Identifying helicobacter pylori: is H and E staining enough?

To compare hematoxylin and eosin [H and E] stain to the urease test and giemsa stain and their sensitivities in identifying helicobacter pylori. Forty-six endoscopic gastric biopsies were evaluated for the presence of H.pylori using H and E, giemsa and the urease test. None of the doctors who performed each of these tests were aware of the results of the others. Sensitivities and the level of agreement of H and E versus urease and giemsa tests were calculated. H and E had a sensitivity of 85.7% and a specificity of 100% with a positive predictive value of 100% but a 44% negative predictive value. On the other hand, the sensitivities and the level of agreement of-giemsa and the urease test compared to H and E were 87.5% and 84% and 87% and 76%, respectively. H and E has a high sensitivity and specificity for helicobacter pylori identification. Added tests can be helpful if H and E gave negative results in the presence of histological gastritis

role of hepatitis E virus infection among patients with acute viral hepatitis in southern Saudi Arabia

We investigated etiology of acute sporadic viral hepatitis in southern in Saudi Arabia in a series of 132 patients admitted with acute viral hepatitis. Of these cases, 108 [51.8%] were due to acute hepatitis A virus infection, of which 11 [8.3%] patients had been previously exposed to hepatitis E virus, and another 10 [7.6%] were chronic carriers of hepatitis B virus. These cases [2.3%] were acute hepatitis B virus infection. The overall prevalence of hepatitis E I[g]G antibodies was found to be 9.1%. The remaining 21 [15.9%] patients were tested for hepatitis E I[g]M, EBV-VCA I[g]G antibodies by sensitive enzyme immunoassays. In none of them could hepatitis E I[g]M, EBV-VCA I[g]M or hepatitis C I[g]G antibodies be demonstrated, and these patients were thus considered as acute non-A, non-B hepatitis. Acute hepatitis C virus infection, however, could not be ruled out from this group. We therefore concluded that the majority of clinically apparent viral hepatitis cases were due to HAV, while HBV accounted for a small proportion of the cases. Clinically apparent HEV infection dose not appear to be common in the population studied, since even those with serologic evidence of previous exposure to HEV did no recall a history suggestive of acute viral hepatitis