Skip to Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
DiagnosticsDiagnostics
  • Reply
  • Open Access

5 July 2023

Reply to Kocsmár, É.; Lotz, G. Comment on “Skrebinska et al. Who Could Be Blamed in the Case of Discrepant Histology and Serology Results for Helicobacter pylori Detection? Diagnostics 2022, 12, 133”

,
and
1
Institute of Clinical and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Latvia, LV-1586 Riga, Latvia
2
French National Reference Centre for Campylobacters and Helicobacters, Bacteriology Laboratory, Bordeaux University Hospital, 33000 Bordeaux, France
3
INSERM U1053 BaRITOn, University of Bordeaux, 33000 Bordeaux, France
4
Digestive Diseases Centre “GASTRO”, LV-1079 Riga, Latvia
Dr. Kocsmár and Dr. Lotz have made important comments [1] and raised good questions about recommendations for the broader use of immunohistochemistry (IHC) as well as polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing in cases where an etiological role of H. pylori is clinically suggested, but histopathological confirmation of H. pylori is not possible.
Indeed, the use of IHC could be more valuable in Giemsa-negative cases without inflammatory activity in which the etiological role of H. pylori is suggested by clinical, anamnestic or other data.
Although this leads to the idea of the routine use of IHC as the primary staining method, instead of Giemsa, its rather higher costs of analysis should be taken into account.
On the other hand, PCR testing could also be an option in cases where an etiological role of H. pylori is suspected. We (could) also support the idea of the use of PCR in doubtful cases. Moreover, it turns out that the broader use of molecular methods is also recommended by the last edition of the Maastricht guidelines [2].
In summary, the topic of routine use of IHC and PCR for H. pylori identification should be included in expert discussions as well as in the preparation process of the next guidelines for the management of H. pylori infections.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.D., F.M. and M.L.; writing—original draft preparation, I.D.; writing—review and editing, all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kocsmár, É.; Lotz, G. Comment on Skrebinska et al. Who Could Be Blamed in the Case of Discrepant Histology and Serology Results for Helicobacter pylori Detection? Diagnostics 2022, 12, 133. Diagnostics 2022, 12, 1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Malfertheiner, P.; Megraud, F.; Rokkas, T.; Gisbert, J.P.; Liou, J.M.; Schulz, C.; Gasbarrini, A.; Hunt, R.H.; Leja, M.; O’Morain, C.; et al. Management of Helicobacter pylori infection: The Maastricht VI/Florence consensus report. Gut 2022, 71, 1724–1762. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.