Department of Pathology and Lab Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
BC Women's and Children's Hospital, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Microbiol Spectr. 2024 Nov 5;12(11):e0108424. doi: 10.1128/spectrum.01084-24. Epub 2024 Sep 27.
The objective of the study was to ascertain an optimal diagnostic strategy using population-level laboratory data comparing the performance of serology against urea breath test (UBT). diagnostic test results for serology and UBT from two laboratories over a 12-year period (2006-20017) were extracted, linked, and analyzed. A subset of this population underwent both methods of testing within days of each other, enabling a direct comparison of the two methods. The average prevalence of i positivity was 21.3% by serology and 17.5% by UBT. There were 2,612 individuals who had serology performed first, followed by UBT within 14 days. For this subset, the sensitivity of serology compared with UBT was 96.5% with a specificity of 79.2%. The negative predictive value for serology was 98.4%. Contrary to various recent clinical guidelines, the data show that serology still has utility as a sensitive enough test to be used as an initial screening test in a lower prevalence population. Negative serology can be used with confidence to rule out active infection, whereas a positive serology could be followed up with a UBT or a similar performing test such as stool antigen to differentiate active from past infection. For population-based diagnostic recommendations, such a strategy may be ideal since serology generally costs less than UBT and may be combined with a blood draw being done for other diagnostic tests. Continuing to offer serology increases options for patients and may provide economic benefits for single-payer health care systems or health maintenance organizations.
This study compares the performance of serology with urea breath test in the diagnosis of in a population-level data set and mimics a head-to-head direct comparison as the study population had both tests performed within 2 weeks of each other. This provides new information supporting the use of serology in a diagnostic algorithm. There are several instances where serology could be preferable to patients to rule out disease, despite some guidelines suggesting serology should not be used.
本研究旨在通过比较血清学与尿素呼气试验(UBT)的性能,利用人群水平的实验室数据确定一种最佳的诊断策略。
提取并分析了两个实验室在 12 年期间(2006 年至 2017 年)的血清学和 UBT 诊断检测结果。该人群的一部分在彼此相隔几天的时间内接受了这两种方法的检测,从而能够直接比较这两种方法。通过血清学检测的 i 阳性平均患病率为 21.3%,UBT 为 17.5%。有 2612 人首先进行了血清学检测,然后在 14 天内进行了 UBT。对于这个亚组,血清学与 UBT 相比的敏感性为 96.5%,特异性为 79.2%。血清学的阴性预测值为 98.4%。与最近的各种临床指南相反,数据表明血清学仍然具有足够的敏感性,可以作为低患病率人群的初始筛查试验。阴性血清学可以用于有信心地排除活动性感染,而阳性血清学可以通过 UBT 或类似的检测方法(如粪便抗原)进行随访,以区分活动性感染和既往感染。对于基于人群的诊断建议,这种策略可能是理想的,因为血清学的成本通常低于 UBT,并且可以与为其他诊断检测进行的血液采集结合使用。继续提供血清学检测为患者提供了更多选择,并可能为单一支付者医疗保健系统或健康维护组织带来经济效益。
本研究在人群水平数据集比较了血清学与 UBT 在 诊断中的性能,并模拟了头对头的直接比较,因为研究人群在两周内接受了这两种检测。这提供了支持在诊断算法中使用血清学的新信息。有几种情况下,尽管有些指南建议不应使用血清学,但血清学可以为患者排除疾病提供更优选择。