4.3 Article

Diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori recurrence: relapse or reinfection? Usefulness of molecular tools

期刊

SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 51, 期 6, 页码 672-678

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.3109/00365521.2015.1132338

关键词

re-infection; Helicobacter pylori; molecular typing; relapse; recurrence

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and aims Infection due to Helicobacter pylori causes many gastrointestinal diseases including peptic ulcers and gastric carcinoma. Their treatment and prevention depends on the successful eradication of H. pylori. However, even after a well-conducted treatment, H. pylori persists in about 10-30% of patients. Recurrent infections can correspond to relapse or to re-infection and require appropriate medical care. In this study, we explore retrospectively three clinical cases using molecular methods, and propose new guidelines for the diagnosis of recurrence. Material and methods Ten colonies of H. pylori were selected from the primary culture of biopsy samples taken from the antrum and fundus for each patient. The genotype of each isolated colony was determined by analyzing the polymorphism of two housekeeping genes, hspA and glmM. The genome-wide composition of H. pylori strains was studied using in house macro-arrays designed. Results Relapses were demonstrated by the stability of genotypes and the slight genetic variability of strains on macro-arrays. Two patients suffered from relapses, one and three years after H. pylori treatment. For the third patient, both the polymorphism of glmM and hspA genotypes and the diversity of CDSs identified on macro-arrays suggested that several episodes of re-infection occurred, 1-8 years after eradication. Conclusion For the three clinical cases, molecular methods allowed identifying the causes of recurrent infections. We suggest to study genotype to distinguish between relapse and re-infection in order to adapt the treatment and the follow-up of patients to the nature of recurrence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据