OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy and reaction time of a new biopsy urease test, Pronto Dry (Medical Instruments Corporation, Solothurn, Switzerland) and the CLO test in the diagnosis of H. pylori infection.

METHODS: Consecutive patients presenting with dyspepsia to the endoscopy unit, University of Malaya Medical Centre were recruited for the study. Patients who were previously treated for H. pylori infection or who had received antibiotics, proton pump inhibitors or bismuth compounds in the preceding 4 weeks were excluded. H. pylori diagnosis was made based on the ultra rapid urease test and histological examination of gastric biopsies. Four antral and four corpus biopsies were taken for this purpose from all patients. A diagnosis of H. pylori infection was made when both the ultra rapid urease test and histology were positive in either the antral or corpus biopsies. A negative diagnosis of H. pylori was made when both tests from antral and corpus biopsies were all negative. Another four antral and four corpus biopsies (two each) were taken for the Pronto Dry and CLO tests. The Pronto Dry and CLO tests were stored and performed according to the manufacturer's instruction.

RESULTS: Two hundred and eight patients were recruited in the study. Eighty-six of the patients were males and 122 were females. The mean age was 46.3 years with a range of 15-82 years. The results for both the Pronto Dry and the CLO tests were completely concordant with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of 98.1%, 100%, 100%, 98.1% and 99%, respectively. The Pronto Dry test showed a faster reaction time to positive compared with the CLO test, with 96.2% positive reaction by 30 min versus 70.8% and 100% positive reaction time by 55 min versus 83%. The colorimetric change was also more distinct with the Pronto Dry test compared with the CLO test.

METHODS: A large-scale prospective seroepidemiological study in West and East Malaysia using the HEL-p II commercial enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit (AMRAD, Melbourne, Australia) to detect H. pylori antibodies. Populations surveyed in West Malaysia were a rural community from Kuala Pilah, and blood donors from Kuala Lumpur and Kota Baru. Subjects studied in East Malaysia were volunteer blood donors from Kota Kinabalu, and blood donors and healthy volunteers from Sibu. Statistical analyses using multiple logistic regression analysis were carried out to identify independent risk factors for H. pylori infection

RESULTS: A total of 2,381 subjects were evaluated. H. pylori prevalence varied from different areas of study and ranged from a low of 26.4% in blood donors from Kota Baru to a high of 55.0% in Kota Kinabalu. The most striking differences, however, were noted in the prevalence rates among different racial groups. Prevalence rates among the Malays ranged from 11.9 to 29.2%, while the Chinese ranged from 26.7 to 57.5%, and those of Indians in two studies were 49.4 and 52.3%. In every location, Malays had a significantly lower prevalence compared with the other races. The highest prevalence rates were recorded among the indigenous races in Kota Kinabalu, East Malaysia. There was no difference between males and females in the studies. An increasing trend with age was noted in the majority of studies; however, no increase in prevalence rates was noted among the Malays.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial involved treatment-naïve H. pylori-positive patients. Ninety patients received standard triple therapy for 2 weeks before receiving either a probiotic or placebo for 4 weeks. The posttreatment eradication rate was assessed via a 14 C urea breath test in Week 8. The Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale (GSRS) questionnaire and an interview on treatment adverse effects were conducted during this study.

RESULTS: The eradication rate was higher in the probiotic group than in the placebo group, with a 22.2% difference in the intention-to-treat analysis (91.1% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.007) and 24.3% difference in the per-protocol analysis (93.2% vs. 68.9%; p = 0.007). The probiotic group showed significant pre- to post-treatment reductions in indigestion, constipation, abdominal pain, and total GSRS scores. The probiotic group showed significantly greater reductions in GSRS scores than the placebo group: indigestion (4.34 ± 5.00 vs. 1.78 ± 5.64; p = 0.026), abdominal pain (2.64 ± 2.88 vs. 0.89 ± 3.11; p = 0.007), constipation (2.34 ± 3.91 vs. 0.64 ± 2.92; p = 0.023), and total score (12.41 ± 12.19 vs. 4.24 ± 13.72; p = 0.004). The probiotic group reported significantly fewer adverse headache (0% vs. 15.6%; p = 0.012) and abdominal pain (0% vs. 13.3%; p = 0.026) effects.