4.6 Article

Molecular detection of Helicobacter pylori antibiotic resistance in stool vs biopsy samples

期刊

WORLD JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 22, 期 41, 页码 9214-9221

出版社

BAISHIDENG PUBLISHING GROUP INC
DOI: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i41.9214

关键词

Helicobacter pylori; Antibiotic resistance; Clarithromycin; Fluoroquinolone; Molecular methods

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AIM To compare (1) demographics in urea breath test (UBT) vs endoscopy patients; and (2) the molecular detection of antibiotic resistance in stool vs biopsy samples. METHODS Six hundred and sixteen adult patients undergoing endoscopy or a UBT were prospectively recruited to the study. The GenoType HelicoDR assay was used to detect Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and antibiotic resistance using biopsy and/or stool samples from CLO-positive endoscopy patients and stool samples from UBT-positive patients. RESULTS Infection rates were significantly higher in patients referred for a UBT than endoscopy (overall rates: 33% vs 19%; treatment-naive patients: 33% vs 14.7%, respectively). H. pylori -infected UBT patients were younger than H. pylori -infected endoscopy patients (41.4 vs 48.4 years, respectively, P < 0.005), with a higher percentage of H. pylori -infected males in the endoscopy-compared to the UBT-cohort (52.6% vs 33.3%, P = 0.03). The GenoType HelicoDR assay was more accurate at detecting H. pylori infection using biopsy samples than stool samples [98.2% (n = 54/55) vs 80.3% (n = 53/66), P < 0.005]. Subset analysis using stool and biopsy samples from CLO-positive endoscopy patients revealed a higher detection rate of resistance-associated mutations using stool samples compared to biopsies. The concordance rates between stool and biopsy samples for the detection of H. pylori DNA, clarithromycin and fluoroquinolone resistance were just 85%, 53% and 35%, respectively. CONCLUSION Differences between endoscopy and UBT patients provide a rationale for non-invasive detection of H. pylori antibiotic resistance. However, the GenoType HelicoDR assay is an unsuitable approach.

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

4.6
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