4.2 Article

Pulmonary tuberculosis:: Virulence of Mycobacterium africanum and relevance in HIV co-infection

期刊

TUBERCULOSIS
卷 88, 期 5, 页码 482-489

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.tube.2008.05.004

关键词

M. africanum; tuberculosis; opportunist; virulence

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research
  2. German National Genome Research Network [01GS0162]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although Mycobacterium africanum is being isolated in a significant proportion of cases of pulmonary tuberculosis in West Africa, its pathogenic potential remains a matter of discussion. Recent reports leave the question of whether M. africanum causes more severe pathology than M. tuberculosis or resembles opportunistic pathogens and might gain importance in the course of the HIV pandemic. Patients with pulmonary tuberculosis associated with M. africanum (n = 556) and M. tuberculosis (n = 1350) were studied in Ghana, West Africa, and compared regarding self-reported signs and symptoms, chest radiography, HIV status, mycobacterial drug resistance and mycobacterial. clustering as determined by spoligotyping and IS6110 fingerprints. The rate of M. africanum infections was similar in HIV-positive (27%) and HIV-negative (30%) patients. M. africanum clustered less than M. tuberculosis (21 % vs 79%; OR, 0. 38; 95% CI, 0.3-0.5; p < 0.001) corresponding to its lower prevalence (29% vs 70%). Clinically and radiographically, no significant differences were found except that M. africanum caused lower-lobe disease less frequently than M. tuberculosis (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.2-0.7; p(c) = 0.01), whereby this association applied to HIV-negative patients only. No difference in virulence, as assessed by the severity of radiological presentation, was found when the two M. africanum subtypes West African 1 and West African 2 were compared. In the population studied, M. africanum closely resembled M. tuberculosis in pathology and cannot be considered an opportunistic pathogen. (c) 2008 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

4.2
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