Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Patients With HIV Infection.
Sobczyk, Juliana; Jain, Sonia; Sun, Xiaoying; Karris, Maile; Wooten, Darcy; Stagnaro, Janet; Reed, Sharon.
Afiliação
  • Sobczyk J; Department of Pathology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
  • Jain S; Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
  • Sun X; Department of Family Medicine and Public Health, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
  • Karris M; Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
  • Wooten D; Department of Internal Medicine, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
  • Stagnaro J; Department of Pathology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
  • Reed S; Department of Pathology, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA.
Open Forum Infect Dis ; 7(1): ofz547, 2020 Jan.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31976355
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal pathogen panels (GPPs) are increasingly used to identify stool pathogens, but their impact in people with HIV (PWH) is unknown. We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing GPP and conventional stool evaluation in PWH. METHODS: We included all PWH who underwent GPP (Biofire Diagnostics; implemented September 15, 2015) or conventional testing, including stool culture, Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction testing, fluorescent smears for Cryptosporidium or Giardia, and ova and parasite exams (O&P) from 2013 to 2017. A total of 1941 specimens were tested, with 169 positive specimens detected in 144 patients. We compared result turnaround time, pathogen co-infection, antibiotic treatment, and treatment outcomes between positive specimens detected by conventional testing vs GPP. RESULTS: Overall, 124 patient samples tested positive by GPP, compared with 45 patient specimens by conventional testing. The GPP group demonstrated a higher co-infection rate (48.4% vs 13.3%; P < .001) and quicker turnaround time (23.4 vs 71.4 hours; P < .001). The GPP identified 29 potential viral infections that were undetectable by conventional stool tests. Unnecessary anti-infective therapy was avoided in 9 of 11 exclusively viral infections. Exclusively nonpathogenic parasites (n = 13) were detected by conventional stool tests, the majority of which were treated with metronidazole. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between groups. CONCLUSIONS: In PWH, GPP implementation improved antibiotic stewardship through shorter turnaround times and detection of enteric viral pathogens.
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Idioma: En Revista: Open Forum Infect Dis Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Tipo de estudo: Observational_studies Idioma: En Revista: Open Forum Infect Dis Ano de publicação: 2020 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: Estados Unidos