The authors compare efficacy of two ELISA assays (one supplied by DIAMEDIX [Delta Biological s.r.l.], and the other by RADIM [RADIM I]) in detecting total anti-H. pylori antibodies, and of two further ELISA methods (one supplied by EUROSPITAL [Helori CTX IgG] and the other by RADIM [RADIM 2]) in identifying anti-CagA antibodies, using sera from 69 controls (20 adults and 49 children) and from 96 patients, obtained before endoscopy. Seventy-three of the patients had H. pylori infection, while the remaining 23 were H. pylori negative (histology and polymerase chain reaction [PCR]). Fifty-two of the H. pylori positive patients, had cagA-positive strain infection, identified by PCR. The DIAMEDIX assay was found to be more sensitive (92%) than RADIM 1 (79%) in identifying H. pylori positive patients, irrespective of the infecting strain. On the other hand, the DIAMEDIX assay was less specific than RADIM 1 for H. pylori-negative patients (43% vs. 83%). However, when patients already treated for H. pylori infection were excluded from the group of H. pylori-negative patients, the DIAMEDIX assay had a specificity of 89%. In identifying anti-CagA antibodies, the kit supplied by RADIM (RADIM 2) had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 94%, whereas that supplied by EUROSPITAL had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 76%. The performances of the two methods in the identification of anti-CagA antibodies were found to be similar. The authors conclude that, in view of its high sensitivity, the DIAMEDIX assay may be useful in screening for H. pylori infection.

Serum antibodies anti-H. pylori and anti CagA: a comparison between four different assays.

GRECO, ELIANA;ZAMBON, CARLO-FEDERICO;PLEBANI, MARIO
1999

Abstract

The authors compare efficacy of two ELISA assays (one supplied by DIAMEDIX [Delta Biological s.r.l.], and the other by RADIM [RADIM I]) in detecting total anti-H. pylori antibodies, and of two further ELISA methods (one supplied by EUROSPITAL [Helori CTX IgG] and the other by RADIM [RADIM 2]) in identifying anti-CagA antibodies, using sera from 69 controls (20 adults and 49 children) and from 96 patients, obtained before endoscopy. Seventy-three of the patients had H. pylori infection, while the remaining 23 were H. pylori negative (histology and polymerase chain reaction [PCR]). Fifty-two of the H. pylori positive patients, had cagA-positive strain infection, identified by PCR. The DIAMEDIX assay was found to be more sensitive (92%) than RADIM 1 (79%) in identifying H. pylori positive patients, irrespective of the infecting strain. On the other hand, the DIAMEDIX assay was less specific than RADIM 1 for H. pylori-negative patients (43% vs. 83%). However, when patients already treated for H. pylori infection were excluded from the group of H. pylori-negative patients, the DIAMEDIX assay had a specificity of 89%. In identifying anti-CagA antibodies, the kit supplied by RADIM (RADIM 2) had a sensitivity of 90% and a specificity of 94%, whereas that supplied by EUROSPITAL had a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 76%. The performances of the two methods in the identification of anti-CagA antibodies were found to be similar. The authors conclude that, in view of its high sensitivity, the DIAMEDIX assay may be useful in screening for H. pylori infection.
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

Caricamento pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11577/155894
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 6
  • Scopus 18
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 16
social impact