Background

Coronavirus disease 2019, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, was declared a global pandemic by the World Health Organization in March 2020.

Case presentation

We report a case of a 51-year-old Chinese woman who was evacuated from Wuhan, China and diagnosed with coronavirus disease 2019 infection at a Southern California quarantine facility. Her clinical course was notable for high fevers, night sweats, productive cough, transient leukopenia, lymphopenia, thrombocytopenia, and transaminitis. Evolving hypoxia and infiltrates on chest imaging warranted the trial of an investigational antiviral drug - remdesivir. Our patient recovered and was discharged after 2 weeks of hospitalization.

Conclusions

This case highlights our patient's clinical course, including diagnostic work-up, medical management, and challenges in defining non-infectivity in a relatively unknown disease.

Background and aims

Gastrointestinal pathogen panels (GPPs) are increasingly being used for evaluation of diarrhea. The impact of these tests on patients with inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD) is unknown. We performed a time-interrupted cohort study comparing GPPs and conventional stool evaluation in patients with IBD with diarrhea.

Methods

We included 268 consecutive patients with IBD who underwent GPP (BioFire Diagnostics^®) (n = 134) or conventional stool culture and Clostridium difficile polymerase chain reaction testing (n = 134) during suspected IBD flare between 2012 and 2016. Primary outcome was composite of 30-day IBD-related hospitalization, surgery, or emergency department visit; secondary outcome was IBD treatment modification.

Results

Overall, 41/134 (30.6%) patients tested positive on GPP (18 C. difficile, 17 other bacterial infections, and 6 viral pathogens) versus 14/134 patients (10.4%, all C. difficile) testing positive on conventional testing. Rate of IBD treatment modification in response to stool testing was lower in GPP group as compared conventional stool testing group (35.1 vs. 64.2%, p < 0.01). On multivariate analysis, diagnostic evaluation with GPP was associated with three times higher odds of IBD-related hospitalization/surgery/ED visit (95% CI, 1.27-7.14), as compared to conventional stool testing. This negative impact was partly mediated by differences in ordering provider specialty, with non-gastroenterologists more likely to order GPP as compared to gastroenterologists.

Conclusions

In patients with suspected flare of IBD, GPPs have higher pathogen detection rate and lead to lower rate of IBD treatment modification. A diagnostic testing strategy based on GPPs is associated with higher hospital-related healthcare utilization as compared to conventional stool testing, particularly when utilized by non-gastroenterologists.