4.6 Article

Diagnostic Value of IP-10 Level in Plasma and Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid in Children with Tuberculosis and Other Lung Diseases

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 12, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12040840

关键词

child; CXCL10; bronchoscopy; biomarker; latent tuberculosis infection

资金

  1. Medical University of Warsaw [WUM/1W34/2015/2016]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that IP-10 can be detected in unstimulated BALF in children with respiratory diseases, with higher concentrations compared to plasma, but it does not correlate with age and cannot be used to differentiate MTBI from other respiratory diseases.
Objectives: IP-10 has been proposed as a new diagnostic biomarker for Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection (MTBI). However, data on IP-10 concentration in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) for pediatric tuberculosis are lacking. Aim: To determine IP-10 levels in unstimulated BALF and plasma in children with and without MTBI. Methods: IP-10 concentrations in BALF and plasma were measured in children hospitalized with suspected tuberculosis or other respiratory disease and scheduled for bronchoscopy. Thirty-five children were enrolled: 13 with suspected tuberculosis and 22 controls. The association between IP-10 and age was examined. Results: The IP-10 expression was increased in BALF compared to plasma (p = 0.008). We noticed higher BALF IP-10 levels in children with asthma, interstitial lung disease, and lung anomaly than in children with MTBI and other respiratory tract infections, but the differences were statistically insignificant. There was a moderate correlation between plasma and BALF IP-10 concentrations (r(s) = 0.46, p = 0.018). No correlation between IP-10 level and age was detected. Conclusions: IP-10 is detectable in unstimulated BALF in children with respiratory diseases, reaches higher concentrations in unstimulated BALF vs plasma, and does not correlate with age. However, it could not discriminate MTBI from other respiratory diseases.

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

4.6
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