4.2 Article

A multicentre evaluation of the accuracy and performance of IP-10 for the diagnosis of infection with M. tuberculosis

期刊

TUBERCULOSIS
卷 91, 期 3, 页码 260-267

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.tube.2011.01.001

关键词

Mitogen; Interferon-gamma; ESAT-6 protein; M. tuberculosis

资金

  1. Capital region of Denmark
  2. Danish Ministry of Science and Innovation
  3. Lundbeck-Foundation
  4. Danish Lung Association and Hvidovre Hospital
  5. Danish Research Council for Health and Disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

IP-10 has potential as a diagnostic marker for infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis, with comparable accuracy to QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube test (QFT-IT). The aims were to assess the sensitivity and specificity of IP-10, and to evaluate the impact of co-morbidity on IP-10 and QFT-IT. 168 cases with active TB, 101 healthy controls and 175 non-TB patients were included. IP-10 and IFN-gamma were measured in plasma of QFT-IT stimulated whole blood and analyzed using previously determined algorithms. A subgroup of 48 patients and 70 healthy controls was tested in parallel with T-SPOT.TB IP-10 and QFT-IT had comparable accuracy. Sensitivity was 81% and 84% with a specificity of 97% and 100%, respectively. Combining IP-10 and QFT-IT improved sensitivity to 87% (p < 0.0005), with a specificity of 97%. T-SPOT. TB was more sensitive than QFT-IT, but not IP-10. Among non-TB patients IP-10 had a higher rate of positive responders (35% vs 27%, p < 0.02) and for both tests a positive response was associated with relevant risk factors. IFN-gamma but not IP-10 responses to mitogen stimulation were reduced in patients with TB and non-TB infection. This study confirms and validates previous findings and adds substance to IP-10 as a novel diagnostic marker for infection with M. tuberculosis. IP-10 appeared less influenced by infections other than TB; further studies are needed to test the clinical impact of these findings. (C) 2011 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