GLORIA

GEOMAR Library Ocean Research Information Access

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
Filter
  • Axelrad, Jordan E.  (7)
  • 1
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) ; 2019
    In:  American Journal of Gastroenterology Vol. 114, No. 1 ( 2019-10), p. S379-S379
    In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 114, No. 1 ( 2019-10), p. S379-S379
    Abstract: Gut microbial dysbiosis and impaired mucosal immunity play a major role in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). Previous research has shown that IBD patients experience greater disease burden from gastrointestinal infections. The increasing availability of gastrointestinal multiplex polymerase chain reaction stool panels (GI PCR) has allowed for the rapid and accurate identification of viral, bacterial, and parasitic pathogens not readily diagnosable with conventional stool testing. We aimed to characterize the burden and risk factors for gastrointestinal infections on outpatients with and without inflammatory bowel disease presenting with symptoms of acute gastroenteritis. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional review of outpatients presenting with gastroenteritis to an academic medical center from September 2015 to March 2019 who received a FilmArray GI PCR. Baseline demographics, presence of IBD and disease characteristics, risk factors including travel history, sexual activity, HIV status, and symptoms on initial presentation were recorded. The primary outcome was the detection of an enteric pathogen. Secondary outcomes include the class of pathogen detected, i.e., viral, bacterial, parasitic. T-test and Chi-square analysis were used to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: We reviewed 815 outpatients who received GI PCR testing, of whom 94 (12%) were diagnosed with IBD. Patients with IBD were more likely to present to the initial visit with bloody diarrhea (46% vs. 8%, P 〈 0.001), hematochezia (15% vs. 6%, P = 0.001), and fever (23% vs. 9%, P 〈 0.001; Table 1). Of outpatients with IBD, 33 (35%) had a gastrointestinal pathogen detected compared to 216 (30%, P = 0.190) of non-IBD outpatients. Patients with IBD were more likely to have viral (28% vs. 18%, P = 0.044) or multiple pathogens (11% vs. 6%, P = 0.028) and less likely to have bacterial (61% vs. 73%, P = 0.920) and parasitic infections (0 vs. 6%, P = 0.382) on GI PCR (Table 2). There were no statistically significant differences in gender, race, travel history, sexual activity, HIV status, or rate of pathogen detection between patients with and without IBD. CONCLUSION: Enteric infections were common in outpatients with and without IBD. IBD patients presented with more viral and multiple pathogens on GI PCR testing compared to non-IBD controls. Further studies are needed to investigate the impact of these different enteric pathogens on clinical management and disease burden.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0002-9270 , 1572-0241
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2019
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    In: Gastroenterology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 156, No. 6 ( 2019-05), p. S-1154-S-1155
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0016-5085
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2019
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 114, No. 1 ( 2019-10), p. S379-S381
    Abstract: Patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) frequently receive stool testing for exacerbations in gastrointestinal symptoms. Multiplex polymerase chain reaction-based gastrointestinal pathogen panels (GI PCR) offer significant benefits in sensitivity over conventional tests such as culture and ova and parasites exam. However, it is unclear how additional pathogen positive findings by GI PCR affect further clinical management. In this study we compared the downstream healthcare utilization of IBD patients who received GI PCR to conventional stool testing. METHODS: We reviewed outpatients presenting to an academic medical center with an acute episode of diarrhea from September 2015 to February 2019 to identify patients with IBD who received stool testing with a FilmArray GI PCR or stool culture and ova and parasite exam (conventional testing). All patients received isolated PCR testing for Clostridium difficile. Each GI PCR patient was randomly matched with a conventional testing patient based on age, sex, and date of testing. Post-visit endoscopy, abdominal radiology, antibiotic therapy, and escalation in IBD medical therapy defined as an increase in the dose of a prior medication or prescription of a new medication were recorded. Long-term outcomes including emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and abdominal surgery were recorded as well. T-test and Chi-square analysis were used to compare outcomes between groups. RESULTS: Among 1,104 patients receiving stool testing, we identified 120 outpatients with IBD, of whom 26 (22%) received conventional stool testing and 94 (78%) GI PCR testing. Of 26 patients with conventional testing, 1 (4%) had a pathogen identified on testing while 36 (38%) of 94 GI PCR patients had positive tests (Table 2). There were no significant differences in demographics, IBD characteristics, rates of C. difficile infection, and behavioral risk factors between groups ( P 〉 0.05). GI PCR patients were less likely to receive any endoscopic exam in the 30-day period after their initial visit (20% vs. 42%, P = 0.021). There were no significant differences in exposure to radiology, antibiotics, escalation of IBD therapy, or long-term IBD outcomes ( P 〉 0.05). CONCLUSION: Testing with GI PCR was associated with lower rates of post-visit endoscopywith no differences in long-term outcomes in outpatients with IBD. This study suggests that in certain populations of patients, GI PCR testing has the potential to reduce downstream healthcare utilization and management burden.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0002-9270 , 1572-0241
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2019
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    In: Gastroenterology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 158, No. 6 ( 2020-05), p. S-1114-S-1115
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0016-5085
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2020
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Elsevier BV ; 2022
    In:  Gastroenterology Vol. 162, No. 7 ( 2022-05), p. S-436-S-437
    In: Gastroenterology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 162, No. 7 ( 2022-05), p. S-436-S-437
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0016-5085
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Elsevier BV
    Publication Date: 2022
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) ; 2020
    In:  American Journal of Gastroenterology Vol. 115, No. 1 ( 2020-10), p. S68-S68
    In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 115, No. 1 ( 2020-10), p. S68-S68
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0002-9270 , 1572-0241
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2020
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health) ; 2019
    In:  American Journal of Gastroenterology Vol. 114, No. 1 ( 2019-10), p. S105-S106
    In: American Journal of Gastroenterology, Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health), Vol. 114, No. 1 ( 2019-10), p. S105-S106
    Abstract: Rapid, highly sensitive and specific multiplex polymerase chain reaction-based stool assays for gastrointestinal pathogens (GI PCR) are increasingly being used alternatively to conventional stool culture. We investigated the concordance between simultaneous GI PCR and stool culture with an ova and parasite (O & P) exam in outpatients presenting with symptoms of infectious gastroenteritis. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of outpatients who received a FilmArray GI PCR test for acute diarrhea at an academic medical center from September 2015 to February 2019 to identify patients who had a concomitant stool culture with an ova and parasite exam (conventional testing) at the same time, on the same stool sample. The primary outcome was detection of an infection on GI PCR or conventional stool testing. Correlation was evaluated using McNemar's test for pathogens detected on both tests. Other categorical variables were compared with Chi-square analysis. RESULTS: We identified 150 outpatients who received GI PCR and stool culture with an ova and parasite exam for an episode of acute gastroenteritis. 106 (71%) patients had a pathogen isolated on GI PCR for 144 total pathogens including 128 (88%) bacteria, 13 (9%) viruses, and 3 (2%) parasites; 21 (14%) patients had a pathogen isolated on conventional testing for 18 total pathogens including 9 (50%) bacteria and 9 (50%) parasites (Table 1). Multiple pathogens were found in 38 (26%) GI PCR tests. PCR testing most commonly identified Enteropathogenic Escherichia coli (EPEC), representing 42 (33%) positive PCR tests. Conventional testing most commonly identified Campylobacter jejuni with 13 (54%) positive tests. Of 28 total C. jejuni infections, 15 (54%) were positive only on PCR, 3 (10%) only on conventional testing, and 10 (36%) on both modalities, showing that conventional testing missed 54% of all infections ( P = 0.008). Conventional testing missed 4/6 (67%, P = 0.125) Salmonella infections and 9/14 (64%, P = 0.0215) Yersinia infections, nor did it detect any viral or diarrheagenic E. coli infections. Overall, PCR detected 144 of 191 (75%) of possible pathogens whereas conventional testing detected 47 of 179 possible pathogens (26%). CONCLUSION: GI PCR testing identified multiple pathogens unidentified by conventional testing, such as enteric viruses and pathogenic strains of E. coli . Conventional testing missed 88% of enteric bacteria showing poor concordance between simultaneous GI PCR testing and stool culture with an ova and parasite exam.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 0002-9270 , 1572-0241
    RVK:
    Language: English
    Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
    Publication Date: 2019
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. More information can be found here...