4.2 Article

Concurrent evaluation of cytokines improves the accuracy of antibodies against Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens in the diagnosis of active tuberculosis

期刊

TUBERCULOSIS
卷 133, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.tube.2022.102169

关键词

Tuberculosis; Antigens; Antibodies; Cytokines; Biomarkers; Diagnosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study assessed the combination of antibodies and cytokines for diagnosing tuberculosis. The results showed that the combination of antibodies had better performance, and the diagnostic accuracy was significantly improved when combining anti-Kit 1-IgA levels with cytokine biomarkers.
Background: Antibodies against mycobacterial proteins are highly specific, but lack sensitivity, whereas cytokines have been shown to be sensitive but not very specific in the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). We assessed combinations between antibodies and cytokines for diagnosing TB. Methods: Immuoglubulin (Ig) A and IgM antibody titres against selected mycobacterial antigens including Apa, NarL, Rv3019c, PstS1, LAM, Kit 1 (MTP64 and Tpx), and Kit 2 (MPT64, Tpx and 19 kDa) were evaluated by ELISA in plasma samples obtained from individuals under clinical suspicion for TB. Combinations between the antibody titres and previously published cytokine responses in the same participants were assessed for diagnosing active TB. Results: Antibody responses were more promising when used in combination (AUC of 0.80), when all seven antibodies were combined. When anti-Kit 1-IgA levels were combined with five host cytokine biomarkers, the AUC increased to 97% (92-100%) with a sensitivity of 95% (95% CI, 73-100%), and specificity of 88.5% (95% CI, 68.7-97%) achieved after leave-one-out cross validation. Conclusion: When used in combination, IgA titres measured with ELISA against multiple Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens may be useful in the diagnosis of TB. However, diagnostic accuracy may be improved if the antibodies are used in combination with cytokines.

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