OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of a commercial serological enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for detecting salivary immunoglobulin (Ig) G to Helicobacter pylori. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre study. SETTING: The study was conducted at 11 gastroenterology hospital centres throughout Italy. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Two hundred and thirteen dyspeptic patients underwent gastroscopy with antral biopsies. At each centre, two of the following three tests for H. pylori diagnosis were performed: urease quick test, histology, and 13C-urea breath test. Samples of unstimulated saliva and venous blood were collected from each patient. Salivary and serum H. pylori IgG were determined with the EIA Helori-test IgG (Eurospital, Trieste, Italy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the salivary and serum EIAs. RESULTS: By using a receiver operating characteristic curve, salivary EIA yielded 81% (95% confidence interval 73-87%) sensitivity, 73% (62-83%) specificity, 84% (76-90%) positive predictive value, 69% (58-79%) negative predictive value, and 78% (72-84%) accuracy. At the cut-off suggested by the manufacturer, serum EIA had 90% (84-95%) sensitivity, 78% (67-86%) specificity, 88% (81-93%) positive predictive value, 82% (71-90%) negative predictive value, and 86% (81-91%) accuracy. CONCLUSION: In this large multicentre study, detection of salivary H. pylori IgG with a commercial serological EIA was a fairly accurate diagnostic method. Data confirm that saliva testing does not compare favourably with serology in the assessment of H. pylori status.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the usefulness of a commercial serological enzyme immunoassay (EIA) for detecting salivary immunoglobulin (Ig) G to Helicobacter pylori. DESIGN: Prospective, multicentre study. SETTING: The study was conducted at 11 gastroenterology hospital centres throughout Italy. PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Two hundred and thirteen dyspeptic patients underwent gastroscopy with antral biopsies. At each centre, two of the following three tests for H. pylori diagnosis were performed: urease quick test, histology, and 13C-urea breath test. Samples of unstimulated saliva and venous blood were collected from each patient. Salivary and serum H. pylori IgG were determined with the EIA Helori-test IgG (Eurospital, Trieste, Italy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and accuracy of the salivary and serum EIAs. RESULTS: By using a receiver operating characteristic curve, salivary EIA yielded 81% (95% confidence interval 73-87%) sensitivity, 73% (62-83%) specificity, 84% (76-90%) positive predictive value, 69% (58-79%) negative predictive value, and 78% (72-84%) accuracy. At the cut-off suggested by the manufacturer, serum EIA had 90% (84-95%) sensitivity, 78% (67-86%) specificity, 88% (81-93%) positive predictive value, 82% (71-90%) negative predictive value, and 86% (81-91%) accuracy. CONCLUSION: In this large multicentre study, detection of salivary H. pylori IgG with a commercial serological EIA was a fairly accurate diagnostic method. Data confirm that saliva testing does not compare favourably with serology in the assessment of H. pylori status.
Authors: Ahmad Piroozmand; Babak Soltani; Mohsen Razavizadeh; Amir Hasan Matini; Hamid Reza Gilasi; Abbas Nassaji Zavareh; Siamak Soltani Journal: Electron Physician Date: 2017-12-25