Sobczyk Juliana, Jain Sonia, Sun Xiaoying, Karris Maile, Wooten Darcy, Stagnaro Janet, Reed Sharon
Department of Pathology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2020 Jan 6;7(1):ofz547. doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofz547. eCollection 2020 Jan.
Gastrointestinal pathogen panels (GPPs) are increasingly used to identify stool pathogens, but their impact in people with HIV (PWH) is unknown. We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing GPP and conventional stool evaluation in PWH.
We included all PWH who underwent GPP (Biofire Diagnostics; implemented September 15, 2015) or conventional testing, including stool culture, polymerase chain reaction testing, fluorescent smears for or and ova and parasite exams (O&P) from 2013 to 2017. A total of 1941 specimens were tested, with 169 positive specimens detected in 144 patients. We compared result turnaround time, pathogen co-infection, antibiotic treatment, and treatment outcomes between positive specimens detected by conventional testing vs GPP.
Overall, 124 patient samples tested positive by GPP, compared with 45 patient specimens by conventional testing. The GPP group demonstrated a higher co-infection rate (48.4% vs 13.3%; < .001) and quicker turnaround time (23.4 vs 71.4 hours; < .001). The GPP identified 29 potential viral infections that were undetectable by conventional stool tests. Unnecessary anti-infective therapy was avoided in 9 of 11 exclusively viral infections. Exclusively nonpathogenic parasites (n = 13) were detected by conventional stool tests, the majority of which were treated with metronidazole. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups.
In PWH, GPP implementation improved antibiotic stewardship through shorter turnaround times and detection of enteric viral pathogens.
胃肠道病原体检测板(GPPs)越来越多地用于识别粪便病原体,但它们对艾滋病毒感染者(PWH)的影响尚不清楚。我们进行了一项回顾性队列研究,比较了GPP和传统粪便检测方法在PWH中的应用。
我们纳入了所有在2013年至2017年间接受GPP检测(Biofire诊断公司;于2015年9月15日实施)或传统检测的PWH,传统检测包括粪便培养、聚合酶链反应检测、针对 或 的荧光涂片以及虫卵和寄生虫检查(O&P)。总共检测了1941份标本,在144名患者中检测到169份阳性标本。我们比较了传统检测与GPP检测出的阳性标本在结果周转时间、病原体合并感染、抗生素治疗和治疗结果方面的差异。
总体而言,GPP检测出124份患者样本呈阳性,而传统检测为45份患者标本。GPP组显示出更高的合并感染率(48.4%对13.3%;<0.001)和更快的周转时间(23.4小时对71.4小时;<0.001)。GPP检测出29种传统粪便检测无法检测到的潜在病毒感染。在11例单纯病毒感染中,有9例避免了不必要的抗感染治疗。传统粪便检测检测出13例单纯非致病性寄生虫,其中大多数用甲硝唑治疗。两组之间的临床结果没有显著差异。
在PWH中,实施GPP通过缩短周转时间和检测肠道病毒病原体改善了抗生素管理。