Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology IAMM  | About us |  Subscription |  e-Alerts  | Feedback |  Login   
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 Home | Ahead of Print | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions  
Users Online: 241 Official Publication of Indian Association of Medical Microbiologists 
  Search
 
  
 ~  Similar in PUBMED
 ~  Search Pubmed for
 ~  Search in Google Scholar for
 ~Related articles
 ~  Article in PDF (501 KB)
 ~  Citation Manager
 ~  Access Statistics
 ~  Reader Comments
 ~  Email Alert *
 ~  Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
 ~  Abstract
 ~  Introduction
 ~  Materials and Me...
 ~  Results
 ~  Discussion
 ~  References
 ~  Article Figures
 ~  Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3446    
    Printed198    
    Emailed4    
    PDF Downloaded271    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal

 


 
  Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2011  |  Volume : 29  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 136-140
 

Comparison of enzyme immunoassays detecting Helicobacter pylori specific IgG in serum and saliva with endoscopic and biopsy findings in patients with dyspepsia


1 Department of Clinical Microbiology and Parasitology, King Khalid University, College of Medicine, Abha, P.O. Box 641, Pin - 61421, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2 National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
3 King Faisal Specialist Hospital and Research Center, Jeddah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
4 Faculty of Medicine, University of Medical Sciences and Technology, P.O. Box.12810, Khartoum, Sudan

Date of Submission06-Dec-2010
Date of Acceptance30-Jan-2011
Date of Web Publication2-Jun-2011

Correspondence Address:
A Kumar
Department of Clinical Microbiology and Parasitology, King Khalid University, College of Medicine, Abha, P.O. Box 641, Pin - 61421
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0255-0857.81793

Rights and Permissions

 ~ Abstract 

Purpose: To compare the performance of two indirect enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA) detecting Helicobacter pylori (HP)-specific IgG antibodies in serum and saliva with endoscopic observations and histologic findings of biopsies from dyspeptic patients, in an area of high HP prevalence. Materials and Methods : Sera, saliva and antral biopsies were obtained from 55 dyspeptic patients. IgG antibodies against HP were assayed in sera and saliva utilizing two indirect ELISAs. Biopsies were processed according to standard procedures in order to detect histological changes and the presence or absence of Helicobacter pylori. Laboratory data thus obtained were compared and statistically analyzed. Results: Forty-two (76.36%) biopsies were positive for HP. The organisms were detected in 4 of 16 (25%) cases with normal endoscopic findings, in all 16 cases of gastritis and in 22 of the 23 (95.6%) cases of duodenal ulcers (DU). Serum and saliva HP-specific IgG antibodies were detected in 4 normal cases with positive biopsies, in 12 and 14 cases of gastritis, respectively, and in all 22 (100%) biopsy positive cases of DU. The sensitivities of the serum and saliva tests were 90.5% and 95%, respectively, while the specificities were 84.5% and 70%, respectively. Conclusion: Due to their high sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing HP-associated DU and gastritis, serum and saliva antibody testing seems to offer a valuable alternative to invasive procedures especially in areas of high HP prevalence such as ours; saliva antibody testing is simple and practical especially in children and in difficult patients who resent venipuncture.


Keywords: Antibodies, dyspepsia, H. pylori, serum, saliva


How to cite this article:
El-Mekki A, Kumar A, Alknawy B, Al-Ammari O, Moosa R, Quli S, Ahmed M. Comparison of enzyme immunoassays detecting Helicobacter pylori specific IgG in serum and saliva with endoscopic and biopsy findings in patients with dyspepsia. Indian J Med Microbiol 2011;29:136-40

How to cite this URL:
El-Mekki A, Kumar A, Alknawy B, Al-Ammari O, Moosa R, Quli S, Ahmed M. Comparison of enzyme immunoassays detecting Helicobacter pylori specific IgG in serum and saliva with endoscopic and biopsy findings in patients with dyspepsia. Indian J Med Microbiol [serial online] 2011 [cited 2019 Oct 15];29:136-40. Available from: http://www.ijmm.org/text.asp?2011/29/2/136/81793



 ~ Introduction Top


Infection with Helicobacter pylori (HP) is particularly common in developing countries of Asia with prevalence rates approaching 95% in patients with dyspepsia. [1]

Recent studies of a number of serologic tests currently available for diagnosing HP infection seem to indicate that none of them is ideal and therefore, the performance characteristics of any of these tests should be carefully considered prior to their utilization in a given setting. [2],[3] For quick office evaluation of dyspepsia and population-based studies, a simple, rapid, reliable and an inexpensive test is highly desirable. [4] Because of their reported high sensitivity and specificity, [5],[6] commercially available antibody tests seem to be well suited for epidemiological surveys, practically among children and untreated patients. [7],[8],[9],[10] Since the pattern of HP infection in the developing world is quite distinct from that in the Western countries [11] and because the economic constraints make invasive tests difficult to perform, the search for reliable and cheap tests that suit such situations becomes necessary. Thus our aim in the present study was to compare and evaluate the findings of two indirect enzyme immunoassays detecting HP-specific IgG class antibody levels in saliva and serum, with endoscopic observations and histologic biopsy findings as a standard test, hoping to select a suitable non-invasive test capable of accurately diagnosing HP infection in our community.


 ~ Materials and Methods Top


Patients and clinical specimens

Fifty five patients (20 males, 35 females; mean age 37 years) with dyspeptic symptoms, consecutively attending the endoscopy unit of the hospital were enrolled in the present study. None of these patients had been on antibiotics previously. About 10 ml of venous blood was collected in plain tubes from each patient. Saliva was also collected from patients by placing the absorbent pad in the mouth using Omni-SAL TM Saliva Collection Device until the indicator turned blue (Omni-SAL TM Saliva Diagnostic Systems Ltd., Dartford, England, UK). These samples were kept in the collection tubes and stored at 4° C. Separated sera were aliquoted and kept frozen until tested.

Endoscopic diagnosis was initially recorded from each patient and subsequently, an average of three mucosal biopsies were taken from within 5 cm of the pylorus. Biopsies were kept in 10% buffered formalin until it was further processed for histopathologic examination and detection of HP.

Methods

Two indirect quantitative enzyme immunoassays (HeliSAL TM saliva and HeliSAL TM serum, Cortecs Diagnostics Ltd., Techbase 1, Newtech Square, Deeside Industrial Park, UK CH5 2NT, Clwyd, UK) were utilized for the detection of HP-specific IgG class antibodies in saliva and serum, respectively. Prior to testing, saliva specimens from all patients were vortex-mixed for one minute, the pads were further squeezed and the fluid was carefully pipetted from the bottom of the tubes to avoid air bubbles. The specimens were then transferred onto antigen-coated plates. Frozen serum samples from all patients were allowed to thaw at room temperature prior to testing. Enzyme immunoassays were then performed and evaluated according to the manufacturer's instructions. In all runs, standard curves were plotted and the IgG concentration in tested samples, expressed as units, were directly read against their optical density. Values ≥1 units/ml were considered positive for HP-specific IgG antibodies in serum and saliva, respectively. Biopsies from patients were stained with hematoxylin and eosin and Giemsa stain and examined for histopathological changes and presence or absence of HP. Laboratory data thus collected from patients were analyzed by Prism TM version 2.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc, San Diego, USA).


 ~ Results Top


Of the biopsies obtained from the 55 patients with dyspeptic symptoms, 42 (76.36%) were positive for HP on staining. These microorganisms were identified on stained sections from biopsies in 4 of the 16 (25%) cases with normal endoscopic findings, in all 16 cases of gastritis and in 22 of the 23 (95.6%) cases with duodenal ulcers [Table 1]. Prevalence of HP was significantly higher in biopsies from patients with gastritis (P = 0.0001) and duodenal ulcers (P = 0.0001) compared to those with normal endoscopic findings. Serum HP-specific IgG antibodies were detected in all the 4 cases with normal endoscopy findings with positive biopsies, in 12 of the 16 cases of gastritis and in 22 of the 23 cases of duodenal ulcers with positive biopsies. There were two false positives among those with normal endoscopic findings, and four false negatives among cases with gastritis. In saliva, specific IgG antibodies were detected in all the 4 cases with positive biopsies and in 4 additional cases with negative biopsies (i.e. false positives), in 14 of the 16 cases of gastritis and in all biopsy-positive cases with duodenal ulcers. Prevalence of specific antibodies in either sera or saliva did not show significant differences between normals and those with gastritis (P = 0.0730, 0.0538, respectively). However, a significant higher prevalence of these antibodies was observed in those with duodenal ulcers when compared to normals (P = 0.0001 and 0.0015 for serum and saliva, respectively). The sensitivity and specificity of HeliSAL TM serum and HeliSAL TM saliva were 100% in the latter group. The overall performance characteristics of these immunoassays are summarized in [Table 2].
Table 1: Summary of endoscopic diagnosis in relation to H. pylori detection and positive serology

Click here to view
Table 2: Characteristics of enzyme immunoassays in detecting H. pylori-specific IgG antibodies

Click here to view


Column scatters plotted in [Figure 1] and [Figure 2] represent serum and saliva IgG concentrations, respectively. Statistical analysis utilizing t tests and two-tailed P values did not show any significant difference (at 95% CI) between mean IgG concentrations [Figure 3] of normals compared to those with gastritis or duodenal ulcers.
Figure 1: HELISAL– Serum IgG levels among different groups tested
(Horizontal bars within scatters represent mean values; COV:Cut-off value)


Click here to view
Figure 2: HELISAL– Saliva IgG levels among different groups tested
(Horizontal bars within scatters represent mean values; COV: Cut-off value)


Click here to view
Figure 3: Mean IgG levels in serum and saliva among the groups tested

Click here to view



 ~ Discussion Top


Many endoscopy units, including ours, adopt an open access policy and therefore receive requests for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGE) at a rate that exceeds the available facilities, [12] hence the availability of a simple and a reliable test will significantly reduce the load of UGE by screening the large number of young patients presenting with dyspepsia. [13],[14] Thus serologic tests of serum or saliva seem to be an attractive alternative that will reduce UGE load as well as allow the empirical treatment of patients with antisecretory and antimicrobial agents, thereby greatly reducing the cost of patient management. [15]

The present study compared the performance of serum and saliva HP-specific IgG serology to antral biopsy histopathology, which is considered one of the gold standard methods for HP detection in a population with high prevalence of HP infection. [1],[16] The performance of both serum and saliva immunoassays were concordant with the detection of HP in biopsies from patients with DU and approaches the findings in patients with gastritis. These results are similar to previous reports, which also documented the good sensitivity and specificity of these assays, [6],[17] but a recent report from Canada demonstrated a low sensitivity and specificity of the saliva ELISA test. [18] However, these differences can be attributed to several factors such as the type of population studied, decreased saliva flow due to pre-endoscopy anxiety, or differences of HP strains. Thus, if endoscopy had not been done, none of the HP-associated DU and very few of the gastritis group would have been missed by either serologic tests. In this respect, our findings were better than those reported by Reilly and co-workers who found that about 10 to 15% of HP-related pathology could be missed by those tests. [5] The false-positive results observed in some patients with normal endoscopy findings could be explained by the nature of our population, being patients referred with long standing dyspepsia and are therefore expected to have high prevalence of HP (76.4%), which could have decreased the negative predictive value of these tests. [19] This trend could also have arisen from possible strain cross-reactivities, sampling errors, differences in defining the cut-off values or denial of some patients with normal endoscopy or recent consumption of drugs. [1],[19],[20] Interestingly, we found no significant difference in the quantity of antibody in either serum or saliva between the normals and those with gastritis or duodenal ulcers [Figure 3] but a significant difference in the prevalence of these antibodies was observed between the normal group and patients with DU (P = 0.0001 and 0.0015 for serum and saliva, respectively). This supports the usefulness of these tests in detecting HP-associated DU patients and contrasts previous findings which suggested that serum IgG assays were much better than saliva IgG in detecting such patients. [21] The performance characteristics of the enzyme immunoassays currently used in detecting salivary or serum IgG can be further refined by introducing IgG capture immunoassays utilizing highly specific enzyme-labeled HP antigens.

In conclusion, in spite of the limitations of this study, we are of the opinion that immunoassays detecting HP-specific IgG antibodies in saliva are simple and practical in clinical settings and are concordant with invasive tests. [9] Furthermore, as suggested by some authors, such tests, can be considered as good as the gold standard biopsy test in diagnosing HP infection and screening of dyspeptic patients. [22],[23] In settings similar to ours, we would therefore recommend the use of HP-specific salivary IgG assays, which offer a simple means of sample collection, especially in children and in difficult patients who usually resent venipuncture for blood sampling, although the issue of how best to diagnose HP infection remains a matter of concern [24] as do the many gray areas in the microbiological and clinical aspects of HP infection. [25]

 
 ~ References Top

1.Hanvivatvong O, Pongpanich A, Thong-Ngam D, Thammacharoenrach N, Kullavanijaya P. Evaluation of commercial Immunoassays for detection of antibody against Helicobacter pylori in Thai dyspeptic patients. Clin Diagn Lab Immunol 2004;11:618-20.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
2.Megraud F. Advantages and disadvantages of current diagnostic tests for the detection of Helicobacter pylori. Scand J Gastroenterol 1996;31:57-62.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Simor AE, Lin E, Saibil F, Cohen L, Louie M, Pearen S, et al. Evaluation of enzyme immunoassay for detection of salivary antibody to Helicobacter pylori. J Clin Microbiol 1996;34:550-3.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
4.Locatelli A, Catapani WR, Gomes Junior CR, Silva CB, Walsberg J. Detection of Helicobacter pylori antibodies in serum and duodenal fluid in peptic gastroduodenal disease. World J Gastroenterol 2004;10:2997-3000.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Reilly TG, Poxon V, Sanders DS, Elliot TS, Walt RP. Comparison of serum, saliva and rapid whole blood tests for Helicobacter pylori and their validation against endoscopy tests. Gut 1997;40:454-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.de Angelis GL, Cavallaro LG, Maffiniv V, Moussa AM, Fornaroli F, Liatopoulou S, et al. Usefulness of a serological panel test in the assessment of gastritis in symptomatic children. Dig Dis 2007;25:206-13.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.Versalovic J. Helicobacter pylori: Pathology and diagnostic strategies. Am J Clin Pathol 2003;119:403-12.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
8.Cockburn M, Collett J, Cox B. Validation of the saliva-based H. pylori test, HeliSAL TM , and its use in prevalence surveys. Epidemiol Infect 2001;126:191-6.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
9.Leal YA, Flores LL, García-Cortés LB, Cedillo-Rivera R, Torres J. Antibody-Based Detection Tests for the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori Infection in Children: A Meta-Analysis. PLoS ONE 2008;3:e3751. Available from: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0003751 [Last accessed on 2011 Mar 17].  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Safaei HG, Fazeli A, Tamizifar H, Rashidi N. Comparison of salivary anti-Helicobacter pylori IgG with Serum IgG and bacteriological tests in detecting Helicobacter pylori infections. Res Med Sci 2005;1:1-5.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.Ren Z, Borody T, Pang G, Dunkley M, Clancy R, Xia HH, et al. Evaluation of anti-Helicobacter pylori IgG2 antibody for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection in western and Chinese populations. Aliment Pharmacol ther 2005;21:83-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
12.Goel N, Sherwal BL, Patwari AK, Bajaj P, Choudhury M. Evaluation of invasive and non-invasive diagnostic modalities for Helicobacter pylori infection in children. Indian Pediatr 2003;40:141-6.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.Baqir HI, Abdullah AM, Al-Bana AS, Al-Aubaidi HM. Sero-prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection in unselected adult population in Iraq. IJGE 2002;3:22-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Bittencourt PF, Rocha GA, Penna FJ, Queiroz DM. Gastroduodenal peptic ulcer and Helicobacter pylori infection in children and adolescents. J Pediatr (Rio J) 2006;82:325-34.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  
15.Tanih NF, Clarke AM, Mkwetshana N, Green E, Ndip LM, Ndip RN. Helicobacter pylori infection in Africa: Pathology and microbiological diagnosis. Afr J Biotechnol 2008;7:4653-62.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Naficy MR, Zamanzad B, Shirzadeh H. Comparison of an (HM-CAPs) ELISA test and the gold standard tests for detecting Helicobacter pylori infection. Kuwait Med J 2005;37:94-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Luzza F, Imeneo M, Marasco A, Crotta A, Ierardi E, Usai P, et al. Evaluation of a commercial serological kit for detection of salivary immunoglobulin G to Helicobacter pylori: A multicenter study. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 2000;1117-20.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Embil JM, Choudhri SH, Smart G. Comparison of salivary and serum enzyme immunoassays for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection. Canad J Infect dis 1998;9:277-80.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Feteih R, Abdel-Salam M, Jamjoom H, Akbar H. Salivary anti- Helicobacter pylori positivity among endoscopy patients with chronic liver disease. East Mediterr Health J 2009;15:1371-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.Baqir HI, Al-Aubaidi MH, Fakhri S, Al-Mousili MM, Hamadi SA. Evaluation of serological tests for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection. IJGE 2003;1:41-7.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Estakhri R, Homayoon D, Ghazanchaei A, Pourasgari B, Nourazarian M. Saliva or serum, which is better for the diagnosis of gastric Helicobacter pylori infection? Iran J Clin Infect Dis 2008;3:121-5.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Locatelli A, Catapani WR, Gomes Junior CR, Silva CB, Walsberg J. Detection of Helicobacter pylori antibodies in serum and duodenal fluid in peptic gastroduodenal disease. World J Gastroenterol 2004;10:2997-3000.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Fernando N, Jayakumar G, Perera N, Amarasingha I, Meedin F, Holton J. Presence of Helicobacter pylori in betel chewers and non-betel chewers with and without oral cancers. BMC Oral Health 2009;923. Available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6831/9/23 [Last accessed on 2011 Mar 17].  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Islam MD, Rahman SH, Shamsuzzaman SM, Muazzam N, Kibria SG, Hossain MT, et al. A comparative study among different invasive methods for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori. Faridpur Med College J 2010;5:21-4.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Blaser MJ. In a world of black and white, Helicobacter pylori is gray. Ann Intern Med 1999;130:695-7.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  [FULLTEXT]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]

This article has been cited by
1 Sero-prevalence and factors associated with Helicobacter pylori infection in Eastern Sudan
Tajeldin Mohammedien Abdallah,Hashim Balla Mohammed,Mamoon Hassan Mohammed,Abdel Aziem Abdalla Ali
Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease. 2014; 4(2): 115
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Association between recurrent aphthous stomatitis and Helicobacter pylori infection: a meta-analysis
Lin Li,Huiyuan Gu,Guoxin Zhang
Clinical Oral Investigations. 2014;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Determination of efficacy, adverse drug reactions and cost effectiveness of three triple drug regimens for the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infected acid peptic disease patients
Pinaki Ghosh,Amit D Kandhare,Divya Gauba,Kiran S Raygude,Subhash L Bodhankar
Asian Pacific Journal of Tropical Disease. 2012; 2: S783
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

2004 - Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology
Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow

Online since April 2001, new site since 1st August '04