4.7 Article

IP-10 is an additional marker for tuberculosis (TB) detection in HIV-infected persons in a low-TB endemic country

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 65, 期 1, 页码 49-59

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2012.03.017

关键词

IP-10; Tuberculosis; HIV; QuantiFERON; IGRA; Immune deficiency; Diagnosis; Low TB endemic country

资金

  1. Italian Ministry of Health: Ricerca Corrente [RF-IMI-2009-1302952]
  2. European Community [HEALTH-F3-2009-241642]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: In Indian HIV-infected patients, IP-10 response to QuantiFERON-TB Gold In tube (QFT-IT) antigens has been associated to tuberculosis (TB). However, specificity for active TB was lower than that reported by QFT-IT, making accuracy for TB detection questionable. To investigate this uncertainty, likely due to India being highly endemic for TB, and to better identify TB correlates, we evaluated the IP-10-based assay in HIV-infected subjects in Italy, a low-TB endemic country. Methods: 195 individuals were prospectively enrolled; 118 were HIV-infected (21 with active TB, 97 without active TB, and distinguished as high/low-TB-risk). QFT-IT was performed and IP-10 was evaluated by ELISA. Results: Among the HIV-infected individuals, sensitivity for active TB was 66.7% by IP-10-based test and 52.4% (p = 1) by QFT-IT. IP-10-based assay showed a lower dependence on mitogenresponse and CD4 counts than QFT-IT. Among subjects without active TB, a higher proportion of IP-10 responders was shown in high-TB-risk subjects than low-TB-risk subjects (40.0% vs 12.9%), similar to QFT-IT (37.1% vs 4.8%). Low-TB risk subjects showed 87.1% specificity for active TB by IP-10-based test vs 95.2% by QFT-IT. Conclusions: In a low-TB endemic country, besides IFN-gamma, IP-10 response to QFT-IT is associated with active TB and TB risk factors in HIV-infected patients with lower dependence on mitogen-response and CD4 counts. (C) 2012 The British Infection Association. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.7
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