Comparison of Salivary Anti Helicobacter pylori IgG with Serum IgG and Bacteriological Tests in Detecting Helicobacter pylori Infections
Abstract
Background: This study was conducted to compare the efficacy of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) for detecting
anti-Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) specific IgG antibodies in specimens of oral fluid and serum with bacteriological tests.
Methods: Antral biopsy specimens, as well as serum and oral fluid samples were collected from 97 patients who underwent
upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The presence or absence of current H. pylori infection was determined by culture, histology
and urease detection. Anti-H. pylori specific IgG was detected in serum and oral fluid, using an established lab-made, and a
commercial ELISA kit. The obtained data were compared with results of bacteriological tests.
Results: In all, 62 (64%) of 97 patients were positive for H. pylori by one or more of the gold standard tests (culture, histology
and urease detection). Lab-made enzyme-linked immunoassay of oral fluid had a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and
83% respectively. A sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 83%, respectively, was obtained with the commercial kit. Lab-made
enzyme-linked immunoassay of serum samples had a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 88%, respectively. A sensitivity of
86% and specificity of 86% was obtained with the commercial kit.
Conclusion: Detection of anti-H. pylori specific IgG in oral fluid by ELISA is comparable in sensitivity and specificity with
serum based methods. Oral fluid based ELISA could provide a reliable, non-invasive method for the diagnosis of H. pylori
infection. Saliva testing may have a role in epidemiological studies.
Keywords: Helicobacter pylori, ELISA, Oral fluid
anti-Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) specific IgG antibodies in specimens of oral fluid and serum with bacteriological tests.
Methods: Antral biopsy specimens, as well as serum and oral fluid samples were collected from 97 patients who underwent
upper gastrointestinal endoscopy. The presence or absence of current H. pylori infection was determined by culture, histology
and urease detection. Anti-H. pylori specific IgG was detected in serum and oral fluid, using an established lab-made, and a
commercial ELISA kit. The obtained data were compared with results of bacteriological tests.
Results: In all, 62 (64%) of 97 patients were positive for H. pylori by one or more of the gold standard tests (culture, histology
and urease detection). Lab-made enzyme-linked immunoassay of oral fluid had a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and
83% respectively. A sensitivity and specificity of 87% and 83%, respectively, was obtained with the commercial kit. Lab-made
enzyme-linked immunoassay of serum samples had a sensitivity and specificity of 90% and 88%, respectively. A sensitivity of
86% and specificity of 86% was obtained with the commercial kit.
Conclusion: Detection of anti-H. pylori specific IgG in oral fluid by ELISA is comparable in sensitivity and specificity with
serum based methods. Oral fluid based ELISA could provide a reliable, non-invasive method for the diagnosis of H. pylori
infection. Saliva testing may have a role in epidemiological studies.
Keywords: Helicobacter pylori, ELISA, Oral fluid