Evaluation of a commercial latex test for serological diagnosis ofHelicobacter pylori infection in treated and untreated patients

  • A. M. Hirschl
  • M. M. Hirschl
  • J. Berger
  • M. L. Rotter
Notes

Abstract

The value of a commercially available latex test (Pyloriset) for the diagnosis ofHelicobacter pylori infection by demonstration of specific antibodies was compared with that of direct diagnostic methods such as culture, biopsy-urease test and microscopy of fuchsin-stained smears. The sera were from 136 patients who prior to this study either had or had not been treated forHelicobacter pylori-infection simultaneously with amoxicillin (3 × 750 mg/day) and metronidazole (3 × 500 mg/day) for 12 days. On average, the sensitivity of the test was 90 %. The specificity with sera from untreated patients was 75.9 %; with sera from treated patients specificity was 22.2 %, 28 % and 20 % 1, 3 and 6 months respectively after start of treatment. Only as late as one year after the onset of chemotherapy did the specificity return to 67 %. Because of its low specificity this test does not offer any advantage over other tests in the detection ofHelicobacter pylori-infection or in monitoring the chemotherapeutic success.

Keywords

Internal Medicine Specific Antibody Metronidazole Amoxicillin Pylorus Infection 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Evans DJ, Evans DG, Graham DY, Klein PD A sensitive and specific serological test for detection ofCampylobacter pylori infection. Gastroenterology 1989, 96: 1004–1008.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hirschl AM Frequency of occurrence ofCampylobacter pylori and analysis of the systemic and local immune response. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie (A) 1987, 266: 526–542.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hirschl AM, Pletschette M, Hirschl MH, Berger J, Stanek G, Rotter ML Comparison of different antigen preparations in an evaluation of the immune response toCampylobacter pylori. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 1988, 7: 570–575.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hirschl AM, Rathbone BJ, Wyatt JI, Berger J, Rotter ML Comparison of ELISA antigen preparations alone or in combination for serodiagnosingHelicobacter pylori infections. Journal of Clinical Pathology 1990, 43: 511–513.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jacobs E, Apel I, Kist M, Bredt W Antibody response of patients against a 120 KDa surface protein ofCampylobacter pylori. Zentralblatt für Bakteriologie (A) 1988, 268: 271–276.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loffeld RJLF, Stobberingh E, Flendrig JA, Van Spreeuwel JP, Arends JW Diagnostic value of an immunoassay to detect anti-Campylobacter pylori antibodies in non-ulcer dyspepsia. Lancet 1989, i: 1182–1185.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Musgrove C, Bolton FJ, Krypczyk AM, Temperley JM, Cairns SA, Owen WG, Hutchingson DN Campylobacter pylori: clinical, histological, and serological studies. Journal of Clinical Pathology 1988, 41: 1316–1321.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Newell DG, Johnston BJ, Ali MH, Reed PI An enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay for the serodiagnosis ofCampylobacter pylori-associated gastritis. Scandinavian Journal of Gastroenterology 1988, 23: 53–57.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Newell DG, Rathbone BJ The serodiagnosis ofCampylobacter pylori infection. Serodiagnosis Immunotherapy 1989, 3: 1–6.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Newell DG, Stacey AR The serology ofCampylobacter pylori infection. In: Rathbone BJ, Heatley RV (ed):Campylobacter pylori and gastroduodenal disease. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 1989, p. 74–82.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rathbone BJ, Wyatt JI, Worsley BW, Shires SE, Trejdosiewicz LV, Heatley RV, Losowsky MS Systemic and local antibody responses to gastricCampylobacter pyloridis in non-ulcer dyspesia. Gut 1986, 27: 642–647.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Stacey AR, Hawtin PR, Newell DG The antigenicity of fractions ofHelicobacter pylori prepared by fast liquid chromatography and urease captured by monoclonal antibodies. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 1990, 9: 732–737.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dent JC, McNulty CAM Evaluation of a new selective medium forCampylobacter pylori. European Journal of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 1988, 7: 555–558.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hirschl AM, Rotter ML Serodiagnosis ofHelicobacter pylori infections: suitability of various antigen preparations. In: Malfertheiner P, Ditschuneit H (ed):Helicobacter pylori gastritis and peptic ulcer. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 1990, p. 141–146.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rolke J, Börsch G, Geis G, Mai U, Opferkuch W Die Serodiagnostik vonCampylobacter pylori. Immunität und Infektion 1989, 17: 78–82.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    von Bohemen CG, Langenberg ML, Rauws EAJ, Oudbier J, Weterings E, Zanen HC Rapidly decreased serum IgG toCampylobacter pylori following elimination ofCampylobacter in histological chronic biopsyCampylobacter-positive gastritis. Immunology Letters 1989, 20: 59–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gobert B, Bene MC, de Korwin JD, Faure D Isotype evolution in the follow-up study of patients withCampylobacter pylori associated gastritis. Gastroenterologic Clinique et Biologique 1989, 13: 880–883.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vaira D, Holton J, Cairns SR, Falzon M, Polydorou A, Dowsertt JF, Salman FR Antibody titres toCampylobacter pylori after treatment for gastritis. British Medical Journal 1988, 297: 397.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn Verlagsgesellschaft mbH 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. M. Hirschl
    • 1
  • M. M. Hirschl
    • 1
  • J. Berger
    • 1
  • M. L. Rotter
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Clinical MicrobiologyHygiene Institute, Vienna UniversityViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations