4.7 Article

Screening for TB in Hospitalised Patients with Inflammatory Bowel Disease before Anti-TNF Therapy: Is QuantiFERON(R) Gold Testing Useful?

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
卷 10, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jcm10091816

关键词

inflammatory bowel disease; latent tuberculosis; QuantiFERON(®)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that there is a higher chance of indeterminate IGRA results in inpatients, which is mainly associated with laboratory parameters reflecting inflammation (such as high CRP, low albumin) and exposure to steroids.
Background-Tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF alpha) plays an important role in the pathogenesis of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and in immunity to Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Patients should be tested for latent tuberculosis infection using interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA/QF) prior to anti-TNF alpha therapy. Indeterminate QF results can delay anti-TNF alpha therapy. We sought to investigate factors associated with indeterminate QF results. Method-Retrospective study of all IGRA tests requested for gastroenterology patients in 2017. We compared inpatients and outpatients and investigated factors potentially associated with QF usefulness (steroid exposure, C-reactive protein (CRP), hypoalbuminaemia, thrombophilia). Results-We included 286 outpatients and 74 inpatients with IBD. Significantly more inpatients had an indeterminate IGRA (52.7% vs. 3.14% in outpatients; p < 0.0001). Laboratory parameters reflecting inflammation (high CRP, low albumin, low haemoglobin and high platelets) were also associated with an indeterminate QF (p < 0.0001). Exposure to steroids was more common in patients with an indeterminate QF (p < 0.0001). A binary logistic regression analysis revealed inpatient status and steroid exposure to be independently predictive of an indeterminate QF (p < 0.0001). Conclusion-There is a high chance of indeterminate QF results in inpatients. QF testing should ideally be performed in the outpatient setting at diagnosis.

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