4.6 Article

Sustained elevated levels of C-reactive protein and ferritin in pulmonary tuberculosis patients remaining culture positive upon treatment initiation

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0175278

关键词

-

资金

  1. CNPq /INCT [573548/2008-0]
  2. Faperj [E-26/110.974/2011]
  3. CNPq (produtividade em pesquisa)
  4. FAPERJ (Cientistas do Nosso Estado)
  5. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa da Bahia (FAPESB)
  6. Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz (FIOCRUZ)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Clinical trials that evaluate new anti-tubercular drugs and treatment regimens take years to complete due to the slow clearance of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection and the lack of early biomarkers that predict treatment outcomes. Host Inflammation markers have been associated with tuberculosis (TB) pathogenesis. In the present study, we tested if circulating levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and ferritin reflect mycobacterial loads and inflammation in pulmonary TB (PTB) patients undergoing anti-tuberculous therapy (ATT). Methods Prospective measurements of CRP and ferritin, used as readouts of systemic inflammation, were performed in cryopreserved serum samples from 165 Brazilian patients with active PTB initiating ATT. Associations between levels of these laboratory parameters with mycobacterial loads in sputum as well as with sputum conversion at day 60 of ATT were tested. Results Circulating levels of both ferritin and CRP gradually decreased over time on ATT. At pretreatment, concentrations of these parameters were unable to distinguish patients with positive from those with negative acid-fast bacilli (AFB) in sputum cultures. However, patients who remained with positive cultures at day 60 of ATT exhibited heightened levels of these inflammatory markers compared to those with negative cultures at that time point. Conclusions CRP and Ferritin levels in serum may be useful to identify patients with positive cultures at day 60 of ATT.

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

4.6
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