Comparison of Salivary and Serum Enzyme Immunoassays for the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori Infection
Infection with Helicobacter pylori has been established as an important risk factor for the development of peptic ulcer disease, gastritis and gastric cancer. The diagnosis of H pylori infection can be established by invasive or noninvasive techniques. Two noninvasive enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
1998-01-01
|
| Series: | Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases |
| Online Access: | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1998/250956 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1849412946717835264 |
|---|---|
| author | John M Embil Shurjeel H Choudhri Gerry Smart Thomas Aldor Norman M Pettigrew Gordon R Grahame Magdy R Dawood Charles N Bernstein |
| author_facet | John M Embil Shurjeel H Choudhri Gerry Smart Thomas Aldor Norman M Pettigrew Gordon R Grahame Magdy R Dawood Charles N Bernstein |
| author_sort | John M Embil |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Infection with Helicobacter pylori has been established as an important risk factor for the development of peptic ulcer disease, gastritis and gastric cancer. The diagnosis of H pylori infection can be established by invasive or noninvasive techniques. Two noninvasive enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for antibody detection – HeliSal and Pylori Stat – were compared with histology. Both assays detect immunoglobulin (Ig) G directed against purified H pylori antigen. The test populations consisted of 104 consecutive patients scheduled for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Of these patients, 97 (93%) had symptoms compatible with peptic ulcer disease. Saliva and serum were collected simultaneously at the time of endoscopy. Salivary EIA had a sensitivity of 66%, specificity of 67%, positive predictive value of 67% and negative predictive value of 66% compared with the serum EIA, where the results were 98%, 48%, 64% and 96%, respectively. Although the salivary EIA is an appealing noninvasive test, it was not a sensitive and specific assay. The serum EIA also lacked specificity, but was highly sensitive with a good negative predictive value. Although a negative serum EIA rules out H pylori infection, a positive result must be interpreted in the clinical context and confirmed with a more specific measure. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-65ff67b808624b0abfbd7fc4b5114446 |
| institution | Kabale University |
| issn | 1180-2332 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 1998-01-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases |
| spelling | doaj-art-65ff67b808624b0abfbd7fc4b51144462025-08-20T03:34:17ZengWileyCanadian Journal of Infectious Diseases1180-23321998-01-019527728010.1155/1998/250956Comparison of Salivary and Serum Enzyme Immunoassays for the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori InfectionJohn M Embil0Shurjeel H Choudhri1Gerry Smart2Thomas Aldor3Norman M Pettigrew4Gordon R Grahame5Magdy R Dawood6Charles N Bernstein7Department of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaDepartment of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaCadham Provincial Laboratory, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaDepartment of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaDepartment of Pathology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaDepartment of Pathology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaCadham Provincial Laboratory, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaDepartment of Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, CanadaInfection with Helicobacter pylori has been established as an important risk factor for the development of peptic ulcer disease, gastritis and gastric cancer. The diagnosis of H pylori infection can be established by invasive or noninvasive techniques. Two noninvasive enzyme immunoassays (EIAs) for antibody detection – HeliSal and Pylori Stat – were compared with histology. Both assays detect immunoglobulin (Ig) G directed against purified H pylori antigen. The test populations consisted of 104 consecutive patients scheduled for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. Of these patients, 97 (93%) had symptoms compatible with peptic ulcer disease. Saliva and serum were collected simultaneously at the time of endoscopy. Salivary EIA had a sensitivity of 66%, specificity of 67%, positive predictive value of 67% and negative predictive value of 66% compared with the serum EIA, where the results were 98%, 48%, 64% and 96%, respectively. Although the salivary EIA is an appealing noninvasive test, it was not a sensitive and specific assay. The serum EIA also lacked specificity, but was highly sensitive with a good negative predictive value. Although a negative serum EIA rules out H pylori infection, a positive result must be interpreted in the clinical context and confirmed with a more specific measure.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1998/250956 |
| spellingShingle | John M Embil Shurjeel H Choudhri Gerry Smart Thomas Aldor Norman M Pettigrew Gordon R Grahame Magdy R Dawood Charles N Bernstein Comparison of Salivary and Serum Enzyme Immunoassays for the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori Infection Canadian Journal of Infectious Diseases |
| title | Comparison of Salivary and Serum Enzyme Immunoassays for the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori Infection |
| title_full | Comparison of Salivary and Serum Enzyme Immunoassays for the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori Infection |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of Salivary and Serum Enzyme Immunoassays for the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori Infection |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of Salivary and Serum Enzyme Immunoassays for the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori Infection |
| title_short | Comparison of Salivary and Serum Enzyme Immunoassays for the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori Infection |
| title_sort | comparison of salivary and serum enzyme immunoassays for the diagnosis of helicobacter pylori infection |
| url | http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/1998/250956 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT johnmembil comparisonofsalivaryandserumenzymeimmunoassaysforthediagnosisofhelicobacterpyloriinfection AT shurjeelhchoudhri comparisonofsalivaryandserumenzymeimmunoassaysforthediagnosisofhelicobacterpyloriinfection AT gerrysmart comparisonofsalivaryandserumenzymeimmunoassaysforthediagnosisofhelicobacterpyloriinfection AT thomasaldor comparisonofsalivaryandserumenzymeimmunoassaysforthediagnosisofhelicobacterpyloriinfection AT normanmpettigrew comparisonofsalivaryandserumenzymeimmunoassaysforthediagnosisofhelicobacterpyloriinfection AT gordonrgrahame comparisonofsalivaryandserumenzymeimmunoassaysforthediagnosisofhelicobacterpyloriinfection AT magdyrdawood comparisonofsalivaryandserumenzymeimmunoassaysforthediagnosisofhelicobacterpyloriinfection AT charlesnbernstein comparisonofsalivaryandserumenzymeimmunoassaysforthediagnosisofhelicobacterpyloriinfection |