Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • COVID-19 Articles
  • Authors & Reviewers
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
    • Open access
    • Patient engagement
  • Members & Subscribers
    • Benefits for CMA Members
    • CPD Credits for Members
    • Subscribe to CMAJ Print
    • Subscription Prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
    • Trousse média 2023
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Clinical Update

Detecting Helicobacter pylori infection

Erica Weir
CMAJ July 11, 2000 163 (1) 83;
Erica Weir
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Background

The 13C-urea breath test is currently the best noninvasive method for detecting Helicobacter pylori infection. Serological methods are less appropriate, especially for monitoring efficacy of treatment, because antibodies are present for months after the bacteria has been eradicated.

Question

What is the clinical validity of a newly developed immunoassay for detecting H. pylori antigens in fecal specimens?

Design

This prospective study compared the results of the new antigen test for H. pylori in feces with results of the 13C-urea breath test for detecting infection and monitoring treatment efficacy. Ninety subjects with dyspepsia (46 men and 44 women, age range 18-82) were screened with both tests. In addition, 115 participants (62 men and 53 women, age range 18-78) with positive breath test results were treated with triple therapy, and at least 4 weeks after treatment ended were retested with both tests.

Results

Of the 51 dyspeptic patients with positive breath test results, 47 had positive fecal antigen tests (sensitivity 92.2%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 81.1-97.8); 38 of the 39 participants with negative breath test results were also negative on the H. pylori antigen test (specificity 97.4%, 95% CI 86.5-99.9). Of the 115 H. pylori positive patients treated with triple therapy, 92 subsequently had negative breath test results; there were 5 false-positive and 2 false-negative antigen tests, resulting in a sensitivity of 91.3% and specificity of 94.6%. The results for the 205 participants showed that the overall sensitivity and specificity of the antigen fecal test with reference to the breath tests were 91.9% and 95.4% respectively.

Commentary

These results suggest that the new immunoassay has good sensitivity and specificity when compared with the urea breath test, although it was not clear how the 2 false-negative immunoassay tests were detected among the patients with negative breath test results. The recognized gold standard for the detection of H. pylori is histology from endoscopic biopsy, and the sensitivity (97.9%) and specificity (98.0%) of the urea breath test is very good when compared with histology.1 Given the ease of use and the validity of the urea breath test, as well as patient reluctance to collect fecal samples, the utility of this fecal test is not apparent, although it does appear to offer economic benefits. The authors report the new test is cheaper than the urea breath test, but its cost-effectiveness was not evaluated.

Clinical Implications

Compliance and cost-effectiveness need to be studied before the clinical utility of this new test can be determined.

Reference

  1. 1.↵
    Bazzoli F, Cecchini L, Corvaglia L, Dall'Antonia M, De Giacomo C, Fossi S, Casali LG, et al. Validation of the 13C-urea breath test for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in children: a multicenter study. Am J Gastroenterol 2000;95(3):646-50.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  2. Braden B, Yeuber G, Dietrich C, Caspary W, Lembcke B. Comparison of new faecal antigen test with 13C-urea breath test for detecting Helicobacter pylori infection and monitoring eradication treatment: prospective clinical evaluation. BMJ 2000;320:148.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

CMAJ
Vol. 163, Issue 1
11 Jul 2000
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
  • Canadian Adverse Drug Reaction Newsletter (85-92)

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Detecting Helicobacter pylori infection
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Detecting Helicobacter pylori infection
Erica Weir
CMAJ Jul 2000, 163 (1) 83;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Detecting Helicobacter pylori infection
Erica Weir
CMAJ Jul 2000, 163 (1) 83;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Background
    • Question
    • Design
    • Results
    • Commentary
    • Clinical Implications
    • Reference
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Early treatment of acute hepatitis C infection may lead to cure
  • Angiotensin-II–receptor blockers and nephropathy in patients with type 2 diabetes
  • Colorectal cancer screening: you can't be positive about a negative result
Show more Clinical Update

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Gastroenterology
    • Laboratory medicine

 

View Latest Classified Ads

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • CPD credits
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Advisory Panels
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions
  • Accessibiity
  • CMA Civility Standards
CMAJ Group

Copyright 2023, CMA Impact Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

To receive any of these resources in an accessible format, please contact us at CMAJ Group, 500-1410 Blair Towers Place, Ottawa ON, K1J 9B9; p: 1-888-855-2555; e: cmajgroup@cmaj.ca

Powered by HighWire