Double-site rapid urease test versus histopathology for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori among patients with dyspepsia on proton pump inhibitors-A diagnostic accuracy study.
{"title":"Double-site rapid urease test versus histopathology for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori among patients with dyspepsia on proton pump inhibitors-A diagnostic accuracy study.","authors":"Ashutosh Ishan Yadav, Vaneet Jearth, Arun Kumar Sharma, Anupam Kumar Singh, Priya Chauhan, Purnima Patial, Aravind Sekar, Jimil Shah, Harshal Mandavdhare, Surinder Singh Rana, Usha Dutta","doi":"10.1007/s12664-025-01789-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and aims: </strong>In real-world settings, many patients cannot or do not stop proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) due to symptoms, but guidelines do not address H. pylori testing in PPI users. We compared the rapid urease test (RUT) and histopathology (HPE) when H. pylori testing and endoscopy are indicated for patients with a recent history of PPI use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A prospective study of 164 patients who used PPIs within two weeks of endoscopy was conducted. Gastric antrum and body biopsies were used for double-site RUT and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses. The updated Sydney protocol was followed for HPE. Patients with at least two out of three positive tests were considered infected with H. pylori. Fifty patients, who underwent only PCR for H. pylori diagnosis after stopping PPIs for two weeks, were enrolled as controls to assess the effect on detection rates. Additionally, an analysis utilizing PCR as the gold standard was conducted.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In patients on PPIs, there was no significant difference in detection rates (positivity rate) between HPE and RUT (31.7% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.3771 [McNemar]). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy of double-site RUT were 89.13%, 96.61%, 91.11%, 95.80% and 94.51%, respectively, whereas HPE was 82.61%, 88.14%, 73.08%, 92.86% and 86.59%. PCR had a much greater detection rate and there was no significant difference in detection rate by the PCR method in patients on and off PPI for at least two weeks prior to testing for H. pylori (48% vs. 44%, p = 0.58). The sensitivity of double-site RUT and HPE was still comparable, albeit low, when only PCR was considered the gold standard (43.75% vs. 40%, respectively). Atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia are found in approximately 9% and 5% of gastric body biopsies and 9% and 2.5% of gastric antrum biopsies, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PPI use does not affect PCR-based testing for H. pylori. If PCR-based testing is unavailable, double-site RUT offers a cost-effective alternative for H. pylori testing in PPI users at the point of care, particularly in resource-limited settings, in comparison to HPE. The choice between biopsy using validated protocols or double RUT is also contingent upon the underlying risk factors for gastric cancer.</p>","PeriodicalId":13404,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-025-01789-1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background and aims: In real-world settings, many patients cannot or do not stop proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) due to symptoms, but guidelines do not address H. pylori testing in PPI users. We compared the rapid urease test (RUT) and histopathology (HPE) when H. pylori testing and endoscopy are indicated for patients with a recent history of PPI use.
Methods: A prospective study of 164 patients who used PPIs within two weeks of endoscopy was conducted. Gastric antrum and body biopsies were used for double-site RUT and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses. The updated Sydney protocol was followed for HPE. Patients with at least two out of three positive tests were considered infected with H. pylori. Fifty patients, who underwent only PCR for H. pylori diagnosis after stopping PPIs for two weeks, were enrolled as controls to assess the effect on detection rates. Additionally, an analysis utilizing PCR as the gold standard was conducted.
Results: In patients on PPIs, there was no significant difference in detection rates (positivity rate) between HPE and RUT (31.7% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.3771 [McNemar]). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy of double-site RUT were 89.13%, 96.61%, 91.11%, 95.80% and 94.51%, respectively, whereas HPE was 82.61%, 88.14%, 73.08%, 92.86% and 86.59%. PCR had a much greater detection rate and there was no significant difference in detection rate by the PCR method in patients on and off PPI for at least two weeks prior to testing for H. pylori (48% vs. 44%, p = 0.58). The sensitivity of double-site RUT and HPE was still comparable, albeit low, when only PCR was considered the gold standard (43.75% vs. 40%, respectively). Atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia are found in approximately 9% and 5% of gastric body biopsies and 9% and 2.5% of gastric antrum biopsies, respectively.
Conclusion: PPI use does not affect PCR-based testing for H. pylori. If PCR-based testing is unavailable, double-site RUT offers a cost-effective alternative for H. pylori testing in PPI users at the point of care, particularly in resource-limited settings, in comparison to HPE. The choice between biopsy using validated protocols or double RUT is also contingent upon the underlying risk factors for gastric cancer.
背景和目的:在现实环境中,许多患者由于症状不能或不停用质子泵抑制剂(PPIs),但指南没有涉及PPI使用者的幽门螺杆菌检测。我们比较了快速脲酶试验(RUT)和组织病理学(HPE),当幽门螺杆菌检测和内窥镜检查适用于近期使用PPI的患者时。方法:对164例内镜检查后两周内使用PPIs的患者进行前瞻性研究。采用胃窦和身体活检进行双位点RUT和聚合酶链反应(PCR)分析。HPE遵循了更新后的悉尼协议。三种检测结果中至少有两种呈阳性的患者被认为感染了幽门螺杆菌。50名患者在停用PPIs两周后仅进行了幽门螺杆菌PCR诊断,作为对照组评估其对检出率的影响。此外,采用PCR作为金标准进行分析。结果:在PPIs患者中,HPE与RUT的检出率(阳性率)差异无统计学意义(31.7% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.3771 [McNemar])。双位点RUT的敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值(PPV)、阴性预测值(NPV)和诊断准确率分别为89.13%、96.61%、91.11%、95.80%和94.51%,而HPE分别为82.61%、88.14%、73.08%、92.86%和86.59%。PCR的检出率要高得多,而且在检测幽门螺杆菌前至少两周未使用PPI和未使用PPI的患者中,PCR的检出率无显著差异(48% vs 44%, p = 0.58)。当仅将PCR视为金标准时,双位点RUT和HPE的灵敏度仍然相当(分别为43.75%和40%),尽管较低。萎缩性胃炎和肠化生分别在约9%和5%的胃体活检和9%和2.5%的胃窦活检中被发现。结论:PPI的使用不影响基于pcr的幽门螺杆菌检测。如果基于pcr的检测不可用,与HPE相比,双站点RUT为PPI使用者在医疗点进行幽门螺杆菌检测提供了一种具有成本效益的替代方案,特别是在资源有限的环境中。选择活检使用有效的方案或双重RUT也取决于胃癌的潜在危险因素。
期刊介绍:
The Indian Journal of Gastroenterology aims to help doctors everywhere practise better medicine and to influence the debate on gastroenterology. To achieve these aims, we publish original scientific studies, state-of -the-art special articles, reports and papers commenting on the clinical, scientific and public health factors affecting aspects of gastroenterology. We shall be delighted to receive articles for publication in all of these categories and letters commenting on the contents of the Journal or on issues of interest to our readers.