Comparison of agar gel (CLOtest) or reagent strip (PyloriTek) rapid urease tests for detection of Helicobacter pylori infection

Mahmoud M. Yousfi, Hala M T El-Zimaity, Rhonda A. Cole, Robert M. Genta, David Y. Graham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

22 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Rapid urease tests (RUTs) are used commonly as a convenient method to detect Helicobacter pylori infection. New rapid tests have been commercially available with promotional literature suggesting enhanced utility. We compared CLOtest to a new reagent strip RUT, PyloriTek. Methods: Gastric antral mucosal biopsy specimens were obtained from 102 patients for comparison between CLOtest and PyloriTek (204 specimens). Biopsy specimens obtained from a nearby area were stained using the Genta stain for determination of H. pylori status. The RUT to be used first was selected randomly. Results: Sixty-five of the 102 patients had peptic ulcer disease, two had gastric cancer, and 35 had dyspepsia; 61 patients had active H. pylori infection. There were one false-negative and three false-positive CLOtest results, compared with one false-negative and 13 false-positive PyloriTek results (p < 0.02 for incorrect categorization with PyloriTek). Sensitivity and specificity were 98 and 92% compared with 98 and 68% for CLOtest and PyloriTek, respectively. An erroneous categorization of H. pylori status occurred in 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-9.7%) with CLOtest compared with 13.7% (95% CI: 7.7 -22%) with PyloriTek. When the PyloriTek was scored at 1 h (0-1 h) after obtaining the specimen, the accuracy improved; erroneous categorization of H. pylori status occurred in only 2.9% (95% CI: 0.6-8.3%). Conclusion: Used according to manufacturer instructions, the new reagent strip RUT PyloriTek has too many false-positive results for use in a clinical situation. In contrast, when the test was interpreted within 1 h, accuracy was comparable to that of CLOtest.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)997-999
Number of pages3
JournalAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology
Volume92
Issue number6
StatePublished - Jun 1997

Fingerprint

Reagent Strips
Urease
Helicobacter Infections
Helicobacter pylori
Agar
Gels
Confidence Intervals
Biopsy
Dyspepsia
Peptic Ulcer
Stomach Neoplasms
Stomach
Coloring Agents
Sensitivity and Specificity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Gastroenterology

Cite this

Comparison of agar gel (CLOtest) or reagent strip (PyloriTek) rapid urease tests for detection of Helicobacter pylori infection. / Yousfi, Mahmoud M.; El-Zimaity, Hala M T; Cole, Rhonda A.; Genta, Robert M.; Graham, David Y.

In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Vol. 92, No. 6, 06.1997, p. 997-999.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Yousfi, Mahmoud M. ; El-Zimaity, Hala M T ; Cole, Rhonda A. ; Genta, Robert M. ; Graham, David Y. / Comparison of agar gel (CLOtest) or reagent strip (PyloriTek) rapid urease tests for detection of Helicobacter pylori infection. In: American Journal of Gastroenterology. 1997 ; Vol. 92, No. 6. pp. 997-999.
@article{1c2a47bf6ac44a058feade89f7c44f53,
title = "Comparison of agar gel (CLOtest) or reagent strip (PyloriTek) rapid urease tests for detection of Helicobacter pylori infection",
abstract = "Objective: Rapid urease tests (RUTs) are used commonly as a convenient method to detect Helicobacter pylori infection. New rapid tests have been commercially available with promotional literature suggesting enhanced utility. We compared CLOtest to a new reagent strip RUT, PyloriTek. Methods: Gastric antral mucosal biopsy specimens were obtained from 102 patients for comparison between CLOtest and PyloriTek (204 specimens). Biopsy specimens obtained from a nearby area were stained using the Genta stain for determination of H. pylori status. The RUT to be used first was selected randomly. Results: Sixty-five of the 102 patients had peptic ulcer disease, two had gastric cancer, and 35 had dyspepsia; 61 patients had active H. pylori infection. There were one false-negative and three false-positive CLOtest results, compared with one false-negative and 13 false-positive PyloriTek results (p < 0.02 for incorrect categorization with PyloriTek). Sensitivity and specificity were 98 and 92{\%} compared with 98 and 68{\%} for CLOtest and PyloriTek, respectively. An erroneous categorization of H. pylori status occurred in 3.9{\%} (95{\%} confidence interval [CI]: 1-9.7{\%}) with CLOtest compared with 13.7{\%} (95{\%} CI: 7.7 -22{\%}) with PyloriTek. When the PyloriTek was scored at 1 h (0-1 h) after obtaining the specimen, the accuracy improved; erroneous categorization of H. pylori status occurred in only 2.9{\%} (95{\%} CI: 0.6-8.3{\%}). Conclusion: Used according to manufacturer instructions, the new reagent strip RUT PyloriTek has too many false-positive results for use in a clinical situation. In contrast, when the test was interpreted within 1 h, accuracy was comparable to that of CLOtest.",
author = "Yousfi, {Mahmoud M.} and El-Zimaity, {Hala M T} and Cole, {Rhonda A.} and Genta, {Robert M.} and Graham, {David Y.}",
year = "1997",
month = "6",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "92",
pages = "997--999",
journal = "American Journal of Gastroenterology",
issn = "0002-9270",
publisher = "Nature Publishing Group",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of agar gel (CLOtest) or reagent strip (PyloriTek) rapid urease tests for detection of Helicobacter pylori infection

AU - Yousfi, Mahmoud M.

AU - El-Zimaity, Hala M T

AU - Cole, Rhonda A.

AU - Genta, Robert M.

AU - Graham, David Y.

PY - 1997/6

Y1 - 1997/6

N2 - Objective: Rapid urease tests (RUTs) are used commonly as a convenient method to detect Helicobacter pylori infection. New rapid tests have been commercially available with promotional literature suggesting enhanced utility. We compared CLOtest to a new reagent strip RUT, PyloriTek. Methods: Gastric antral mucosal biopsy specimens were obtained from 102 patients for comparison between CLOtest and PyloriTek (204 specimens). Biopsy specimens obtained from a nearby area were stained using the Genta stain for determination of H. pylori status. The RUT to be used first was selected randomly. Results: Sixty-five of the 102 patients had peptic ulcer disease, two had gastric cancer, and 35 had dyspepsia; 61 patients had active H. pylori infection. There were one false-negative and three false-positive CLOtest results, compared with one false-negative and 13 false-positive PyloriTek results (p < 0.02 for incorrect categorization with PyloriTek). Sensitivity and specificity were 98 and 92% compared with 98 and 68% for CLOtest and PyloriTek, respectively. An erroneous categorization of H. pylori status occurred in 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-9.7%) with CLOtest compared with 13.7% (95% CI: 7.7 -22%) with PyloriTek. When the PyloriTek was scored at 1 h (0-1 h) after obtaining the specimen, the accuracy improved; erroneous categorization of H. pylori status occurred in only 2.9% (95% CI: 0.6-8.3%). Conclusion: Used according to manufacturer instructions, the new reagent strip RUT PyloriTek has too many false-positive results for use in a clinical situation. In contrast, when the test was interpreted within 1 h, accuracy was comparable to that of CLOtest.

AB - Objective: Rapid urease tests (RUTs) are used commonly as a convenient method to detect Helicobacter pylori infection. New rapid tests have been commercially available with promotional literature suggesting enhanced utility. We compared CLOtest to a new reagent strip RUT, PyloriTek. Methods: Gastric antral mucosal biopsy specimens were obtained from 102 patients for comparison between CLOtest and PyloriTek (204 specimens). Biopsy specimens obtained from a nearby area were stained using the Genta stain for determination of H. pylori status. The RUT to be used first was selected randomly. Results: Sixty-five of the 102 patients had peptic ulcer disease, two had gastric cancer, and 35 had dyspepsia; 61 patients had active H. pylori infection. There were one false-negative and three false-positive CLOtest results, compared with one false-negative and 13 false-positive PyloriTek results (p < 0.02 for incorrect categorization with PyloriTek). Sensitivity and specificity were 98 and 92% compared with 98 and 68% for CLOtest and PyloriTek, respectively. An erroneous categorization of H. pylori status occurred in 3.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1-9.7%) with CLOtest compared with 13.7% (95% CI: 7.7 -22%) with PyloriTek. When the PyloriTek was scored at 1 h (0-1 h) after obtaining the specimen, the accuracy improved; erroneous categorization of H. pylori status occurred in only 2.9% (95% CI: 0.6-8.3%). Conclusion: Used according to manufacturer instructions, the new reagent strip RUT PyloriTek has too many false-positive results for use in a clinical situation. In contrast, when the test was interpreted within 1 h, accuracy was comparable to that of CLOtest.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0030997353&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0030997353&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 9177518

AN - SCOPUS:0030997353

VL - 92

SP - 997

EP - 999

JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology

JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology

SN - 0002-9270

IS - 6

ER -