Citations

Abstract Background Whipple disease (WD), a rare systemic infection caused by Tropheryma whipplei, can be a diagnostic challenge due to its variable presentation. The role of T. whipplei polymerase chain reaction (PCR) is unclear as small bowel biopsy with Periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining remains the diagnostic gold standard. Individualized diagnostic approaches based on variable clinical manifestations are underutilized. We investigated the methodologies employed at our institution to diagnose WD. Methods We retrospectively collected all cases of WD diagnosed from 1994 to 2016. Microbiology laboratory and anatomic pathology databases were queried. Case characteristics and disease clinical phenotypes (classical, localized WD arthritis, and localized central nervous system [CNS] disease) were described. The diagnostic approach and testing yield were analyzed and reported. Results Thirty-three cases of WD were diagnosed (18 classic WD [CWD], 9 localized WD arthritis [LWD], 6 CNS WD). Misdiagnosis and delay in diagnosis were frequent. Diagnostic approach and test yield differed by classical vs localized WD involvement. Small bowel tissue biopsy PAS stain/PCR was overwhelmingly positive (86%/92%) in CWD, yet seldom positive (12%/42%) in LWD (P < .001). Affected joint synovial fluid PCR was frequently positive in both CWD (100%, 3/3) and LWD (85%, 6/7). Conclusions These results support the role of small bowel biopsy PAS stain/PCR in the diagnosis of CW, though this approach may be of limited utility in LWD or CNS WD without gastrointestinal symptoms. Affected joint synovial fluid or cerebrospinal fluid PCR was frequently positive in both CWD and LWD, supporting its diagnostic usefulness.

Abstract The critical nature of the microbiology laboratory in infectious disease diagnosis calls for a close, positive working relationship between the physician/advanced practice provider and the microbiologists who provide enormous value to the healthcare team. This document, developed by experts in laboratory and adult and pediatric clinical medicine, provides information on which tests are valuable and in which contexts, and on tests that add little or no value for diagnostic decisions. This document presents a system-based approach rather than specimen-based approach, and includes bloodstream and cardiovascular system infections, central nervous system infections, ocular infections, soft tissue infections of the head and neck, upper and lower respiratory infections, infections of the gastrointestinal tract, intra-abdominal infections, bone and joint infections, urinary tract infections, genital infections, and other skin and soft tissue infections; or into etiologic agent groups, including arthropod-borne infections, viral syndromes, and blood and tissue parasite infections. Each section contains introductory concepts, a summary of key points, and detailed tables that list suspected agents; the most reliable tests to order; the samples (and volumes) to collect in order of preference; specimen transport devices, procedures, times, and temperatures; and detailed notes on specific issues regarding the test methods, such as when tests are likely to require a specialized laboratory or have prolonged turnaround times. In addition, the pediatric needs of specimen management are also emphasized. There is intentional redundancy among the tables and sections, as many agents and assay choices overlap. The document is intended to serve as a guidance for physicians in choosing tests that will aid them to quickly and accurately diagnose infectious diseases in their patients.

Cytapheresis (removal of cellular blood components) has been employed for treatment of infectious diseases since the 1960s. Techniques have included thrombocytapheresis (buffy coat apheresis) for loiasis, erythrocytapheresis for malaria and babesiosis, and leukocytapheresis for pertussis‐associated lymphocytosis. Published data on these applications is largely limited to case level data and small observational studies; as such, recommendations for or against the use of cytapheresis in the treatment of infections have been extrapolated from these limited (and at times flawed) data sets. Consequently, utilization of cytapheresis in many instances is not uniform between institutions, and typically occurs at the discretion of treating medical teams. This review revisits the existing literature on the use of cytapheresis in the treatment of four infections (loasis, malaria, babesiosis, and pertussis) and examines the rationale underlying current treatment recommendations concerning its use.