Assessment of the clinical significance of intestinal spirochaetosis

Human intestinal spirochetosis, irritable bowel syndrome, and colonic polyps: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Human colonic spirochetosis (CS) is usually due toBrachyspira pilosicolior Brachyspira aalborgiinfection. While traditionally considered to be commensal bacteria, there are scattered case reports and case series of gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms in CS and reports of colonic polyps with adherent spirochetes. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis investigating the association between CS and GI symptoms and conditions including the irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) and colonic polyps. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a systematic search of Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, and Web of Science was performed using specific keywords for CS and GI disease. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Of 75 studies identified in the search, 8 case-control studies met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis and 67 case series studies met the inclusion criteria for pooled prevalence analysis. CS was significantly associated with diarrhea (n = 141/127, cases/controls, OR: 4.19, 95% CI: 1.72-10.21, P = 0.002) and abdominal pain (n = 64/65, OR: 3.66, 95% CI: 1.43-9.35, P = 0.007). CS cases were significantly more likely to have Rome III-diagnosed IBS (n = 79/48, OR: 3.84, 95% CI: 1.44-10.20, P = 0.007), but not colonic polyps (n = 127/843, OR: 8.78, 95% CI: 0.75-103.36, P = 0.084). In conclusion, we found evidence of associations between CS and both diarrhea and IBS, but not colonic polyps. CS is likely underestimated due to suboptimal diagnostic methods and may be an overlooked risk factor for a subset of IBS patients with diarrhea.

[Immunohistochemical diagnosis of colonic spirochetosis with anti-treponema antibody in patients consulting for chronic diarrhea. Results of a prospective study conducted in 137 patients]

AIM

To assess the incidence of colonic spirochetosis, diagnosed by immunohistochemical stain with anti-Treponema pallidum antibody, in a prospective study of colonic biopsies of patients presenting with chronic diarrhea.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

From March 2017 to March 2018 the colonic biopsies of patients presenting with chronic diarrhea were stained with Hematoxylin Eosin and anti-Treponema pallidum antibody. The positive cases were also stained with Steiner stain.

RESULTS

A total of 137 colonic biopsies were assessed and 3 cases were positive for immunohistochemical stain with anti-Treponema pallidum antibody (2% of the patients). One case was easy to diagnose with HE stain but the 2 other cases were not. The bacteria were stained with Steiner stain, but less easily seen than with the immunohistochemical stain. No patient was treated with antibiotics.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The colonic spirochetosis can be easily diagnosed by pathologists with immunohistochemical stain with anti-Treponema pallidum antibody. The bacteria are more easily diagnosed with immunohistochemical stain than with HE stain or Steiner stain. However, colonic spirochetosis is rarely diagnosed on colonic biopsies of patients presenting with chronic diarrhea (2% of the patients in our study). Due to the rarity of the entity, and the cost of immunohistochemical stain and the weak benefit for the patient (no patient in our study was treated with antibiotics for colonic spirochetosis) we cannot advise to perform systematic immunohistochemical stain with anti-Treponema pallidum antibody in all the colonic biopsies of patients presenting with chronic diarrhea.

The histological features of intestinal spirochetosis in a series of 113 patients

A multicenter retrospective review of cases diagnosed as spirochetosis was performed to determine the presenting symptoms and histological changes. A total of 113 cases were retrieved from the archives, consisting of 97 colorectal specimens and 16 appendices. In only 25 cases was the presenting symptom recorded as diarrhea. Of the colorectal specimens, 87 (90%) showed no mucosal abnormality (apart from the spirochetes); the other 10 showed mucosal inflammation but 6 of them had a diagnosis of another inflammatory disease process accounting for the inflammatory changes. Five appendices showed acute appendicitis; the other 11 were unremarkable. It is concluded that spirochetosis in an unselected general population is unlikely to be of pathological significance. Furthermore, if spirochetosis is observed in an inflamed biopsy, it is most likely to be an incidental finding.