4.3 Article

Monocyte-to-lymphocyte ratio as a predictor of TB among people living with HIV

出版社

INT UNION AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS LUNG DISEASE (I U A T L D)
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.21.0300

关键词

ML ratio; tuberculosis; HIV; monocytes; predictor

资金

  1. HIV-NAT, Thai Red Cross AIDS Research Centre and Tuberculosis Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the relationship between multiple time-updated ML ratio measurements and the incidence of TB in PLWH after ART initiation, finding that an increased ML ratio was predictive of incident TB. The ML ratio at a cut point of 0.23 provided a high diagnostic accuracy with a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 71%.
BACKGROUND: Diagnostic tools to identify incipient or subclinical TB stages will be helpful for preventive intervention. A simple biomarker to predict TB may be the monocytes to lymphocytes ratio (ML ratio) in peripheral blood. METHODS: We assessed the relationship between multiple time-updated ML ratio measurements and incidence of TB in people living with HIV (PLWH) after antiretroviral therapy (ART) was initiated. The ML ratio was updated at least every 6 months. TB incidence with corresponding 95% confidence intervals stratified according to time-updated ML ratio was calculated using ML ratio in quartiles. RESULTS: A total of 1305 PLWH were included in the analyses: 46 had incident TB and 1259 remained TB free. The TB incidence rate was 10.3 (95% CI 7.1-14.9) cases/1000 patient-years (PYR) among participants with ML ratio >0.25 compared with 1.1/1000 PYR (95% CI 0.4-2.9) among those with ML ratio ,0.15. At cut point 0.23, the ML ratio provided a diagnostic area under the receiver operating characteristics curve (AROC) of 0.849 (95% CI 0.784-0.914 ) and a sensitivity of 85% and specificity of 71%. CONCLUSION: Increased ML ratio was predictive of incident TB among PLWH on or after ART. The ML ratio can be a simple tool to stratify the risk of TB in PLWH.

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

4.3
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