Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jun 12.
doi: 10.1007/s12664-025-01789-1. Online ahead of print.

Double-site rapid urease test versus histopathology for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori among patients with dyspepsia on proton pump inhibitors-A diagnostic accuracy study

Ashutosh Ishan Yadav  1 , Vaneet Jearth  2 , Arun Kumar Sharma  1 , Anupam Kumar Singh  1 , Priya Chauhan  1 , Purnima Patial  1 , Aravind Sekar  3 , Jimil Shah  1 , Harshal Mandavdhare  1 , Surinder Singh Rana  1 , Usha Dutta  1
Affiliations

Double-site rapid urease test versus histopathology for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori among patients with dyspepsia on proton pump inhibitors-A diagnostic accuracy study

Ashutosh Ishan Yadav et al. Indian J Gastroenterol. .

Abstract

Background and aims: In real-world settings, many patients cannot or do not stop proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) due to symptoms, but guidelines do not address H. pylori testing in PPI users. We compared the rapid urease test (RUT) and histopathology (HPE) when H. pylori testing and endoscopy are indicated for patients with a recent history of PPI use.

Methods: A prospective study of 164 patients who used PPIs within two weeks of endoscopy was conducted. Gastric antrum and body biopsies were used for double-site RUT and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analyses. The updated Sydney protocol was followed for HPE. Patients with at least two out of three positive tests were considered infected with H. pylori. Fifty patients, who underwent only PCR for H. pylori diagnosis after stopping PPIs for two weeks, were enrolled as controls to assess the effect on detection rates. Additionally, an analysis utilizing PCR as the gold standard was conducted.

Results: In patients on PPIs, there was no significant difference in detection rates (positivity rate) between HPE and RUT (31.7% vs. 27.4%, p = 0.3771 [McNemar]). The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and diagnostic accuracy of double-site RUT were 89.13%, 96.61%, 91.11%, 95.80% and 94.51%, respectively, whereas HPE was 82.61%, 88.14%, 73.08%, 92.86% and 86.59%. PCR had a much greater detection rate and there was no significant difference in detection rate by the PCR method in patients on and off PPI for at least two weeks prior to testing for H. pylori (48% vs. 44%, p = 0.58). The sensitivity of double-site RUT and HPE was still comparable, albeit low, when only PCR was considered the gold standard (43.75% vs. 40%, respectively). Atrophic gastritis and intestinal metaplasia are found in approximately 9% and 5% of gastric body biopsies and 9% and 2.5% of gastric antrum biopsies, respectively.

Conclusion: PPI use does not affect PCR-based testing for H. pylori. If PCR-based testing is unavailable, double-site RUT offers a cost-effective alternative for H. pylori testing in PPI users at the point of care, particularly in resource-limited settings, in comparison to HPE. The choice between biopsy using validated protocols or double RUT is also contingent upon the underlying risk factors for gastric cancer.

Keywords: H. pylori; Double-site RUT; HPE; Real-world conditions; Sydney protocol.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Conflict of interest: AIY, VJ, AKS, AnKS, PC, PP, AS, JS, HM, SSR and UD declare no competing interests. Ethics statement: The study was performed conforming to the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000 and 2008 concerning human and animal rights, and the authors followed the policy concerning informed consent as shown on Springer.com. Ethical approval: Study was carried out after approval from Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC-INT/2022/DM- 242). Consent to participate: All patients submitted written informed consent prior to their enrolment in the trial. Disclaimer: The authors are solely responsible for the data and the contents of the paper. In no way, the Honorary Editor-in-Chief, Editorial Board Members, the Indian Society of Gastroenterology or the printer/publishers are responsible for the results/findings and content of this article.

References

    1. Hooi JKY, Lai WY, Ng WK, et al. Global prevalence of Helicobacter pylori infection: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2017;153:420–9. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2017.04.022 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Malfertheiner P, Camargo MC, El-Omar E, et al. Helicobacter pylori infection. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2023;9:19. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41572-023-00431-8 . - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Ford AC, Yuan Y, Moayyedi P. Helicobacter pylori eradication therapy to prevent gastric cancer: systematic review and meta-analysis. Gut. 2020;69:2113–21. https://doi.org/10.1136/gutjnl-2020-320839 . - DOI - PubMed
    1. Lee YC, Chiang TH, Chou CK, et al. Association between Helicobacter Pylori eradication and gastric cancer incidence: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 2016;150:1113–24.e5. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.gastro.2016.01.028 .
    1. Rokkas T, Rokka A, Portincasa P. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of Helicobacter pylori eradication in preventing gastric cancer. Ann Gastroenterol. 2017;30:414–23. https://doi.org/10.20524/aog.2017.0144 . - DOI - PubMed - PMC

LinkOut - more resources