AIMTo compare (1) demographics in urea breath test (UBT) vs endoscopy patients; and (2) the molecular detection of antibiotic resistance in stool vs biopsy samples.METHODSSix hundred and sixteen adult patients undergoing endoscopy or a UBT were prospectively recruited to the study. The GenoType HelicoDR assay was used to detect Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) and antibiotic resistance using biopsy and/or stool samples from CLO-positive endoscopy patients and stool samples from UBT-positive patients.RESULTSInfection rates were significantly higher in patients referred for a UBT than endoscopy (overall rates: 33% vs 19%; treatment-naïve patients: 33% vs 14.7%, respectively). H. pylori-infected UBT patients were younger than H. pylori-infected endoscopy patients (41.4 vs 48.4 years, respectively, P < 0.005), with a higher percentage of H. pylori-infected males in the endoscopy-compared to the UBT-cohort (52.6% vs 33.3%, P = 0.03). The GenoType HelicoDR assay was more accurate at detecting H. pylori infection using biopsy samples than stool samples [98.2% (n = 54/55) vs 80.3% (n =53/66), P < 0.005]. Subset analysis using stool and biopsy samples from CLO-positive endoscopy patients revealed a higher detection rate of resistance-associated mutations using stool samples compared to biopsies. The concordance rates between stool and biopsy samples for the detection of H. pylori DNA, clarithromycin and fluoroquinolone resistance were just 85%, 53% and 35%, respectively.CONCLUSIONDifferences between endoscopy and UBT patients provide a rationale for non-invasive detection of H. pylori antibiotic resistance. However, the GenoType HelicoDR assay is an unsuitable approach.

Sequential therapy had a nonstatistically significant advantage over standard triple therapy in our patient cohort. However, eradication rates for both standard triple therapy and sequential therapy were suboptimal. Further studies are required to identify potential alternatives to standard first-line triple therapy.

No abstract

IntroductionLower gastrointestinal symptoms (LGS) are a common cause of referral to the gastroenterology service. International guidelines are available to prioritise referrals. Some studies have reported that symptoms alone are a poor marker of clinically significant disease (CSD) but symptoms remain the main way to prioritise referrals in routine clinical practice.Aims/backgroundTo correlate LGS with colonoscopy findings in an unselected patient cohort and to investigate whether using National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidelines improve risk stratification.MethodColonoscopy data over a 2-year period were obtained from our endoscopy database. Only patients with assessment of symptoms as their primary indication for colonoscopy were included. Patient records were retrospectively reviewed. Exclusion criteria: known inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), familial cancer syndromes, polyp and colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance, and prior colonoscopy within 5 years. Demographics, symptoms and colonoscopy findings were recorded and analysed.Results1116 cases were reviewed; 493 (44%) males, age 54.3 years (16–91). CSD occurred in only 162 (14.5%); CRC 19 (1.7%), high-risk adenoma 40 (3.6%), inflammation 97 (8.7%) (IBD 65 (5.8%), microscopic colitis 9 (0.8%) and indeterminate-inflammation 23 (2%)), angiodysplasia 6 (0.5%). Diarrhoea gave the highest diagnostic yield for CSD of 5.3% (OR 3.15, 95% CI 2.2 to 4.7, p<0.001), followed by PR bleeding, 2.9% (OR 1.9, 95% CI 1.24 to 2.9, p=0.003). Weight loss gave the lowest diagnostic yield of 0.4%; (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.28 to 2.24, p=0.65). 592 (53%) and 517 (46%) fitted the NICE guidelines for CRC and IBD, respectively. Using NICE positivity improved detection but overall yield remained low 3% vs 0.4% (OR 7.71, 95% CI 1.77 to 33.56, p=0.0064) for CRC, and 9% vs 2.8% (OR 3.5, 95% CI 1.99 to 6.17, p<0.0001) for IBD.ConclusionsThe overall prevalence of CSD in our unselected symptomatic patients is low (14.5%). A holistic approach including combining symptoms and demographics with novel tools including stool biomarkers and minimally invasive colonoscopy alternatives should be applied to avoid unnecessary colonoscopy.

No abstract