Summers Jennifer A, Peacock Janet, Coker Bolaji, McMillan Viktoria, Ofuya Mercy, Lewis Cornelius, Keevil Stephen, Logan Robert, McLaughlin John, Reid Fiona
Division of Health and Social Care Research, King's College London, London, UK; NIHR Biomedical Research Centre at Guy's and St Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust and King's College London, Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
King's Technology Evaluation Centre, King's College London, London, UK; Department of Medical Engineering and Physics, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
BMJ Open Gastroenterol. 2016 May 25;3(1):e000091. doi: 10.1136/bmjgast-2016-000091. eCollection 2016.
A clinical diagnosis of bile acid malabsorption (BAM) can be confirmed using SeHCAT (tauroselcholic ((75)selenium) acid), a radiolabelled synthetic bile acid. However, while BAM can be the cause of chronic diarrhoea, it is often overlooked as a potential diagnosis. Therefore, we investigated the use of SeHCAT for diagnosis of BAM in UK hospitals.
A multicentre survey was conducted capturing centre and patient-level information detailing patient care-pathways, clinical history, SeHCAT results, treatment with bile acid sequestrants (BAS), and follow-up in clinics. Eligible data from 38 centres and 1036 patients were entered into a validated management system.
SeHCAT protocol varied between centres, with no standardised patient positioning, and differing referral systems. Surveyed patients had a mean age of 50 years and predominantly women (65%). The mean SeHCAT retention score for all patients was 19% (95% CI 17.8% to 20.3%). However, this differed with suspected BAM type: type 1: 9% (95% CI 6.3% to 11.4%), type 2: 21% (95% CI 19.2% to 23.0%) and type 3: 22% (95% CI 19.6% to 24.2%). Centre-defined 'abnormal' and 'borderline' results represented over 50% of the survey population. BAS treatment was prescribed to only 73% of patients with abnormal results.
The study identified a lack of consistent cut-off/threshold values, with differing centre criteria for defining an 'abnormal' SeHCAT result. BAS prescription was not related in a simple way to the SeHCAT result, nor to the centre-defined result, highlighting a lack of clear patient care-pathways. There is a clear need for a future diagnostic accuracy study and a better understanding of optimal management pathways.
胆汁酸吸收不良(BAM)的临床诊断可通过使用SeHCAT(牛磺鹅去氧胆酸((75)硒)酸)来确认,这是一种放射性标记的合成胆汁酸。然而,虽然BAM可能是慢性腹泻的病因,但它作为一种潜在诊断常常被忽视。因此,我们调查了SeHCAT在英国医院用于诊断BAM的情况。
开展了一项多中心调查,收集中心和患者层面的信息,详细记录患者的护理路径、临床病史、SeHCAT结果、胆汁酸螯合剂(BAS)治疗情况以及门诊随访情况。来自38个中心的1036例患者的合格数据被录入一个经过验证的管理系统。
各中心之间SeHCAT方案存在差异,患者体位未标准化,转诊系统也各不相同。接受调查的患者平均年龄为50岁,女性占大多数(65%)。所有患者的平均SeHCAT潴留分数为19%(95%置信区间为17.8%至20.3%)。然而,这因疑似BAM类型而异:1型:9%(95%置信区间为6.3%至11.4%),2型:21%(95%置信区间为19.2%至23.0%),3型:22%(95%置信区间为19.6%至24.2%)。中心定义的“异常”和“临界”结果占调查人群的50%以上。只有73%结果异常的患者接受了BAS治疗。
该研究发现缺乏一致的临界值,各中心对“异常”SeHCAT结果的定义标准不同。BAS处方与SeHCAT结果以及中心定义的结果均无简单关联,这突出表明缺乏明确的患者护理路径。显然有必要在未来开展诊断准确性研究,并更好地了解最佳管理路径。