Rheumatological features of Whipple disease.
Journal
Scientific reports
ISSN: 2045-2322
Titre abrégé: Sci Rep
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101563288
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 06 2021
10 06 2021
Historique:
received:
01
02
2021
accepted:
25
05
2021
entrez:
11
6
2021
pubmed:
12
6
2021
medline:
28
10
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Whipple disease (WD) is a rare infectious systemic disease. Rheumatologists are at the frontline of WD diagnosis due to the early rheumatological manifestations. An early diagnosis is crucial, as usual anti-rheumatic drugs, especially TNF inhibitors, may worsen the disease course. We conducted a retrospective multicentre national study from January 2010 to April 2020 to better characterize the rheumatological features of WD. Classic WD (CWD) was defined by positive periodic acid-Schiff (PAS) staining of a small-bowel biopsy sample, and non-CWD (NCWD) was defined by negative PAS staining of a small-bowel biopsy sample but at least one positive Tropheryma whipplei (TW) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for a digestive or extradigestive specimen. Sixty-eight patients were enrolled, including 11 CWD patients. Twenty patients (30%) received TNF inhibitors during the WD course, with inefficacy or symptom worsening. More digestive symptoms and systemic biological features were observed in CWD patients than in NCWD patients, but both patient groups had similar outcomes, especially concerning the response to antibiotics and relapse rate. Stool and saliva TW PCR sensitivity were both 100% for CWD and 75% for NCWD and 89% and 60% for small-bowel biopsy sample PCR, respectively. WD encountered in rheumatology units has many presentations, which might result from different pathophysiologies that are dependent on host immunity. Given the heterogeneous presentations and the presence of chronic carriage, multiple TW PCR tests on samples from specific rheumatological sites when possible should be performed, but samples from nonspecific digestive and extradigestive sites also have great value.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34112875
doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-91671-9
pii: 10.1038/s41598-021-91671-9
pmc: PMC8192552
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
12278Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Références
Black-Schaffer, B. The tinctoral demonstration of a glycoprotein in Whipple’s disease. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol. Med. 72(1), 225–227 (1949).
doi: 10.3181/00379727-72-17388
Wilson, K. H., Blitchington, R., Frothingham, R. & Wilson, J. A. Phylogeny of the Whipple’s-disease-associated bacterium. Lancet 338(8765), 474–475 (1991).
doi: 10.1016/0140-6736(91)90545-Z
Raoult, D. et al. Cultivation of the bacillus of Whipple’s disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 342(9), 620–625 (2000).
doi: 10.1056/NEJM200003023420903
Bentley, S. D. et al. Sequencing and analysis of the genome of the Whipple’s disease bacterium Tropheryma whipplei. Lancet 361(9358), 637–644 (2003).
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(03)12597-4
Schneider, T. et al. Whipple’s disease: New aspects of pathogenesis and treatment. Lancet Infect. Dis 8(3), 179–190 (2008).
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(08)70042-2
Marth, T., Moos, V., Müller, C., Biagi, F. & Schneider, T. Tropheryma whipplei infection and Whipple’s disease. Lancet Infect. Dis. 16(3), e13-22 (2016).
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(15)00537-X
Baisden, B. L. et al. Diagnosis of Wihipple disease by immunohistochemical analysis: A sensitive and specific method for the detection of Tropheryma whipplei (the Whipple bacillus) in paraffin-embedded tissue. Am. J. Clin. Pathol. 118(5), 742–748 (2002).
doi: 10.1309/8YGR-FE7L-39LL-L37C
Puéchal, X. Whipple’s disease. Ann. Rheum. Dis. 72(6), 797–803 (2013).
doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2012-202684
Dolmans, R. A. V., Boel, C. H. E., Lacle, M. M. & Kusters, J. G. Clinical manifestations, treatment, and diagnosis of tropheryma whipplei infections. Clin. Microbiol. Rev. 30(2), 529–555 (2017).
doi: 10.1128/CMR.00033-16
Fenollar, F., Laouira, S., Lepidi, H., Rolain, J.-M. & Raoult, D. Value of Tropheryma whipplei quantitative polymerase chain reaction assay for the diagnosis of Whipple disease: Usefulness of saliva and stool specimens for first-line screening. Clin. Infect. Dis. 47(5), 659–667 (2008).
doi: 10.1086/590559
Keita, A. K. et al. Tropheryma whipplei: A common bacterium in rural Senegal. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 5(12), e1403 (2011).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0001403
Marth, T. Complicated Whipple’s disease and endocarditis following tumor necrosis factor inhibitors. World J. Cardiol. 6(12), 1278–1284 (2014).
doi: 10.4330/wjc.v6.i12.1278
Orgeolet, L. et al. Can artificial intelligence replace manual search for systematic literature? Review on cutaneous manifestations in primary Sjögren’s syndrome. Rheumatology (Oxford) 59(4), 811–819 (2020).
doi: 10.1093/rheumatology/kez370
Lehmann, P. et al. PCR analysis is superior to histology for diagnosis of Whipple’s disease mimicking seronegative rheumatic diseases. Scand. J. Rheumatol. 46(2), 138–142 (2017).
doi: 10.1080/03009742.2016.1183038
Crews, N. R., Cawcutt, K. A., Pritt, B. S., Patel, R. & Virk, A. Diagnostic approach for classic compared with localized Whipple disease. Open Forum Infect. Dis. 5(7), 136 (2018).
doi: 10.1093/ofid/ofy136
Hujoel, I. A. et al. Tropheryma whipplei Infection (Whipple Disease) in the USA. Dig. Dis. Sci. 64(1), 213–223 (2019).
doi: 10.1007/s10620-018-5033-4
Glaser, C. et al. Whipple’s disease mimicking rheumatoid arthritis can cause misdiagnosis and treatment failure. Orphanet J. Rare Dis. 12(1), 99 (2017).
doi: 10.1186/s13023-017-0630-4
Lagier, J.-C., Lepidi, H., Raoult, D. & Fenollar, F. Systemic Tropheryma whipplei: Clinical presentation of 142 patients with infections diagnosed or confirmed in a reference center. Medicine (Baltimore) 89(5), 337–345 (2010).
doi: 10.1097/MD.0b013e3181f204a8
Meunier, M. et al. Rheumatic and musculoskeletal features of Whipple disease: A report of 29 cases. J. Rheumatol. 40(12), 2061–2066 (2013).
doi: 10.3899/jrheum.130328
Misbah, S. A., Ozols, B., Franks, A. & Mapstone, N. Whipple’s disease without malabsorption: New atypical features. QJM 90(12), 765–772 (1997).
doi: 10.1093/qjmed/90.12.765
Günther, U. et al. Gastrointestinal diagnosis of classical Whipple disease: Clinical, endoscopic, and histopathologic features in 191 patients. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(15), e714 (2015).
doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000000714
Marth, T. Tropheryma whipplei, immunosuppression and Whipple’s disease: From a low-pathogenic, environmental infectious organism to a rare multifaceted inflammatory complex. Dig. Dis. 33(2), 190–199 (2015).
doi: 10.1159/000369538
Martinetti, M. et al. The HLA alleles DRB1*13 and DQB1*06 are associated to Whipple’s disease. Gastroenterology 136(7), 2289–2294 (2009).
doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.01.051
Le Goff, M. et al. Peripheral-blood b-cell subset disturbances in inflammatory joint diseases induced by Tropheryma whipplei. PLoS ONE 14(2), e0211536 (2019).
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211536
Berent, R. et al. Whipple’s disease: Misdiagnosed as sarcoidosis with further tricuspid valve endocarditis and pulmonary embolism: A case report. BMJ Case Rep. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr.07.2008.0441 (2009).
doi: 10.1136/bcr.07.2008.0441
pubmed: 3027720
pmcid: 3027720
de Henriques, M. S. et al. Deep vein thrombosis as initial manifestation of Whipple disease. Case Rep. Gastroenterol. 10(3), 640–645 (2016).
doi: 10.1159/000452206
Moter, A. et al. Potential role for urine polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of Whipple’s disease. Clin. Infect. Dis. 68(7), 1089–1097 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciy664
Tison, A. & Saraux, A. Potential role for urine polymerase chain reaction in the diagnosis of Whipple disease. Clin. Infect. Dis. 69(5), 904–905 (2019).
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciz094