Background/Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the potential of the stool microbiome and gut microbe-derived extracellular vesicles (EVs) to differentiate between patients with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and healthy controls, and to predict relapse in patients with IBD. Methods: Metagenomic profiling of the microbiome and bacterial EVs in stool samples of controls (n=110) and patients with IBD (n=110) was performed using 16S rRNA sequencing and then compared. Patients with IBD were divided into two enterotypes based on their microbiome, and the cumulative risk of relapse was evaluated. Results: There was a significant difference in the composition of the stool microbiome and gut microbe-derived EVs between patients with IBD and controls. The alpha diversity of the microbiome in patients with IBD was significantly lower than that in controls, while the beta diversity also differed significantly between the two groups. These findings were more prominent in gut microbe-derived EVs than in the stool microbiome. The survival curve tended to be different for enterotypes based on the gut microbe-derived EVs; however, this difference was not statistically significant (log-rank test, p=0.166). In the multivariable analysis, elevated fecal calprotectin (>250 mg/kg) was the only significant risk factor associated with relapse (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.147; 95% confidence interval, 1.545 to 6.408; p=0.002). Conclusions Analysis of gut microbe-derived EVs is better at differentiating patients with IBD from healthy controls than stool microbiome analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients' perspectives of family medicine according to the physician's identity and role as a primary-care specialist need to be investigated. This study was conducted to investigate the perceived quality of the primary care of family medicine clinics as assessed by patients in a community setting. METHODS: Patients (or their guardians) visiting nine community family medicine clinics were surveyed using the Korean Primary Care Assessment Tool from April 2014 to June 2014. The scores of the Korean Primary Care Assessment Tool domains were compared according to the clinics' designation (or not) as 'family medicine' and the patients' recognition (or not) of the physicians as board-certified family medicine specialists. RESULTS: A total of 196 subjects responded to the questionnaire. They assessed the community clinics' quality of primary care as moderate to high. Of the clinics, those that were not designated as family medicine scored higher than those that were designated as family medicine (P<0.05). The group of patients that recognized a clinic as that of a board-certified family medicine specialist awarded higher scores than the non-recognition group in the domains of coordination function and personalized care (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: The moderate to high scores for the community family medicine clinics' quality of primary care are encouraging. It seems that patients' recognition of the family physician's role and of the physician-patient relationship has a significant influence on their assessment of the quality of primary care.
Awards and Prizes ; Family Practice ; Humans ; Physician's Role ; Primary Health Care* ; Quality of Health Care ; Specialization