Suppr超能文献

粪便多重聚合酶链反应检测法与传统粪便检测法在检测作为炎症性肠病发作原因的胃肠道感染中的比较

Stool multiplex PCR assay versus conventional stool tests for detecting gastrointestinal infection as a cause for flare of inflammatory bowel disease.

作者信息

Kutar Manek, Desai Devendra, Abraham Philip, Gupta Tarun, Dhoble Pavan

机构信息

Division of Gastroenterology, P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mahim, Mumbai, 400 016, India.

出版信息

Indian J Gastroenterol. 2025 May 16. doi: 10.1007/s12664-025-01773-9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

In inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), a flare can be due to natural history of disease or due to gastrointestinal infection. Infection is conventionally diagnosed by stool microscopy and culture. Stool multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay or Biofire® FilmArray GI Panel is a sensitive and rapid test for detecting infection, but is expensive; its impact on management and cost-effectiveness has not been studied in IBD.

AIMS

To compare stool PCR assay and conventional tests during IBD flare for detection of infection, impact of detection on treatment and cost-effectiveness of the tests.

METHODS

Sixty-five patients with IBD flare underwent conventional stool tests (microscopy, culture and Clostridioides difficile toxin assay) and stool PCR assay simultaneously.

RESULTS

We prospectively enrolled 65 consecutive patients presenting with disease flare: ulcerative colitis (58 patients, 28 women, mean age 41.1 years) and Crohn's disease (seven patients; three women; mean age 36.1). Stool PCR detected organisms in 36 (55.4%) patients as compared to six (9.2%) by conventional tests (p < 0.0001). The organisms detected by the PCR assay were enteroaggregative (EAEC) (22 patients), enteropathogenic (EPEC) (12), enterotoxigenic Escherichia coli (ETEC) (5), Plesiomonas shigelloides (4), C. difficile (3), norovirus (3), enteroinvasive E. coli (2), rotavirus (2) and G. lamblia, cryptosporidia, cyclospora, Sapovirus, adenovirus and Entamoeba histolytica (one each). PCR organism detection resulted in management change in 13 (20%) patients as compared to five (7.6%) by conventional tests (p < 0.02). Cost to achieve one positive result on stool PCR that led to management change was INR 60,000 (USD 690, EUR 638) as compared to Indian Rupees (INR) 54,600 (United States Dollar [USD] 627, EUR 580) for conventional tests. The incremental cost-effective ratio (ICER) was INR 63,375 (USD 728, EUR 674).

CONCLUSION

In an IBD flare, stool PCR or Biofire® FilmArray GI Panel detected more organisms and led to more frequent management change as compared to conventional tests. The ICER was INR 63,375 (USD 728, EUR 674). This test should be considered first-line investigation in an IBD flare.

摘要

背景

在炎症性肠病(IBD)中,病情发作可能是由于疾病的自然病程或胃肠道感染。传统上,感染是通过粪便显微镜检查和培养来诊断的。粪便多重聚合酶链反应(PCR)检测或Biofire® FilmArray GI Panel是检测感染的一种灵敏且快速的检测方法,但成本高昂;其对IBD治疗管理及成本效益的影响尚未得到研究。

目的

比较IBD病情发作期间粪便PCR检测与传统检测方法在感染检测、检测结果对治疗的影响以及检测的成本效益方面的差异。

方法

65例IBD病情发作的患者同时接受了传统粪便检测(显微镜检查、培养及艰难梭菌毒素检测)和粪便PCR检测。

结果

我们前瞻性纳入了65例连续出现病情发作的患者:溃疡性结肠炎(58例,28名女性,平均年龄41.1岁)和克罗恩病(7例;3名女性;平均年龄36.1岁)。粪便PCR检测在36例(55.4%)患者中检测到病原体,而传统检测方法仅在6例(9.2%)患者中检测到(p < 0.0001)。通过PCR检测到的病原体包括肠聚集性大肠杆菌(EAEC)(22例)、肠致病性大肠杆菌(EPEC)(12例)、产肠毒素大肠杆菌(ETEC)(5例)、类志贺邻单胞菌(4例)、艰难梭菌(3例)、诺如病毒(3例)、侵袭性大肠杆菌(2例)、轮状病毒(2例)以及蓝氏贾第鞭毛虫、隐孢子虫、环孢子虫、札幌病毒、腺病毒和溶组织内阿米巴(各1例)。与传统检测方法使5例(7.6%)患者的治疗管理发生改变相比,PCR检测到病原体使13例(20%)患者的治疗管理发生改变(p < 0.02)。导致治疗管理改变的粪便PCR检测获得一个阳性结果的成本为60,000印度卢比(690美元,638欧元),而传统检测方法为54,600印度卢比(627美元,580欧元)。增量成本效益比(ICER)为63,375印度卢比(728美元,674欧元)。

结论

在IBD病情发作时,与传统检测方法相比,粪便PCR检测或Biofire® FilmArray GI Panel检测到更多病原体,且更频繁地导致治疗管理的改变。ICER为63,375印度卢比(728美元,674欧元)。该检测应被视为IBD病情发作时的一线检查方法。

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