粪便多重PCR检测与常规粪便检测检测胃肠道感染作为炎症性肠病爆发的原因。

IF 2 Q3 GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY
Manek Kutar, Devendra Desai, Philip Abraham, Tarun Gupta, Pavan Dhoble
{"title":"粪便多重PCR检测与常规粪便检测检测胃肠道感染作为炎症性肠病爆发的原因。","authors":"Manek Kutar, Devendra Desai, Philip Abraham, Tarun Gupta, Pavan Dhoble","doi":"10.1007/s12664-025-01773-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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<sup>®</sup> 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.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-five patients with IBD flare underwent conventional stool tests (microscopy, culture and Clostridioides difficile toxin assay) and stool PCR assay simultaneously.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In an IBD flare, stool PCR or Biofire® FilmArray<sup>®</sup> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":13404,"journal":{"name":"Indian Journal of Gastroenterology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Stool multiplex PCR assay versus conventional stool tests for detecting gastrointestinal infection as a cause for flare of inflammatory bowel disease.\",\"authors\":\"Manek Kutar, Devendra Desai, Philip Abraham, Tarun Gupta, Pavan Dhoble\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s12664-025-01773-9\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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<sup>®</sup> 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.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Sixty-five patients with IBD flare underwent conventional stool tests (microscopy, culture and Clostridioides difficile toxin assay) and stool PCR assay simultaneously.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In an IBD flare, stool PCR or Biofire® FilmArray<sup>®</sup> 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":13404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Indian Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Indian Journal of Gastroenterology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-025-01773-9\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Indian Journal of Gastroenterology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12664-025-01773-9","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在炎症性肠病(IBD)中,耀斑可能是由于疾病的自然病史或由于胃肠道感染。通常通过粪便显微镜和培养来诊断感染。粪便多重聚合酶链反应(PCR)测定或Biofire®FilmArray®GI Panel是一种灵敏、快速的检测感染的方法,但价格昂贵;其对IBD的管理和成本效益的影响尚未被研究。目的:比较IBD爆发期间粪便PCR检测与常规检测对感染的检测效果、检测对治疗的影响以及检测的成本-效果。方法:65例IBD暴发患者同时进行常规粪便检查(显微镜、培养、艰难梭菌毒素检测)和粪便PCR检测。结果:我们前瞻性地招募了65例连续出现疾病爆发的患者:溃疡性结肠炎(58例患者,28例女性,平均年龄41.1岁)和克罗恩病(7例患者;三个女人;平均年龄36.1岁)。粪便PCR在36例(55.4%)患者中检测到微生物,而传统检测为6例(9.2%)。(p)结论:在IBD爆发中,粪便PCR或Biofire®FilmArray®GI Panel检测到更多的微生物,与传统检测相比,导致更频繁的管理变更。ICER为63375印度卢比(728美元,674欧元)。该试验应被视为IBD耀斑的一线检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Stool multiplex PCR assay versus conventional stool tests for detecting gastrointestinal infection as a cause for flare of inflammatory bowel disease.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology
Indian Journal of Gastroenterology GASTROENTEROLOGY & HEPATOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
73
期刊介绍: The Indian Journal of Gastroenterology aims to help doctors everywhere practise better medicine and to influence the debate on gastroenterology. To achieve these aims, we publish original scientific studies, state-of -the-art special articles, reports and papers commenting on the clinical, scientific and public health factors affecting aspects of gastroenterology. We shall be delighted to receive articles for publication in all of these categories and letters commenting on the contents of the Journal or on issues of interest to our readers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信