4.2 Article

Evaluation of Pulmonary and Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis in Immunocompetent Adults: A Retrospective Case Series Analysis

Journal

MEDICAL PRINCIPLES AND PRACTICE
Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 75-79

Publisher

KARGER
DOI: 10.1159/000365511

Keywords

Tuberculosis; Extrapulmonary tuberculosis; Clinical features

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: It was the aim of this study to evaluate the demographic factors and clinical features of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) compared to those of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) among adult immunocompetent patients. Subjects and Methods: A total of 427 patients with clinically, radiologically and histopathologically confirmed TB were enrolled in the study, in our clinic at a tertiary care hospital in Turkey, during a 5-year period (2007-2012). Patient data were obtained retrospectively. Among the 427 patients, 55 patients with both PTB and EPTB and who were using steroids or had taken immunosuppressive drugs were excluded from the study. Results: Of the 372 patients, 227 (61%) were males and 168 (45.2%) had EPTB; 204 (54.8%) patients had PTB. The most frequent sites of EPTB were the lymph nodes (n = 45, 12.1%), pleura (n = 40, 10.7%) and brain (n = 7, 1.8%). The most common symptoms were cough (n = 174, 46.7%), night sweats (n = 127, 34.1%) and fever (n = 123, 33%). Compared to EPTB patients, PTB patients were less likely to have received Bacillus Calmette-Guerin vaccination (odds ratio 0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.2-0.63; p < 0.001). Eightyone (48.2%) of the EPTB and 146 (71.6%) of the PTB patients were males. Pulmonary involvement was more common among men (n = 146, 71.6%) than among women (n = 58, 28.2%; p = 0.000). Conclusion: There was a high incidence of EPTB in our study. Early diagnosis of EPTB is crucial for treatment, and atypical presentations of TB should be kept in mind for immunocompetent patients living in endemic areas. Females especially should be investigated for EPTB. (C) 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available