equivocal results that were generated by the HpSA kit were difficult to interpret. Additional testing of 87 of the 112 stools by the ImmunoCard STAT! HpSA kit (Meridian Diagnostics) demonstrated that this test was easier to perform than ELISA and was more sensitive than the HpSA kit but, compared with the IDEIA HpStAR kit, the ImmunoCard test was less sensitive (87.8 versus 95.9%, respectively) and specific (89.4 versus 100.0%, respectively). Furthermore, the ImmunoCard test generated weakly positive results, correlating with lower OD readings for both ELISA kits, that were difficult to interpret. The Amplified IDEIA HpStAR kit is therefore the most sensitive and specific of the three tests that are available for pre-treatment, non-invasive detection of H. pylori in stool samples in an English adult dyspeptic population.