Accurate Detection of Helicobacter pylori Antigen in Human Stool Specimens by Two Novel Immunoassays.

European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology Pub Date : 2019-05-28 eCollection Date: 2019-06-03 DOI:10.1556/1886.2019.00008
Ralf Ignatius, Christiane Berg, Chris Weiland, Angela Darmer, Thilo Wenzel, Marion Lorenz, Jörg Fuhrmann, Michael Müller
{"title":"Accurate Detection of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> Antigen in Human Stool Specimens by Two Novel Immunoassays.","authors":"Ralf Ignatius,&nbsp;Christiane Berg,&nbsp;Chris Weiland,&nbsp;Angela Darmer,&nbsp;Thilo Wenzel,&nbsp;Marion Lorenz,&nbsp;Jörg Fuhrmann,&nbsp;Michael Müller","doi":"10.1556/1886.2019.00008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Stool antigen tests are recommended for the diagnosis of <i>Helicobacter pylori</i> infection. Here, we compared two novel assays, i.e., one enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and one immunochromatography assay (ICA), with a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) that had previously been compared with rapid urease test, histology, and urea breath test. Two hundred sixty-six frozen stool samples with defined CLIA results (42 positives, 219 negatives, and 5 samples with borderline results) collected between January and May 2018 were thawed and immediately tested by EIA, ICA, and CLIA. In 248 samples with repeatedly positive/negative CLIA results, EIA and ICA were positive for 40 and 37 of 41 CLIA-positive samples and yielded negative results for 206 and 201 of 207 CLIA-negative samples, respectively. There was a high positive percent agreement (EIA, 97.6%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 86.3-100%; ICA, 90.2%; 95% CI, 76.9-96.7%), as well as a negative percent agreement between the assays (EIA, 99.5%; 95% CI, 97.0-100%; ICA, 97.1%; 95% CI, 93.7-98.8%). This was further supported by kappa values indicating very good agreement (CLIA vs. EIA, 0.971; CLIA vs. ICA, 0.857). In conclusion, both EIA and ICA comprise valuable assays for the detection of <i>H. pylori</i> antigen in stool samples.</p>","PeriodicalId":11929,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology","volume":"9 2","pages":"29-31"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1556/1886.2019.00008","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Microbiology & Immunology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1556/1886.2019.00008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2019/6/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Stool antigen tests are recommended for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection. Here, we compared two novel assays, i.e., one enzyme immunoassay (EIA) and one immunochromatography assay (ICA), with a chemiluminescence immunoassay (CLIA) that had previously been compared with rapid urease test, histology, and urea breath test. Two hundred sixty-six frozen stool samples with defined CLIA results (42 positives, 219 negatives, and 5 samples with borderline results) collected between January and May 2018 were thawed and immediately tested by EIA, ICA, and CLIA. In 248 samples with repeatedly positive/negative CLIA results, EIA and ICA were positive for 40 and 37 of 41 CLIA-positive samples and yielded negative results for 206 and 201 of 207 CLIA-negative samples, respectively. There was a high positive percent agreement (EIA, 97.6%; 95% confidence interval (95% CI), 86.3-100%; ICA, 90.2%; 95% CI, 76.9-96.7%), as well as a negative percent agreement between the assays (EIA, 99.5%; 95% CI, 97.0-100%; ICA, 97.1%; 95% CI, 93.7-98.8%). This was further supported by kappa values indicating very good agreement (CLIA vs. EIA, 0.971; CLIA vs. ICA, 0.857). In conclusion, both EIA and ICA comprise valuable assays for the detection of H. pylori antigen in stool samples.

两种新型免疫分析法准确检测人粪便标本中幽门螺杆菌抗原。
大便抗原试验被推荐用于诊断幽门螺杆菌感染。在这里,我们比较了两种新的测定方法,即一种酶免疫测定法(EIA)和一种免疫层析测定法(ICA),化学发光免疫测定法(CLIA),之前已与快速脲酶试验、组织学和尿素呼吸试验进行了比较。2018年1月至5月期间收集的266份具有明确CLIA结果的冷冻粪便样本(42例阳性,219例阴性,5例边缘性结果)被解冻并立即通过EIA, ICA和CLIA进行检测。在248份CLIA反复阳性/阴性样本中,41份CLIA阳性样本中,EIA和ICA分别为40份和37份,207份CLIA阴性样本中,EIA和ICA分别为206份和201份。有很高的正确率(EIA, 97.6%;95%置信区间(95% CI), 86.3-100%;ICA, 90.2%;95% CI, 76.9-96.7%),两种检测方法之间的一致性为负(EIA, 99.5%;95% ci, 97.0-100%;ICA, 97.1%;95% ci, 93.7-98.8%)。kappa值进一步支持了这一点,表明一致性非常好(CLIA vs. EIA, 0.971;CLIA vs. ICA, 0.857)。总之,EIA和ICA都是检测粪便样品中幽门螺杆菌抗原的有价值的检测方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信