Fingerstick Helicobacter pylori antibody test: Better than laboratory serological testing?

Loren Laine, Kandice Knigge, Douglas Faigel, Nathan Margaret, Scott P. Marquis, Georgette Vartan, M (Brian) Fennerty

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

19 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Antibody testing is the recommended method to screen for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. Whole-blood fingerstick antibody tests are simple, in-office tests providing rapid results, but the accuracy of first-generation tests was lower than other diagnostic tests. We assessed a new whole-blood antibody test, using endoscopic biopsy tests as a 'gold standard,' and compared it with a laboratory quantitative serological test. METHODS: Two hundred-one patients not previously treated for H. pylori who were undergoing endoscopy had gastric biopsies for rapid urease test and histological examination; whole-blood antibody tests and quantitative serological tests were also performed. Two separate gold standards for H. pylori infection were employed: either rapid urease test or histological exam positive; and both rapid urease test and histological exam positive. RESULTS: Sensitivities for whole-blood test versus quantitative serology with gold standard 1 (either biopsy test positive) were 86% versus 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] of difference, -2-14%; p = 0.19) and specificities were 88% versus 77% (95% CI of difference, 0.4-22%; p = 0.052). Sensitivities with gold standard 2 (both biopsy tests positive) were 90% versus 94% (95% CI of difference, -4-12%; p = 0.41) and specificities were 79% versus 67% (95% CI of difference, 1-24%; p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: New generation in-office, whole-blood antibody tests that can achieve a sensitivity and specificity similar to or better than those of widely used quantitative laboratory serological tests may be used as the initial screening tests of choice for H. pylori.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)3464-3467
Number of pages4
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume94
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - 1999

Fingerprint

Helicobacter pylori
Hematologic Tests
Urease
Serologic Tests
Antibodies
Confidence Intervals
Biopsy
Helicobacter Infections
Serology
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Endoscopy
Stomach
Sensitivity and Specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Fingerstick Helicobacter pylori antibody test : Better than laboratory serological testing? / Laine, Loren; Knigge, Kandice; Faigel, Douglas; Margaret, Nathan; Marquis, Scott P.; Vartan, Georgette; Fennerty, M (Brian).

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 94, No. 12, 1999, p. 3464-3467.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Laine, Loren ; Knigge, Kandice ; Faigel, Douglas ; Margaret, Nathan ; Marquis, Scott P. ; Vartan, Georgette ; Fennerty, M (Brian). / Fingerstick Helicobacter pylori antibody test : Better than laboratory serological testing?. In: American Journal of Gastroenterology. 1999 ; Vol. 94, No. 12. pp. 3464-3467.
@article{eda81390fc7f4a8bbdcdc11352610ada,
title = "Fingerstick Helicobacter pylori antibody test: Better than laboratory serological testing?",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: Antibody testing is the recommended method to screen for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. Whole-blood fingerstick antibody tests are simple, in-office tests providing rapid results, but the accuracy of first-generation tests was lower than other diagnostic tests. We assessed a new whole-blood antibody test, using endoscopic biopsy tests as a 'gold standard,' and compared it with a laboratory quantitative serological test. METHODS: Two hundred-one patients not previously treated for H. pylori who were undergoing endoscopy had gastric biopsies for rapid urease test and histological examination; whole-blood antibody tests and quantitative serological tests were also performed. Two separate gold standards for H. pylori infection were employed: either rapid urease test or histological exam positive; and both rapid urease test and histological exam positive. RESULTS: Sensitivities for whole-blood test versus quantitative serology with gold standard 1 (either biopsy test positive) were 86{\%} versus 92{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval [CI] of difference, -2-14{\%}; p = 0.19) and specificities were 88{\%} versus 77{\%} (95{\%} CI of difference, 0.4-22{\%}; p = 0.052). Sensitivities with gold standard 2 (both biopsy tests positive) were 90{\%} versus 94{\%} (95{\%} CI of difference, -4-12{\%}; p = 0.41) and specificities were 79{\%} versus 67{\%} (95{\%} CI of difference, 1-24{\%}; p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: New generation in-office, whole-blood antibody tests that can achieve a sensitivity and specificity similar to or better than those of widely used quantitative laboratory serological tests may be used as the initial screening tests of choice for H. pylori.",
author = "Loren Laine and Kandice Knigge and Douglas Faigel and Nathan Margaret and Marquis, {Scott P.} and Georgette Vartan and Fennerty, {M (Brian)}",
year = "1999",
doi = "10.1016/S0002-9270(99)00569-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "94",
pages = "3464--3467",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Fingerstick Helicobacter pylori antibody test

T2 - Better than laboratory serological testing?

AU - Laine, Loren

AU - Knigge, Kandice

AU - Faigel, Douglas

AU - Margaret, Nathan

AU - Marquis, Scott P.

AU - Vartan, Georgette

AU - Fennerty, M (Brian)

PY - 1999

Y1 - 1999

N2 - OBJECTIVE: Antibody testing is the recommended method to screen for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. Whole-blood fingerstick antibody tests are simple, in-office tests providing rapid results, but the accuracy of first-generation tests was lower than other diagnostic tests. We assessed a new whole-blood antibody test, using endoscopic biopsy tests as a 'gold standard,' and compared it with a laboratory quantitative serological test. METHODS: Two hundred-one patients not previously treated for H. pylori who were undergoing endoscopy had gastric biopsies for rapid urease test and histological examination; whole-blood antibody tests and quantitative serological tests were also performed. Two separate gold standards for H. pylori infection were employed: either rapid urease test or histological exam positive; and both rapid urease test and histological exam positive. RESULTS: Sensitivities for whole-blood test versus quantitative serology with gold standard 1 (either biopsy test positive) were 86% versus 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] of difference, -2-14%; p = 0.19) and specificities were 88% versus 77% (95% CI of difference, 0.4-22%; p = 0.052). Sensitivities with gold standard 2 (both biopsy tests positive) were 90% versus 94% (95% CI of difference, -4-12%; p = 0.41) and specificities were 79% versus 67% (95% CI of difference, 1-24%; p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: New generation in-office, whole-blood antibody tests that can achieve a sensitivity and specificity similar to or better than those of widely used quantitative laboratory serological tests may be used as the initial screening tests of choice for H. pylori.

AB - OBJECTIVE: Antibody testing is the recommended method to screen for Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. Whole-blood fingerstick antibody tests are simple, in-office tests providing rapid results, but the accuracy of first-generation tests was lower than other diagnostic tests. We assessed a new whole-blood antibody test, using endoscopic biopsy tests as a 'gold standard,' and compared it with a laboratory quantitative serological test. METHODS: Two hundred-one patients not previously treated for H. pylori who were undergoing endoscopy had gastric biopsies for rapid urease test and histological examination; whole-blood antibody tests and quantitative serological tests were also performed. Two separate gold standards for H. pylori infection were employed: either rapid urease test or histological exam positive; and both rapid urease test and histological exam positive. RESULTS: Sensitivities for whole-blood test versus quantitative serology with gold standard 1 (either biopsy test positive) were 86% versus 92% (95% confidence interval [CI] of difference, -2-14%; p = 0.19) and specificities were 88% versus 77% (95% CI of difference, 0.4-22%; p = 0.052). Sensitivities with gold standard 2 (both biopsy tests positive) were 90% versus 94% (95% CI of difference, -4-12%; p = 0.41) and specificities were 79% versus 67% (95% CI of difference, 1-24%; p = 0.048). CONCLUSIONS: New generation in-office, whole-blood antibody tests that can achieve a sensitivity and specificity similar to or better than those of widely used quantitative laboratory serological tests may be used as the initial screening tests of choice for H. pylori.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032763734&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0032763734&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0002-9270(99)00569-9

DO - 10.1016/S0002-9270(99)00569-9

M3 - Article

C2 - 10606304

AN - SCOPUS:0032763734

VL - 94

SP - 3464

EP - 3467

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 12

ER -