OBJECTIVES The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) is a standardized set of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that cover physical, mental, and social health. The aim of this study was to develop the NIH PROMIS gastrointestinal (GI) symptom measures. METHODS We first conducted a systematic literature review to develop a broad conceptual model of GI symptoms. We complemented the review with 12 focus groups including 102 GI patients. We developed PROMIS items based on the literature and input from the focus groups followed by cognitive debriefing in 28 patients. We administered the items to diverse GI patients (irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), systemic sclerosis (SSc), and other common GI disorders) and a census-based US general population (GP) control sample. We created scales based on confirmatory factor analyses and item response theory modeling, and evaluated the scales for reliability and validity. RESULTS A total of 102 items were developed and administered to 865 patients with GI conditions and 1,177 GP participants. Factor analyses provided support for eight scales: gastroesophageal reflux (13 items), disrupted swallowing (7 items), diarrhea (5 items), bowel incontinence/soilage (4 items), nausea and vomiting (4 items), constipation (9 items), belly pain (6 items), and gas/bloat/flatulence (12 items). The scales correlated significantly with both generic and disease-targeted legacy instruments, and demonstrate evidence of reliability. CONCLUSIONS Using the NIH PROMIS framework, we developed eight GI symptom scales that can now be used for clinical care and research across the full range of GI disorders.

Based on specialist opinion, overall CD severity was associated more with intestinal damage, in contrast to overall UC disease severity, which was more dependent on symptoms and impact on daily life. Once validated, disease severity indices may provide a useful tool for consistent assessment of overall disease severity in patients with IBD.

Rationale: Microbiological confirmation of pulmonary tuberculosis in children is desirable.Objectives: To investigate the diagnostic accuracy and incremental yield of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra; Cepheid), a new rapid test, on repeated induced sputum, nasopharyngeal aspirates, and combinations of specimens.Methods: Consecutive South African children hospitalized with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis were enrolled.Measurements and Main Results: Induced sputum (IS) and nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs) were obtained. NPAs were frozen; IS underwent liquid culture, and an aliquot was frozen. Ultra was performed on thawed NPAs and IS specimens individually. Children were categorized as confirmed, unconfirmed, or unlikely tuberculosis according to NIH consensus case definitions. The diagnostic accuracy of Ultra was compared with liquid culture on IS. In total, 195 children (median age: 23.3 mo; 32 [16.4%] HIV-infected) had one IS and NPA, and 130 had two NPAs. There were 40 (20.5%) cultureconfirmed cases. Ultra was positive on NPAs in 26 (13.3%) and on IS in 31 (15.9%). Sensitivity and specificity of Ultra on one NPA were 46% and 98%, respectively, and similar by HIV status. Sensitivity and specificity of Ultra on one IS were 74.3% and 96.9% respectively.Combining one NPA and one IS increased sensitivity to 80%. Sensitivity using Ultra on two NPAs was 54.2%, increasing to 87.5% with an IS Ultra.Conclusions: IS provides a better specimen than repeated NPA for rapid diagnosis using Ultra. However, Ultra testing of combinations of specimens provides a novel strategy that can be adapted to identify most children with confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis.

Microbiological diagnosis of pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is challenging due to the difficulty of collecting and testing sputum from children. We investigated whether easily-obtained oral swab samples are useful alternatives or supplements to sputum. oral swabs and induced sputum (Is) were collected from 201 South African children with suspected pulmonary TB. IS samples were tested by mycobacterial culture and Xpert MTB/RIF. Oral swabs were tested by PCR targeting IS6110. Children were categorized as Confirmed TB (microbiologic confirmation on IS), Unconfirmed TB (clinical diagnosis only), or Unlikely TB (recovery without TB treatment). Relative to Confirmed TB, PCR on two oral swabs per child was 43% sensitive and 93% specific. This sensitivity fell below that of sputum Xpert (64%). Among children with either Confirmed or Unconfirmed TB, PCR on two oral swabs per child was 31% sensitive and 93% specific, which was more sensitive than sputum testing among this group (21%). Although oral swab analysis had low sensitivity in sputum-positive children, it detected TB in a significant proportion of sputum-negative children who were clinically diagnosed with TB. Specificity at 93% was suboptimal but may improve with the use of automated methods. With further development, oral swabs may become useful supplements to sputum as samples for diagnosis of pulmonary tB in children.