Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Clinical Intelligence

Point-of-care Helicobacter pylori testing: primary care technology update

Brian D Nicholson, Lucy M Abel, Philip J Turner, Christopher P Price, Carl Heneghan, Gail Hayward and Annette Plüddemann
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (665): 576-577. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp17X693881
Brian D Nicholson
Diagnostic Horizon Scan Programme, NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: Clinical researcher in primary care
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lucy M Abel
Diagnostic Horizon Scan Programme, NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: Health economist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Philip J Turner
Diagnostic Horizon Scan Programme, NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: Researcher
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Christopher P Price
Diagnostic Horizon Scan Programme, NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: Honorary senior fellow
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Carl Heneghan
Diagnostic Horizon Scan Programme, NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: Professor of evidence-based medicine
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Gail Hayward
Diagnostic Horizon Scan Programme, NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: Academic clinical lecturer
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Annette Plüddemann
Diagnostic Horizon Scan Programme, NIHR Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Oxford, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford.
Roles: Director
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Clinical Question

In adults attending primary care with upper gastrointestinal symptoms, what is the accuracy and utility of point-of-care testing to detect Helicobacter pylori infection?

BACKGROUND AND ADVANTAGES OVER EXISTING TECHNOLOGY

Helicobacter pylori (HP) infection causes approximately 5% of uninvestigated dyspepsia and a 20% lifetime risk of peptic ulcer disease.1 HP is a grade 1 carcinogen: 5.2% of cancers globally are attributable to HP infection.2 HP eradication results in: reduced gastric cancer incidence; prevention of recurrent duodenal (number needed to treat [NNT] = 2) and stomach (NNT = 3) ulceration; and resolution of dyspepsia (NNT = 13).3

Non-invasive Helicobacter pylori diagnostic tests are available for point-of-care (POC) use in primary care and include IgG serology, 13C-urea breath test (UBT), and monoclonal stool antigen. Only UBT is sufficiently accurate to confirm current infection or eradication.4 HP IgG serology cannot differentiate current from past infection. Rapid qualitative stool antigen testing currently lacks diagnostic accuracy.

DETAILS OF TECHNOLOGY

Isotope ratio mass spectrometry (IRMS) is the most commonly used 13C-UBT method in the UK. However, the sampling procedure involves many opportunities for test incompletion: collection of the test from the pharmacy; returning for a subsequent extended appointment; sending the test to the laboratory; and awaiting results. In comparison, non-dispersive isotope selective infrared spectroscopy (NDIRS) has potential as a POC device: it can be used by non-specialist staff outside the laboratory setting, it is relatively inexpensive, and it gives results in 2–5 minutes.4

PATIENT GROUP AND USE

NDIRS may be appropriate for adults presenting to primary care with:1

  • uninvestigated dyspepsia and no alarm symptoms >4 weeks;

  • past history of gastric or duodenal ulcer, taking or starting non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS);

  • unexplained iron-deficiency anaemia, idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura (ITP), or B12 deficiency with normal colonoscopy and endoscopy; and

  • need for confirmation of eradication following treatment.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

Accuracy compared with existing technology

A meta-analysis of studies including adult patients with dyspepsia assessing the diagnostic accuracy of UBTs compared with HP culture and/or histology from biopsy reported pooled sensitivity and specificity of 95% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 93 to 96%) and 93% (95% CI = 91 to 95%), respectively, for NDIRS, with no significant difference from studies reporting IRMS.5 A multicentre study including 41 patients, some with dyspepsia who had not undergone eradication therapy and others with gastric ulceration receiving eradication, found a close correlation between NDIRS and IRMS with an AUROC of 0.96. NDIRS was more sensitive (100% versus 90%) and less specific (89% versus 96%).6

Prior restriction of therapy

Restricting medication prior to testing is necessary to gain an accurate UBT result. NDIRS had a sensitivity of 68% and specificity of 91% in 41 patients who had taken acid suppression or antibiotic medication within 3 days, and a sensitivity of 100% and specificity of 95% at a threshold between 4–5‰ in 182 patients not taking medication within 3 days, when compared with histology.7 Sensitivity was 97% (95% CI = 94 to 100%) and specificity 94% (95% CI = 87 to 100%) in 178 fasted patients who had not received eradication therapy (acid suppression, bismuth preparations, or antibiotics) within 1 month, compared with biopsy culture and stain.8 A sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 99% was reported in 177 patients undergoing endoscopy for dyspepsia if they had taken no eradication therapy within the previous 8 weeks, compared with IRMS.9

Reported thresholds

NDIRS showed 100% agreement at a threshold of 4.0‰ compared with a combined reference standard of 14C-UBT, rapid urease test, and histology in 53 outpatients with duodenal ulceration.10 At 5‰, NDIRS was 98% sensitive and 99% specific compared with IRMS in 538 asymptomatic volunteers;11 79% sensitive and 96% specific in 145 patients compared with a composite reference standard of histology, culture, and rapid urease testing;12 and displayed a sensitivity of up to 100% and specificity of 95% compared with IRMS in a study of 134 fasted dyspeptic patients with non-ulcer dyspepsia (97 cases) or duodenal ulceration (37 cases).13

Impact compared with existing technology

No studies reporting on the impact of POC NDIRS in primary care were retrieved. One large study included 44 487 patients >45 years who met test-and-treat criteria. Breath samples were collected at home and mailed to the laboratory for NDIRS analysis.14 One in five patients tested positive, although 726 samples (1.6%) were not included due to bag errors. The authors concluded that a test-and-treat system involving home testing was feasible.

COST-EFFECTIVENESS

No cost-effectiveness studies have been carried out on POC testing for HP infection in primary care. 13C-UBT testing in dyspeptic patients was found to be cost-effective in one study, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £1000 per quality-adjusted life year compared with not testing at all.15 However, cost-effectiveness studies in other populations have not found 13C-UBT testing to be cost-effective, providing only small health benefits while significantly increasing costs compared with other tests.

RELEVANT GUIDELINES

International guidelines recommend: 1) a 2-week restriction of proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and 4 weeks of antibiotics and bismuth compounds, before HP testing; 2) a 13C-UBT ‘test-and-treat’ strategy in patients with uninvestigated dyspepsia without alarm symptoms; 3) testing in aspirin and NSAID users with a history of peptic ulcer; 4) testing and eradication in unexplained iron deficiency anaemia (IDA), ITP, and vitamin B12 deficiency; 5) 13C-UBT retesting >4 weeks after eradication therapy.1

WHAT THIS TECHNOLOGY ADDS

The NDIRS 13C-UBT is more accurate than other non-invasive POC tests for the diagnosis of HP infection and confirmation of HP eradication. It has comparable accuracy with laboratory-based IRMS but has the potential to reduce delays in testing by enabling a rapid diagnosis, prior to treatment initiation. However, the health benefit of this reduction compared with non-POC tests is unclear.

The lack of robust evidence on the comparative accuracy of NDIRS in the primary care setting, and the impact of NDIRS testing on endoscopy demand, need urgent attention.

The available evidence suggests that, for patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms, primary care-based NDIRS testing may reduce diagnostic delay and could reduce inappropriate prescription of eradication therapy by accurately confirming current infection.

METHODOLOGY

Standardised methodology was applied in writing this report, using prioritisation criteria and a comprehensive, standardised search strategy, and critical appraisal. Full details of these are available from https://www.oxford.dec.nihr.ac.uk/reports-and-resources/horizon-scanning-reports/. The search for this article was conducted in October 2016.

Notes

Funding

This article presents independent research funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Diagnostic Evidence Co-operative Oxford. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health. The study sponsors had no role in the design, analyses, or reporting of the study. The researchers retained complete independence in the conduct of this study.

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

The authors have declared no competing interests.

Discuss this article

Contribute and read comments about this article: bjgp.org/letters

  • Received July 12, 2017.
  • Revision requested July 20, 2017.
  • Accepted August 1, 2017.
  • © British Journal of General Practice 2017

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Malfertheiner P,
    2. Megraud F,
    3. O’Morain CA,
    4. et al.
    (2016) Management of Helicobacter pylori infection — the Maastricht V/Florence Consensus Report. Gut 66(1):6–30.
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    1. de Martel C,
    2. Ferlay J,
    3. Franceschi S,
    4. et al.
    (2012) Global burden of cancers attributable to infections in 2008: a review and synthetic analysis. Lancet Oncol 13(6):607–615.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    1. Ford AC,
    2. Moayyedi P
    (2014) Whom should we ‘test and treat’ for Helicobacter pylori? BMJ 348:g3320.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  4. 4.↵
    1. Atkinson NS,
    2. Braden B
    (2016) Helicobacter pylori infection: diagnostic strategies in primary diagnosis and after therapy. Dig Dis Sci 61(1):19–24.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. 5.↵
    1. Ferwana M,
    2. Abdulmajeed I,
    3. Alhajiahmed A,
    4. et al.
    (2015) Accuracy of urea breath test in Helicobacter pylori infection: meta-analysis. World J Gastroenterol 21(4):1305–1314.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Gisbert JP,
    2. Gomollón F,
    3. Dominguez-Muñoz JE,
    4. et al.
    (2003) [Comparison between two 13C-urea breath tests for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori infection: isotope ratio mass spectrometer versus infrared spectrometer]. Gastroenterol Hepatol 26(3):141–146.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.↵
    1. Mana F,
    2. Franken PR,
    3. Ham HR,
    4. Urbain D
    (2001) Cut-off point, timing and pitfalls of the 13C-urea breath test as measured by infrared spectrometry. Dig Liver Dis 33(1):30–35.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. 8.↵
    1. Cohen H,
    2. Rose S,
    3. Lewin DN,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Accuracy of four commercially available serologic tests, including two office-based tests and a commercially available 13C urea breath test, for diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori. Helicobacter 4(1):49–53.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. 9.↵
    1. Sheu BS,
    2. Lee SC,
    3. Yang HB,
    4. et al.
    (2000) Lower-dose (13)C-urea breath test to detect Helicobacter pylori infection — comparison between infrared spectrometer and mass spectrometry analysis. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 14(10):1359–1363.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    1. Coelho LG,
    2. Reber M,
    3. Passos MC,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Application of isotope-selective non-dispersive infrared spectrometry for the evaluation of the 13C-urea breath test: comparison with three concordant methods. Braz J Med Biol Res 32(12):1493–1497.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  11. 11.↵
    1. Braden B,
    2. Schäfer F,
    3. Caspary WF,
    4. Lembcke B
    (1996) Nondispersive isotope-selective infrared spectroscopy: a new analytical method for 13C-urea breath tests. Scand J Gastroenterol 31(5):442–445.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  12. 12.↵
    1. Ellenrieder V,
    2. Glasbrenner B,
    3. Stoffels C,
    4. et al.
    (1997) Qualitative and semi-quantitative value of a modified 13C-urea breath test for identification of Helicobacter pylori infection. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 9(11):1085–1089.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    1. Savarino V,
    2. Mela GS,
    3. Zentilin P,
    4. et al.
    (1999) Comparison of isotope ratio mass spectrometry and nondispersive isotope-selective infrared spectroscopy for 13C-urea breath test. Am J Gastroenterol 94(5):1203–1208.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  14. 14.↵
    1. Dahlerup S,
    2. Andersen RC,
    3. Nielsen BSW,
    4. et al.
    (2011) First-time urea breath tests performed at home by 36,629 patients: a study of Helicobacter pylori prevalence in primary care. Helicobacter 16(6):468–474.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    1. Delaney BC,
    2. Qume M,
    3. Moayyedi P,
    4. et al.
    (2008) Helicobacter pylori test and treat versus proton pump inhibitor in initial management of dyspepsia in primary care: multicentre randomised controlled trial (MRC-CUBE trial). BMJ 336(7645):651–654.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 67 (665)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 67, Issue 665
December 2017
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Point-of-care Helicobacter pylori testing: primary care technology update
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Point-of-care Helicobacter pylori testing: primary care technology update
Brian D Nicholson, Lucy M Abel, Philip J Turner, Christopher P Price, Carl Heneghan, Gail Hayward, Annette Plüddemann
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (665): 576-577. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X693881

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Point-of-care Helicobacter pylori testing: primary care technology update
Brian D Nicholson, Lucy M Abel, Philip J Turner, Christopher P Price, Carl Heneghan, Gail Hayward, Annette Plüddemann
British Journal of General Practice 2017; 67 (665): 576-577. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp17X693881
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • BACKGROUND AND ADVANTAGES OVER EXISTING TECHNOLOGY
    • DETAILS OF TECHNOLOGY
    • PATIENT GROUP AND USE
    • PREVIOUS RESEARCH
    • COST-EFFECTIVENESS
    • RELEVANT GUIDELINES
    • WHAT THIS TECHNOLOGY ADDS
    • METHODOLOGY
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • COVID-19 with abdominal symptoms and acute abdominal pain: a guide to identification for general practice
  • How to manage low testosterone level in men: a guide for primary care
  • Hyperparathyroidism (primary) NICE guideline: diagnosis, assessment, and initial management
Show more Clinical Intelligence

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2022 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242