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
  • Oxford University Press (OUP)  (3)
Material
Publisher
  • Oxford University Press (OUP)  (3)
Language
Years
  • 1
    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 ...
  • 2
    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 ...
  • 3
    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...