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
  • 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. 158, No. 3 ( 2020-02), p. S60-S61
    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 ...
  • 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
    Oxford University Press (OUP) ; 2020
    In:  Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Vol. 26, No. Supplement_1 ( 2020-01-23), p. S37-S38
    In: Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 26, No. Supplement_1 ( 2020-01-23), p. S37-S38
    Abstract: Evaluating for the presence of gastrointestinal infection is a critical component of the workup for relapse of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). With the advent of stool multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panels (GI PCR), infections are increasingly identified. Prior research has shown that detection of enteric infection significantly affects the management of IBD in the inpatient setting. We aimed to characterize the impact of enteric infection detection on the management of IBD therapy in outpatients with relapse of IBD. Methods In a cross-sectional study of IBD outpatients at an academic medical center presenting with acute gastrointestinal symptoms from September 2015 to April 2019 who received GI PCR testing, we recorded pathogens detected, demographic data, biomarkers of inflammation, presenting symptoms, IBD subtypes, and IBD therapy. Our primary outcome was dose escalation in IBD therapy, defined as the addition of a new therapeutic agent or an increase in the dose or frequency of an existing medication. Secondary outcomes included rates of endoscopy, abdominal imaging, and antibiotics in the 30-day period after the initial visit and rates of adverse outcomes, i.e. emergency room (ER) visits, hospitalizations, and abdominal surgeries in the 90-day period after the initial visit. Results We identified 134 IBD outpatients tested with GI PCR. A pathogen was identified in 35 (26%) patients, of whom 9 (27%) had an increase in their medication regimen; 2 (22%) were prescribed an additional mesalamine, 3 (33%) a biologic, and none glucocorticoids. In contrast, 49/99 (45%, p=0.03) patients without an infection had an increase in their medication regimen, with 3 (7%, p=0.49) prescribed mesalamines, 11 (24%, p=0.67) biologics, and 7 (16%, p=0.04) glucocorticoids (Table 1). No patient received immunomodulators. Patients with an infection received more antibiotics (49% vs. 12%, p & lt;0.01). They were also more likely to present with vomiting (11% vs. 3%, p=0.06) and undergo less post-visit endoscopy (6% vs. 16%, p=0.13), but these differences were near significant. There were no significant differences in demographics, initial IBD medications on testing, presenting symptoms, lab markers, abdominal imaging, or adverse outcomes. The most commonly isolated organisms were Escherichia coli subtypes, with 22/35 (63%) patients having at least one species isolated on testing (Table 2). Conclusion Detection of an enteric infection in outpatients with relapse of IBD was associated with significantly fewer dose escalations in IBD therapy, including glucocorticoids, and increased exposure to antibiotics, and a marginal decrease in endoscopy. These changes in management were not associated with a difference in adverse outcomes.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1078-0998 , 1536-4844
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2020
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    In: Gastroenterology, Elsevier BV, Vol. 156, No. 3 ( 2019-02), p. S22-
    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 ...
  • 7
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Oxford University Press (OUP) ; 2019
    In:  Inflammatory Bowel Diseases Vol. 25, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-02-07), p. S15-S15
    In: Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 25, No. Supplement_1 ( 2019-02-07), p. S15-S15
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1078-0998 , 1536-4844
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2019
    Location Call Number Limitation Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    In: Inflammatory Bowel Diseases, Oxford University Press (OUP), Vol. 27, No. 10 ( 2021-10-18), p. 1634-1640
    Abstract: Differentiating between enteric infection and relapse of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is a common clinical challenge. Few studies have evaluated the impact of multiplex gastrointestinal polymerase chain reaction (GI PCR) pathogen panels on clinical practice compared to stool culture. Our aim was to compare the impact of PCR stool testing to conventional stool testing in outpatients presenting with relapse of IBD. Methods In a retrospective cohort study of outpatients with IBD presenting to NYU Langone Health with flare from September 2015 to April 2019, we compared patients who underwent stool testing with GI PCR to age-, sex-, and IBD-subtype-matched patients who underwent culture and ova and parasite exam (conventional testing). The primary outcome was IBD therapy escalation after testing. Secondary outcomes included rates of posttesting endoscopy, abdominal radiography, antibiotics, and IBD-related emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and abdominal surgeries. Results We identified 134 patients who underwent GI PCR matched to 134 patients who underwent conventional testing. Pathogens were more frequently identified on GI PCR (26 vs 5%; P  & lt; 0.01). We found that GI PCR was associated with less escalation in IBD therapy (16 vs 29%; P  & lt; 0.01) and fewer posttest endoscopies (10% vs 18%; P = 0.04), with no differences in IBD outcomes. On multivariate analysis, testing with GI PCR was associated with an odds ratio of 0.26 (95% confidence interval, 0.08-0.84; P = 0.02) for escalation of IBD therapies. Conclusions Testing with GI PCR was associated with higher rates of pathogen detection and lower rates of IBD therapy escalation and endoscopy in the outpatient setting. These changes in management were not associated with a difference in IBD outcomes.
    Type of Medium: Online Resource
    ISSN: 1078-0998 , 1536-4844
    Language: English
    Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
    Publication Date: 2021
    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...