AIM:To evaluate the performance of commercially available immunochromatographic (ICT) and immunoblot tests covering the current infection marker CIM and conventional ELISA for the diagnosis of H pylori infection in ad...AIM:To evaluate the performance of commercially available immunochromatographic (ICT) and immunoblot tests covering the current infection marker CIM and conventional ELISA for the diagnosis of H pylori infection in adult dyspeptic patients. METHODS:Consecutive non-treated dyspeptic patients undergoing diagnostic endoscopy were tested for H pylori infection by culture, rapid urease test, and histology of gastric biopsy specimens. Serum from 61 H pylori infected and 21 non-infected patients were tested for anti-H pylori IgG antibodies by commercial ELISA (AccuBindTM ELISA, Monobind, USA), ICT (Assure H pylori Rapid Test, Genelabs Diagnostics, Singapore), and immunoblot (Helico Blot 2.1, Genelabs Diagnostics, Singapore) assays. ICT and immunoblot kits cover CIM among other parameters and their performance with and without CIM was evaluated separately. RESULTS:Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of ELISA were 96.7%, 42.8%, 83.1%, 81.8%, and 82.9%, of ICT were 90.1%, 80.9%, 93.2%, 73.9%, and 87.8%, of ICT with CIM were 88.5%, 90.4%, 96.4%, 73.0%, and 89.0%, of immunoblot were 98.3%, 80.9%, 93.7%, 94.4%, and 93.9%, and of immunoblot with CIM were 98.3%, 90.4%, 96.7%, 95.0%, and 96.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION:Immunoblot with CIM had the best performance. ICT with CIM was found to be more specific and accurate than the conventional ELISA and may be useful for non-invasive diagnosis of H pylori infection.展开更多
文摘AIM:To evaluate the performance of commercially available immunochromatographic (ICT) and immunoblot tests covering the current infection marker CIM and conventional ELISA for the diagnosis of H pylori infection in adult dyspeptic patients. METHODS:Consecutive non-treated dyspeptic patients undergoing diagnostic endoscopy were tested for H pylori infection by culture, rapid urease test, and histology of gastric biopsy specimens. Serum from 61 H pylori infected and 21 non-infected patients were tested for anti-H pylori IgG antibodies by commercial ELISA (AccuBindTM ELISA, Monobind, USA), ICT (Assure H pylori Rapid Test, Genelabs Diagnostics, Singapore), and immunoblot (Helico Blot 2.1, Genelabs Diagnostics, Singapore) assays. ICT and immunoblot kits cover CIM among other parameters and their performance with and without CIM was evaluated separately. RESULTS:Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy of ELISA were 96.7%, 42.8%, 83.1%, 81.8%, and 82.9%, of ICT were 90.1%, 80.9%, 93.2%, 73.9%, and 87.8%, of ICT with CIM were 88.5%, 90.4%, 96.4%, 73.0%, and 89.0%, of immunoblot were 98.3%, 80.9%, 93.7%, 94.4%, and 93.9%, and of immunoblot with CIM were 98.3%, 90.4%, 96.7%, 95.0%, and 96.3%, respectively. CONCLUSION:Immunoblot with CIM had the best performance. ICT with CIM was found to be more specific and accurate than the conventional ELISA and may be useful for non-invasive diagnosis of H pylori infection.
