ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND/AIM: This study aimed to determine the effect of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) on the results of rapid urease test (RUT). PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study evaluated 210 consecutive patients for the diagnosis of Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) infection. They were divided into case and control groups based on history of NSAID use (n=70 each). Two biopsy specimens were collected from antrum and corpus of stomach during endoscopy and sent for rapid urease testing and histopathology. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy rate of RUT test were compared against histology. RESULTS: The average age was 55.2+/-12.9 and 43.3+/-12.1 years in the case and control groups, respectively. Among NSAID users, RUT sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rate were all 100%. The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rate of RUT in patients without history of NSAID use were 97.37, 98.57 and 98.14%, respectively. The overall sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rate of RUT were 98.57, 99.29, and 99.04%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Our study shows that sensitivity, specificity and accuracy rate of RUT are not affected by NSAID use. Rapid urease test remains a reliable test for diagnosis of H. pylori in patients on NSAIDs.
Subject(s)
Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/therapeutic use , Clinical Enzyme Tests/methods , Helicobacter Infections/diagnosis , Helicobacter pylori/isolation & purification , Urease/metabolism , Adult , Aged , Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal/adverse effects , Case-Control Studies , Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal , False Negative Reactions , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Risk Assessment , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Eosinophilic esophagitis is among the causes of refractory reflux disease. Biopsy of esophagus is the gold standard for diagnosis. In this study we determined the frequency of eosinophilic esophagitis (EE) in refractory reflux cases referred to Motility Department of Shahid Beheshti Research Center of Gastroenterology and Liver Disease, Tehran, Iran. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, 68 cases with refractory reflux disease underwent endoscopy and had biopsies taken. Specimens were stained by hematoxylin and eosin and two independent pathologists confirmed the diagnosis of eosinophilic esophagitis. RESULTS: Mean (standard deviation, SD) age at diagnosis was 41.8 (10.94) years. All had allergy or atopy, and unknown dysphagia was noted for 66%. Endoscopic findings were as follows: esophagitis (33.3%), rings (33.3%), and whitish plaques (33.3%). Prevalence of eosinophilic esophagitis was 8.8% (N = 6; one man and five women). No statistical difference in demographic variables was found between eosinophilic esophagitis cases and others, except for history of atopy, food impaction, and endoscopic features (P value <0.005). CONCLUSION: Eosinophilic esophagitis should be considered in the differential diagnosis of any cases with refractory reflux who complain of chronic unexplained dysphagia, with history of recurrent food impaction, and atopy or abnormal endoscopic features.
