4.6 Article

Clinical application of a rapid lung-orientated immunoassay in individuals with possible tuberculosis

期刊

THORAX
卷 63, 期 1, 页码 67-71

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2007.078857

关键词

-

资金

  1. PHS HHS [HHSN266200400091C] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Immunological ex vivo assays to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) have great potential but have largely been blood-based and poorly evaluated in active TB. Lung sampling enables combined microbiological and immunological testing and uses higher frequency antigen-specific responses than in blood. Methods: A prospective evaluation was undertaken of a flow cytometric assay measuring the percentage of interferon-gamma synthetic CD4+ lymphocytes following stimulation with purified protein derivative of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (PPD) in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from 250 sputum smear-negative individuals with possible TB. A positive assay was defined as >1.5%. Results: Of those who underwent lavage and were diagnosed with active TB, 95% (106/111) had a positive immunoassay (95% CI 89% to 98%). In 139 individuals deemed not to have active TB, 105 (76%) were immunoassay negative (95% CI 68% to 82%). Of the remaining 24% (34 cases) with a positive immunoassay, a substantial proportion had evidence of untreated TB; in two of these active TB was subsequently diagnosed. Assay performance was unaffected by HIV status, disease site or BCG vaccination. In culture-positive pulmonary cases, response to PPD was more sensitive than nucleic acid amplification testing (94% vs 73%). The use of early secretory antigen target-6 (ESAT-6) responses in 71 subjects was no better than PPD, and 19% of those with culture-confirmed TB and a positive PPD immunoassay had no detectable response to ESAT-6. Conclusions: These findings suggest that lung-orientated immunological investigation is a potentially powerful tool in diagnosing individuals with sputum smear-negative active TB, regardless of HIV serostatus.

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