| Literature DB >> 28522798 |
Zhe-Xuan Li1, Lei-Lei Huang1, Cong Liu1, Luca Formichella2, Yang Zhang1, Yu-Mei Wang1, Lian Zhang1, Jun-Ling Ma1, Wei-Dong Liu3, Kurt Ulm2, Jian-Xi Wang3, Lei Zhang1, Monther Bajbouj2, Ming Li3, Michael Vieth4, Michael Quante2, Tong Zhou1, Le-Hua Wang3, Stepan Suchanek5, Erwin Soutschek6, Roland Schmid2, Meinhard Classen2,7, Wei-Cheng You1, Markus Gerhard8,9, Kai-Feng Pan10.
Abstract
The performance of diagnostic tests in intervention trials of Helicobacter pylori (H.pylori) eradication is crucial, since even minor inaccuracies can have major impact. To determine the cut-off point for 13C-urea breath test (13C-UBT) and to assess if it can be further optimized by serologic testing, mathematic modeling, histopathology and serologic validation were applied. A finite mixture model (FMM) was developed in 21,857 subjects, and an independent validation by modified Giemsa staining was conducted in 300 selected subjects. H.pylori status was determined using recomLine H.pylori assay in 2,113 subjects with a borderline 13C-UBT results. The delta over baseline-value (DOB) of 3.8 was an optimal cut-off point by a FMM in modelling dataset, which was further validated as the most appropriate cut-off point by Giemsa staining (sensitivity = 94.53%, specificity = 92.93%). In the borderline population, 1,468 subjects were determined as H.pylori positive by recomLine (69.5%). A significant correlation between the number of positive H.pylori serum responses and DOB value was found (rs = 0.217, P < 0.001). A mathematical approach such as FMM might be an alternative measure in optimizing the cut-off point for 13C-UBT in community-based studies, and a second method to determine H.pylori status for subjects with borderline value of 13C-UBT was necessary and recommended.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28522798 PMCID: PMC5437005 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-02180-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Baseline characteristics of participants in different study populations.
| Characteristics | Modelling population n = 21,857 | Validating subjects n = 300 | Borderline subjects n = 2,113 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| N (%) | N (%) |
| N (%) |
| |
| Age(Mean ± SD) | 45.6 ± 8.3 | 44.5 ± 4.8 | <0.001** | 45.7 ± 8.2 | 0.624** |
| Sex | 0.600 | <0.001 | |||
| Male | 9,360(42.8) | 133(44.3) | 1,009 (47.8) | ||
| Female | 12,497(57.2) | 167(55.7) | 1,104 (52.2) | ||
| Smoking | 0.887 | 0.284 | |||
| No | 17,102(78.2) | 222(74.0) | 1,632 (77.2) | ||
| Yes | 4,755(21.8) | 63(21.0) | 481 (22.8) | ||
| Missing | 0(0.0) | 15(5.0) | 0(0.0) | ||
| Drinking | <0.001 | 0.009 | |||
| No | 16,108(73.7) | 238(79.3) | 1,502 (71.1) | ||
| Yes | 5,749(26.3) | 47(15.7) | 611 (28.9) | ||
| Missing | 0(0.0) | 15(5.0) | 0(0.0) | ||
*Pearson’s χ2 test compared to the modelling population without missing values.
**Student’s t-test.
Figure 1Distribution of DOB value with density line of 9 components modeled by finite mixture model in the modelling population.
Putative sensitivity and specificity of cut-off points by finite mixture model.
| Cut-off | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | Youden’s index |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2.4 | 97.99 | 94.04 | 0.9203 |
| 2.5 | 97.89 | 95.11 | 0.9300 |
| 2.6 | 97.79 | 96.19 | 0.9398 |
| 2.7 | 97.68 | 97.30 | 0.9498 |
| 2.8 | 97.57 | 98.33 | 0.9590 |
| 2.9 | 97.45 | 99.10 | 0.9655 |
| 3.0 | 97.33 | 99.56 | 0.9689 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.2 | 97.06 | 99.87 | 0.9693 |
| 3.3 | 96.91 | 99.92 | 0.9683 |
| 3.4 | 96.75 | 99.95 | 0.9670 |
| 3.5 | 96.58 | 99.96 | 0.9654 |
| 3.6 | 96.38 | 99.97 | 0.9635 |
| 3.7 | 96.16 | 99.98 | 0.9614 |
|
|
|
|
|
| 3.9 | 95.65 | 99.99 | 0.9564 |
| 4.0 | 95.35 | 99.99 | 0.9534 |
| 4.1 | 95.03 | 99.99 | 0.9502 |
| 4.2 | 94.67 | 99.99 | 0.9466 |
Sensitivity and specificity of 13C-UBT in validating subjects.
| 13C-UBT | Giemsa (N, %) | Total | Kappa |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | |||||
| Cut-off = 3.1 | Positive | 190(94.53) | 10(10.10) | 200 | 0.842 | <0.001 |
| Negative | 11(5.47) | 89(89.90) | 100 | |||
| Cut-off = 3.8 | Positive | 190(94.53) | 7(7.07) | 197 | 0.866 | <0.001 |
| Negative | 11(5.47) | 92(92.93) | 103 | |||
| Total | 201(100.00) | 99(100.00) | 300 | |||
Consistency of H.pylori test results among diagnostic methods.
| Reference Methods | recomLine (N,%) | Total | Kappa |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive | Negative | |||||
| Giemsa | Positive | 197(98.01) | 4(1.99) | 201(100.00) | 0.828 | <0.001 |
| Negative | 18(18.18) | 81(81.82) | 99(100.00) | |||
| 13C-UBT | Positive | 187(94.92) | 10(5.08) | 197(100.00) | 0.707 | <0.001 |
| Negative | 28(27.18) | 75(72.82) | 103(100.00) | |||
| Total | 215 | 85 | 300 | |||
Seropositivities for H.pylori specific antibodies in borderline subjects with different DOB value.
| Total (N, %) | DOB Groups (N, %) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative borderline (2.5 ≤ DOB < 3.8) | Positive borderline (3.8 ≤ DOB < 4.0) | |||
| CagA | <0.001 | |||
| Negative | 902(42.69) | 776(47.14) | 126(26.98) | |
| Positive | 1211(57.31) | 870(52.86) | 341(73.02) | |
| VacA | <0.001 | |||
| Negative | 1687(79.84) | 1364(82.87) | 323(69.16) | |
| Positive | 426(20.16) | 282(17.13) | 144(30.84) | |
| GroEL | <0.001 | |||
| Negative | 1308(61.90) | 1084(65.86) | 224(47.97) | |
| Positive | 805(38.10) | 562(34.14) | 243(52.03) | |
| UreA | 0.004 | |||
| Negative | 1667(78.89) | 1321(80.26) | 346(74.09) | |
| Positive | 446(21.11) | 325(19.74) | 121(25.91) | |
| HcpC | <0.001 | |||
| Negative | 1247(59.02) | 1053(63.97) | 194(41.54) | |
| Positive | 866(40.98) | 593(36.03) | 273(58.46) | |
| gGT | <0.001 | |||
| Negative | 1336(63.23) | 1098(66.71) | 238(50.96) | |
| Positive | 777(36.77) | 548(33.29) | 229(49.04) | |
DOB, Delta over baseline-value.
.