Suppr超能文献

比较多重胃肠道病原体检测panel 与常规粪便检测用于炎症性肠病患者腹泻的评估。

Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Diarrhea in Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Diseases.

机构信息

Department of Internal Medicine, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA.

Division of Gastroenterology, University of California San Diego, 9452 Medical Center Drive, ACTRI 1W501, La Jolla, CA, 92093, USA.

出版信息

Dig Dis Sci. 2019 Feb;64(2):382-390. doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-5330-y. Epub 2018 Oct 25.

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Gastrointestinal pathogen panels (GPPs) are increasingly being used for evaluation of diarrhea. The impact of these tests on patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is unknown. We performed a time-interrupted cohort study comparing GPPs and conventional stool evaluation in patients with IBD with diarrhea.

METHODS

We included 268 consecutive patients with IBD who underwent GPP (BioFire Diagnostics) (n = 134) or conventional stool culture and Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction testing (n = 134) during suspected IBD flare between 2012 and 2016. Primary outcome was composite of 30-day IBD-related hospitalization, surgery, or emergency department visit; secondary outcome was IBD treatment modification.

RESULTS

Overall, 41/134 (30.6%) patients tested positive on GPP (18 C. difficile, 17 other bacterial infections, and 6 viral pathogens) versus 14/134 patients (10.4%, all C. difficile) testing positive on conventional testing. Rate of IBD treatment modification in response to stool testing was lower in GPP group as compared conventional stool testing group (35.1 vs. 64.2%, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, diagnostic evaluation with GPP was associated with three times higher odds of IBD-related hospitalization/surgery/ED visit (95% CI, 1.27-7.14), as compared to conventional stool testing. This negative impact was partly mediated by differences in ordering provider specialty, with non-gastroenterologists more likely to order GPP as compared to gastroenterologists.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with suspected flare of IBD, GPPs have higher pathogen detection rate and lead to lower rate of IBD treatment modification. A diagnostic testing strategy based on GPPs is associated with higher hospital-related healthcare utilization as compared to conventional stool testing, particularly when utilized by non-gastroenterologists.

摘要

背景与目的

胃肠道病原体检测面板(GPP)越来越多地用于腹泻的评估。但这些检测方法对炎症性肠病(IBD)患者的影响尚不清楚。我们进行了一项时间中断的队列研究,比较了 GPP 和常规粪便评估在腹泻的 IBD 患者中的应用。

方法

我们纳入了 2012 年至 2016 年间 268 例疑似 IBD 发作时接受 GPP(BioFire Diagnostics)(n=134)或常规粪便培养和艰难梭菌聚合酶链反应检测(n=134)的连续 IBD 患者。主要结局为 30 天内 IBD 相关住院、手术或急诊就诊的复合结局;次要结局为 IBD 治疗的改变。

结果

总的来说,134 例患者中有 41 例(30.6%)GPP 检测阳性(18 例为艰难梭菌,17 例为其他细菌感染,6 例为病毒病原体),而 134 例患者中有 14 例(10.4%)常规检测阳性(均为艰难梭菌)。与常规粪便检测组相比,GPP 组因粪便检测而改变 IBD 治疗的比例较低(35.1%比 64.2%,p<0.01)。多变量分析显示,与常规粪便检测相比,GPP 诊断评估与 IBD 相关住院/手术/ED 就诊的风险增加 3 倍(95%CI,1.27-7.14)。这种负面影响部分与检测者的专业差异有关,与胃肠病学家相比,非胃肠病学家更有可能开 GPP。

结论

在疑似 IBD 发作的患者中,GPP 检测病原体的阳性率更高,导致 IBD 治疗改变的比例更低。与常规粪便检测相比,基于 GPP 的诊断检测策略与更高的与医院相关的医疗利用率相关,尤其是当非胃肠病学家使用时。

相似文献

10
Enteric Infections Are Common in Patients with Flares of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.肠病性感染在炎症性肠病发作患者中很常见。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Oct;113(10):1530-1539. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0211-8. Epub 2018 Aug 3.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Enteric Infections Are Common in Patients with Flares of Inflammatory Bowel Disease.肠病性感染在炎症性肠病发作患者中很常见。
Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Oct;113(10):1530-1539. doi: 10.1038/s41395-018-0211-8. Epub 2018 Aug 3.
2
Adherent-invasive in inflammatory bowel disease.黏附侵袭型;炎症性肠病
Gut. 2018 Mar;67(3):574-587. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2017-314903. Epub 2017 Nov 15.
4
Environmental triggers in IBD: a review of progress and evidence.炎症性肠病的环境触发因素:研究进展与证据回顾。
Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Jan;15(1):39-49. doi: 10.1038/nrgastro.2017.136. Epub 2017 Oct 11.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验