Helicobacter pylori testing and treatment has become a subject of intense debate and confusion worldwide in recent years, for both laboratory scientists and clinicians. The gastric pathogen H. pylori is believed to infect up to half of the world's population disproportionately, yet it remains a challenging diagnosis for many physicians worldwide. New testing mechanisms have been introduced, but no single universal approach for testing and treating H. pylori has been established to date. In effect, no population on earth has been spared from these chronic infections, but regional differences in prevalence and associated disease severity do exist. Not unexpectedly, there also exist regional approaches in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of these patients. This Q&A borrows the experience of 3 international experts in the field of H. pylori to reflect on the current status of H. pylori management and challenges on 3 separate continents, specifically Australia, Europe, and North America.
Several different guidelines exist for the diagnosis/treatment of H. pylori infections. What controversy or challenges do you perceive with current guidelines?
Barry Marshall: Guidelines for the treatment of H. pylori infections are aimed toward achieving a cure rate of at least 85%. In the past 10 years, because of gradually increasing resistance to macrolides, the very successful and popular combination treatment using a proton pump inhibitor (PPI),6 clarithromycin, and amoxicillin has declined in effectiveness from greater than an 85% cure rate originally, to the region of 70%–80% in some areas where long-acting macrolides have been used for 10 or more years. This has created research interest in the evaluation of newer and more intensive therapies, often with extra antibiotics added to hopefully eradicate the H. pylori without the emergence of resistant isolates. Over the years, shorter and more-intensive treatments for H. pylori infection have been tried, and these are …
Due to the limited sensitivities of stool-based microscopy and/or culture techniques for Strongyloides stercoralis, the detection of antibodies to this intestinal nematode is relied upon as a surrogate for determining exposure status or making a diagnosis of S. stercoralis infection. Here, we evaluated three immunoassays, including the recently released InBios Strongy Detect IgG enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (InBios International, Inc., Seattle, WA), the SciMedx Strongyloides serology microwell ELISA (SciMedx Corporation, Denville, NJ), and the luciferase immunoprecipitation system (LIPS) assay performed at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), for their detection of IgG antibodies to S. stercoralis. A total of 101 retrospective serum samples, previously submitted for routine S. stercoralis antibody detection using the SciMedx assay, were also evaluated by the InBios and LIPS assays. The qualitative results from each assay were compared using a Venn diagram analysis, to the consensus result among the three assays, and each ELISA was also evaluated using the LIPS assay as the reference standard. By Venn diagram analysis, 65% (66/101) of the samples demonstrated perfect agreement by all three assays. Also, the numbers of samples considered positive or negative by a single method were similar. Compared to the consensus result, the overall percent agreement of the InBios, SciMedx, and LIPS assays were comparable at 87.1%, 84.2%, and 89.1%, respectively. Finally, the two ELISAs performed analogously but demonstrated only moderate agreement (kappa coefficient for the two assays, 0.53) with the LIPS assay. Collectively, while the two commercially available ELISAs perform equivalently, neither should be used independently of clinical evaluation to diagnose strongyloidiasis.
Bloodstream infections are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in the United States and are associated with increased health care costs. We evaluated the Portrait Staph ID/R blood culture panel (BCP) multiplex PCR assay (Great Basin Scientific, Salt Lake City, UT) for the rapid and simultaneous identification (ID) of Staphylococcus aureus, Staphylococcus lugdunensis, and Staphylococcus species to the genus level and the detection of the mecA gene directly from a positive blood culture bottle. A total of 765 Bactec bottles demonstrating Gram-positive cocci in singles or clusters were tested during the prospective trial at 3 clinical sites. The Portrait Staph ID/R BCP results were compared with results from conventional biochemical and cefoxitin disk methods performed at an independent laboratory. Discordant ID and mecA results were resolved by rpoB gene sequencing and mecA gene sequencing, respectively. A total of 658 Staphylococcus species isolates (S. aureus, 211 isolates; S. lugdunensis, 3 isolates; and Staphylococcus spp., 444 isolates) were recovered from monomicrobial and 33 polymicrobial blood cultures. After discrepant analysis, the overall ratios of Portrait Staph ID/R BCP positive percent agreement and negative percent agreement were 99.4%/99.9% for Staphylococcus ID and 99.7%/99.2% for mecA detection.
Abstract Background As serologic assays for SARS-CoV-2 become more widely utilized, it is important to understand their performance characteristics and correlation with neutralizing antibodies. We evaluated 3 commonly used SARS-CoV-2 IgG assays (Abbott, DiaSorin, and EUROIMMUN) for clinical sensitivity, specificity, and correlation with neutralizing antibodies, and then compared antibody kinetics during the acute phase of infection. Methods Three panels of samples were tested on every assay. Sensitivity was assessed using a panel of 35 specimens serially collected from 7 patients with RT–PCR-confirmed COVID-19. Specificity was determined using 100 sera samples collected in 2018 from healthy individuals prior to the outbreak. Analytical specificity was determined using a panel of 37 samples from individuals with respiratory illnesses other than COVID-19. Results Clinical sensitivity was 91.43% (95% CI 76.94–98.20%) for Abbott, and 88.57% (95% CI 73.26–96.80%) for both DiaSorin and EUROIMMUN. Clinical specificity was 99.00% (95% CI 94.55–99.97%) for Abbott and DiaSorin and 94.00% (95% CI 87.40–97.77%) for EUROIMMUN. The IgG assays demonstrated good qualitative agreement (minimum of 94%) and good correlation between the quantitative result for each combination of assays (r2 ≥ 0.90). The neutralizing antibody response did not necessarily follow the same temporal kinetics as the IgG response and did not necessarily correlate with IgG values. Conclusion The 3 IgG antibody assays demonstrated comparable performance characteristics. Importantly, a qualitative positive IgG result obtained with any of the assays was associated with the presence of neutralizing antibodies; however, neutralizing antibody concentrations did not correlate well with signal to cutoff ratios.
Displaced persons living in camps are at an increased risk of diarrheal diseases. Subclinical carriage of pathogens may contribute to the spread of disease, especially for microbes that require a low infectious dose. Multiplex real-time polymerase chain reaction was performed to detect a panel of 20 bacterial, viral, and protozoal targets, and we report a high prevalence of enteropathogen carriage, including Shigella spp. or enteroinvasive Escherichia coli in 14%, among a sample of 88 asymptomatic individuals in an internally displaced persons camp in South Sudan. Further studies are needed to determine the contribution of such carriage to the spread of disease.
The emergence of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) brought with it rapid development of both molecular and serologic assays for identification of COVID-19 infections. While Food and Drug Administration (FDA) emergency use authorization (EUA) is required for clinical application of SARS-CoV-2 molecular tests, submission for EUA is currently a voluntary process for manufacturers of serologic assays. The absence of FDA oversight of serologic tests is concerning given that the commercially available serologic assays are highly variable, differing in their format, the antibody class detected, the targeted antigen, and the acceptable specimen types.
ABSTRACT Despite recent advances in diagnostic technology, microscopic examination of stool specimens remains central to the diagnosis of most pathogenic intestinal protozoa. Microscopy is, however, labor-intensive and requires a skilled technologist. New, highly sensitive diagnostic methods have been developed for protozoa endemic to developed countries, including Giardia lamblia (syn. G. intestinalis/G. duodenalis ) and Cryptosporidium spp., using technologies that, if expanded, could effectively complement or even replace microscopic approaches. To date, the scope of such novel technologies is limited and may not include common protozoa such as Dientamoeba fragilis , Entamoeba histolytica , or Cyclospora cayetanensis . This minireview describes canonical approaches for the detection of pathogenic intestinal protozoa, while highlighting recent developments and FDA-approved tools for clinical diagnosis of common intestinal protozoa.
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
