Crews Nicholas R, Cawcutt Kelly A, Pritt Bobbi S, Patel Robin, Virk Abinash
Division of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Divisions of Infectious Diseases and Pulmonary and Critical Care, University of Nebraska Medical Center, Omaha, Nebraska.
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2018 Jun 13;5(7):ofy136. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy136. eCollection 2018 Jul.
Whipple disease (WD), a rare systemic infection caused by can be a diagnostic challenge due to its variable presentation. The role of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is unclear as small bowel biopsy with Periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining remains the diagnostic gold standard. Individualized diagnostic approaches based on variable clinical manifestations are underutilized. We investigated the methodologies employed at our institution to diagnose WD.
We retrospectively collected all cases of WD diagnosed from 1994 to 2016. Microbiology laboratory and anatomic pathology databases were queried. Case characteristics and disease clinical phenotypes (classical, localized WD arthritis, and localized central nervous system [CNS] disease) were described. The diagnostic approach and testing yield were analyzed and reported.
Thirty-three cases of WD were diagnosed (18 classic WD [CWD], 9 localized WD arthritis [LWD], 6 CNS WD). Misdiagnosis and delay in diagnosis were frequent. Diagnostic approach and test yield differed by classical vs localized WD involvement. Small bowel tissue biopsy PAS stain/PCR was overwhelmingly positive (86%/92%) in CWD, yet seldom positive (12%/42%) in LWD ( < .001). Affected joint synovial fluid PCR was frequently positive in both CWD (100%, 3/3) and LWD (85%, 6/7).
These results support the role of small bowel biopsy PAS stain/PCR in the diagnosis of CW, though this approach may be of limited utility in LWD or CNS WD without gastrointestinal symptoms. Affected joint synovial fluid or cerebrospinal fluid PCR was frequently positive in both CWD and LWD, supporting its diagnostic usefulness.
惠普尔病(WD)是一种由罕见细菌引起的全身性感染,因其临床表现多样,诊断具有挑战性。聚合酶链反应(PCR)的作用尚不清楚,因为小肠活检及过碘酸希夫(PAS)染色仍是诊断的金标准。基于不同临床表现的个体化诊断方法未得到充分利用。我们调查了本机构诊断WD所采用的方法。
我们回顾性收集了1994年至2016年诊断的所有WD病例。查询了微生物学实验室和解剖病理学数据库。描述了病例特征和疾病临床表型(经典型、局限性WD关节炎和局限性中枢神经系统[CNS]疾病)。分析并报告了诊断方法和检测阳性率。
共诊断出33例WD(18例经典型WD[CWD],9例局限性WD关节炎[LWD],6例中枢神经系统WD)。误诊和诊断延迟很常见。经典型与局限性WD受累的诊断方法和检测阳性率有所不同。小肠组织活检PAS染色/PCR在CWD中绝大多数呈阳性(86%/92%),而在LWD中很少呈阳性(12%/42%)(P<0.001)。受累关节滑液PCR在CWD(100%,3/3)和LWD(85%,6/7)中均经常呈阳性。
这些结果支持小肠活检PAS染色/PCR在CWD诊断中的作用,尽管这种方法在无胃肠道症状的LWD或中枢神经系统WD中可能效用有限。受累关节滑液或脑脊液PCR在CWD和LWD中均经常呈阳性,支持其诊断价值。