4.2 Article

Usefulness of Tuberculin Skin Test and Three Interferon-Gamma Release Assays for the Differential Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis

期刊

INTERNAL MEDICINE
卷 51, 期 10, 页码 1199-1205

出版社

JAPAN SOC INTERNAL MEDICINE
DOI: 10.2169/internalmedicine.51.5703

关键词

interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs); tuberculin skin test (TST); pulmonary TB

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background We compared the usefulness of tuberculin skin test (TST) and three interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) [QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT-2G), QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-tube (QFT-3G), T-SPOT. TB] as the supportive method for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Methods The subjects were 66 patients who required clinical differentiation of pulmonary TB. The final clinical diagnosis of pulmonary TB in 22 patients and non-pulmonary TB in 44 patients was established by clinical specimens. Results In 22 patients with pulmonary TB, the positive response rate was 59.1% on TST, 81.8% on QFT-2G, 86.4% on QFT-3G and 95.5% on T-SPOT. TB. In 44 patients with non-pulmonary TB disease, the positive response rate was 40.9% on TST, 6.8% on QFT-2G, 6.8% on QFT-3G, 13.6% on T-SPOT. TB. Indeterminate results on three IGRAs were recognized in one patient each on QFT-2G and QFT-3G among patients with pulmonary TB and in two patients each on QFT-2G and QFT-3G among patients with non-pulmonary TB. However, there were no indeterminate results on T-SPOT. TB in either patient group. Patients with false-negative or indeterminate results on IGRAs had severe underlying diseases or were receiving immunosuppressive treatments. Conclusion There were no significant differences among the three IGRA tests in this study. However, because the three IGRA tests showed a significantly higher positive response rate for patients with pulmonary TB and a lower positive response rate for patients with non-pulmonary TB than TST, the three IGRA tests seemed to be more useful than TST for the differentiation of patients with pulmonary TB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据