Cargando…

Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Patients With HIV Infection

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 GP...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Sobczyk, Juliana, Jain, Sonia, Sun, Xiaoying, Karris, Maile, Wooten, Darcy, Stagnaro, Janet, Reed, Sharon
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6970129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31976355
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz547
_version_ 1783489452813844480
author Sobczyk, Juliana
Jain, Sonia
Sun, Xiaoying
Karris, Maile
Wooten, Darcy
Stagnaro, Janet
Reed, Sharon
author_facet Sobczyk, Juliana
Jain, Sonia
Sun, Xiaoying
Karris, Maile
Wooten, Darcy
Stagnaro, Janet
Reed, Sharon
author_sort Sobczyk, Juliana
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6970129
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69701292020-01-23 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 Open Forum Infect Dis Major Article 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. Oxford University Press 2020-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC6970129/ /pubmed/31976355 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz547 Text en © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Major Article
Sobczyk, Juliana
Jain, Sonia
Sun, Xiaoying
Karris, Maile
Wooten, Darcy
Stagnaro, Janet
Reed, Sharon
Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Patients With HIV Infection
title Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Patients With HIV Infection
title_full Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Patients With HIV Infection
title_fullStr Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Patients With HIV Infection
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Patients With HIV Infection
title_short Comparison of Multiplex Gastrointestinal Pathogen Panel and Conventional Stool Testing for Evaluation of Patients With HIV Infection
title_sort comparison of multiplex gastrointestinal pathogen panel and conventional stool testing for evaluation of patients with hiv infection
topic Major Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6970129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31976355
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz547
work_keys_str_mv AT sobczykjuliana comparisonofmultiplexgastrointestinalpathogenpanelandconventionalstooltestingforevaluationofpatientswithhivinfection
AT jainsonia comparisonofmultiplexgastrointestinalpathogenpanelandconventionalstooltestingforevaluationofpatientswithhivinfection
AT sunxiaoying comparisonofmultiplexgastrointestinalpathogenpanelandconventionalstooltestingforevaluationofpatientswithhivinfection
AT karrismaile comparisonofmultiplexgastrointestinalpathogenpanelandconventionalstooltestingforevaluationofpatientswithhivinfection
AT wootendarcy comparisonofmultiplexgastrointestinalpathogenpanelandconventionalstooltestingforevaluationofpatientswithhivinfection
AT stagnarojanet comparisonofmultiplexgastrointestinalpathogenpanelandconventionalstooltestingforevaluationofpatientswithhivinfection
AT reedsharon comparisonofmultiplexgastrointestinalpathogenpanelandconventionalstooltestingforevaluationofpatientswithhivinfection