Comparative study of rapid urease test and histopathological examination for detection of H. pylori infection

Abstract

Background: Aims and objectives of the study was to study the incidence of H. pylori infection in our Hospital. To find out the sensitivity and specificity of rapid urease test (RUT) and histopathological examination for the detection of H. pylori on gastric biopsy. To study the effect of anti H. pylori drugs by performing follow-up endoscopy in terms of positive or negative Rapid Urease Test and Histopathological Examination report.Methods: The study was conducted at Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College and Hospital, DPU University, for a period of 2 years (from July 2012-September 2014) and is a prospective and comparative randomized type of study using 100 patients. The study was approved by the Institute’s Ethics Committee.Results: Data analysis showed that: In our study 84 patients (84%) were detected positive by RUT method. In our study 83 patients (83 %) were detected positive by HPE method. There was an association between RUT and HPE finding in study group with the sensitivity being 96.38 % and specificity being 74.47 %, PPV was 95.24% and NPV was 81.25%. At the time of follow up after taking anti H pylori treatment, 79 patients were RUT negative and 8 were RUT positive who were defaulters (not taken complete dose) and again started on treatment with the accuracy of the drug being 98.85 %. At the time of follow up after taking anti H pylori treatment 78 patients were HPE negative and 9 were HPE positive who were defaulters (not taken complete dose) and again started on treatment. There was an association between RUT and HPE finding at follow up with the sensitivity being 88.89 % and specificity being 100%, PPV was 100% and NPV was 98.73%.Conclusions: Our study reveals that RUT is accurate for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection and its use will serve as a good alternative to histology in management of patients with dyspepsia in resource poor environments, except in patients who need histology for reasons other than H. pylori diagnosis.

Rapid Urease Test vs Histopathological Examination: A Prospective Study to Compare the Accuracy of Both Tests in the Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori

“…The sensitivity and specificity were 95.24% and 89.19% respectively. The sensitivity was comparable but the specificity was higher than that of the study conducted by Athavale et al [15] (96.38%, 81.25%) and Jemilohun et al [16] (93.33%, 75.6%).…”

“…In our study result shows that the rapid urease test is accurate for the diagnosis of H. pylori and also highly specific and sensitive like histopathological examination. On comparing with Athavle et al [15] and Jemilohun et al [16] studies also shows rapid urease test are more accurate in diagnosing H. pylori infection.…”

“…In our study, 64 were positive in RUT out of 100 patients. This is compared to that of Athavale VS et al [15] and jemilohun et al [16] where they found that RUT is accurate for the diagnosis of H. pylori infection. So it can be well used as a rapid diagnosing tool and also in a resource-poor setup.…”

“…In our study accuracy was 93%. This was compared with Athavale et al [15] found accuracy was 98.85%.…”

“…In the present study, 60% were both RUT and histology positive cases. In Jemilohun et al study [15], diagnosis of H. pylori was made in 55(64%) patients. This is because the Nigerian population have a high incidence of H. pylori.…”