| Literature DB >> 27019109 |
Imteyaz Ahmad Khan1, Sucharita Pilli1, Surendranath A1, Ritika Rampal1, Sudhir Kumar Chauhan1, Veena Tiwari1, Venigalla Pratap Mouli1, Saurabh Kedia1, Baibaswata Nayak1, Prasenjit Das2, Govind K Makharia1, Vineet Ahuja1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Association of Mycobacterium avium subspecies paratuberculosis (MAP) and Crohn's disease (CD) has been controversial due to contradictory reports. Therefore, we determined the prevalence of MAP in patients with CD and intestinal tuberculosis (ITB) and its association with clinical course.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27019109 PMCID: PMC4809507 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0152063
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Photomicrograph shows intracytoplasmic granular particulate positivity (arrows) in the macrophages noted in the intestinal control from an experimental animal inoculated with Mycobacterium paratuberculosis [Fig A, IHC (MAP) x200].
Ziehl-Neelsen stain shows strongly positive bacilli present in the macrophage cytoplasm in the same section examined [Fig B, AFB stain x100]. Negative control used for MAP IHC stain, does not show any positivity [Fig C, IHC (MAP) x200], the corresponding case is also negative for ZN stain [Fig D, ZN stain x200]. Photomicrographs taken from the cases of Crohn’s and intestinal tuberculosis also show similar positivity in the macrophage cytoplasm (arrows) [Fig E & F, IHC (MAP), Ex100, Fx200].
Baseline characteristics of patients with Intestinal Tuberculosis (ITB), Crohn’s disease (CD) and controls.
| 32 | 69 | 41 | |||
| 20:12 | 45:24 | 29:12 | 0.7 | ||
| 38.34 | 37.55 | 32.02 | 0.07 | ||
| 17.4 | 63.0 | 0.001 | |||
| Non stricturing (B1) | 13 (40.6%) | 41 (59.4%) | 0.1 | ||
| Stricturing (B2) | 19 (59.4%) | 27 (39.1%) | |||
| Penetrating (B3) | 0 | 1 (1.5%) | |||
| Perianal disease (P) | 0 | 0 | |||
| Ileal (L1) | 9 (28.1%) | 22 (31.9%) | 0.9 | ||
| Colonic (L2) | 10 (31.3%) | 19 (27.5%) | |||
| Ileocolonic (L3) | 12 (37.5%) | 22 (31.9%) | |||
| Isolated upper digestive (L4) | 0 | 2 (2.9%) | |||
| L1+L4 | 1 (3.1%) | 1 (1.5%) | |||
| L2+L4 | 0 | 2 (2.9%) | |||
| L3+L4 | 0 | 1 (1.5%) | |||
| Rectum | 0 | 1 (1.5%) | 2 (4.9%) | 0.001 | |
| Rectosigmoid | 1 (3.1%) | 1 (1.5%) | 2 (4.9%) | ||
| Sigmoid | 0 | 3 (4.4%) | 35 (85.4%) | ||
| Descending Colon | 1 (3.1%) | 6 (8.7%) | 0 | ||
| Transverse Colon | 3 (9.4%) | 6 (8.7%) | 0 | ||
| Ascending Colon | 6 (18.8%) | 9 (13.0%) | 0 | ||
| Caecum | 4 (12.5%) | 4 (5.8%) | 0 | ||
| Ileocaecal | 10 (31.3%) | 13 (18.8%) | 0 | ||
| Terminal Ileum | 7 (21.9%) | 26 (37.7%) | 2 (4.9%) | ||
| 5 (15.6%) | 3 (4.4%) | 0.1 |
* P<0.05
Comparison of MAP positivity between CD, ITB and control subjects.
| 3 (7.3%) | 16 (23.2%) | 0.03 | 4 (12.5%) | 0.6 | |
| 2 (4.9%) | 7 (10.1%) | 0.4 | 0 | 0.5 | |
| 1 (2.4%) | 2 (2.9%) | 1.0 | 4 (12.5%) | 0.1 |
* P<0.05
Comparison of clinical phenotypes and treatment outcomes in CD patients with and without MAP infection.
| 16 | 53 | |||
| 12:4 | 33:20 | 0.3 | ||
| 69.2 | 61.2 | 0.9 | ||
| 18.1 | 16.8 | 0.9 | ||
| <16 years (A1) | 0 | 2 | 1.0 | |
| 17–40 years (A2) | 10 | 31 | ||
| >40 years (A3) | 6 | 20 | ||
| Non stricturing (B1) | 10 | 31 | 1.0 | |
| Stricturing (B2) | 6 | 21 | ||
| Penetrating (B3) | 0 | 1 | ||
| Perianal disease (P) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Ileal (L1) | 5 | 17 | 1.0 | |
| Colonic (L2) | 5 | 14 | ||
| Ileocolonic (L3) | 6 | 16 | ||
| Isolated upper digestive (L4) | 0 | 2 | ||
| L1+L4 | 0 | 1 | ||
| L2+L4 | 0 | 2 | ||
| L3+L4 | 0 | 1 | ||
| Rectum | 0 | 1 | 0.3 | |
| Rectosigmoid | 0 | 1 | ||
| Sigmoid | 0 | 3 | ||
| Descending Colon | 3 | 3 | ||
| Transverse Colon | 2 | 4 | ||
| Ascending Colon | 0 | 9 | ||
| Caecum | 2 | 2 | ||
| Ileocaecal | 3 | 10 | ||
| Terminal Ileum | 6 | 20 | ||
| 1 | 2 | 0.8 | ||
| 7 | 19 | 0.5 | ||
| Yes | 8 | 22 | 0.9 | |
| No | 6 | 24 | ||
| Not Known | 2 | 7 | ||
| 0 | 7 | 28 | 0.4 | |
| 1 | 5 | 17 | ||
| 2 | 1 | 3 | ||
| 3 | 1 | 0 | ||
| Not Known | 2 | 5 | ||
| Yes | 0 | 0 | 0.6 | |
| No | 14 | 48 | ||
| Not Known | 2 | 5 | ||
| Yes | 0 | 1 | 0.7 | |
| No | 14 | 47 | ||
| Not Known | 2 | 5 | ||
| Yes | 0 | 2 | 0.8 | |
| No | 14 | 46 | ||
| Not Known | 2 | 5 | ||
| Yes | 7 | 24 | 1.0 | |
| No | 7 | 24 | ||
| Not Known | 2 | 5 | ||
| Yes | 5 | 14 | 0.7 | |
| No | 9 | 34 | ||
| Not Known | 2 | 5 | ||
| 0 | 8 | 27 | 1.0 | |
| 1 | 6 | 21 | ||
| Not Known | 2 | 5 |
The association of MAP specific IS900 DNA detection with clinical phenotypes and treatment outcomes of ITB patients.
| 4 | 28 | |||
| 2:2 | 18:10 | 0.6 | ||
| 15 | 17.8 | 0.5 | ||
| 12 | 9.9 | 0.1 | ||
| <16 years (A1) | 0 | 3 | 1.0 | |
| 17–40 years (A2) | 2 | 13 | ||
| >40 years (A3) | 2 | 12 | ||
| Non stricturing (B1) | 1 | 12 | 0.6 | |
| Stricturing (B2) | 3 | 16 | ||
| Penetrating (B3) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Perianal disease (P) | 0 | 0 | ||
| Ileal (L1) | 3 | 6 | 0.1 | |
| Colonic (L2) | 1 | 9 | ||
| Ileocolonic (L3) | 0 | 12 | ||
| Isolated upper digestive (L4) | 0 | 0 | ||
| L1+L4 | 0 | 1 | ||
| L2+L4 | 0 | 0 | ||
| L3+L4 | 0 | 0 | ||
| Rectum | 0 | 0 | 0.7 | |
| Rectosigmoid | 0 | 1 | ||
| Sigmoid | 0 | 0 | ||
| Descending Colon | 0 | 1 | ||
| Transverse Colon | 1 | 2 | ||
| Ascending Colon | 0 | 6 | ||
| Caecum | 0 | 4 | ||
| Ileocaecal | 2 | 8 | ||
| Terminal Ileum | 1 | 6 | ||
| Yes | 0 | 5 | 0.5 | |
| No | 3 | 22 | ||
| Not available | 1 | 1 | ||
| 100% | 100% |