4.3 Article

Tuberculosis case finding and mortality prediction: added value of the clinical TBscore and biomarker suPAR

出版社

INT UNION AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS LUNG DISEASE (I U A T L D)
DOI: 10.5588/ijtld.16.0404

关键词

tuberculosis; case finding; mortality prediction; biomarker; clinical score

资金

  1. Lundbeck Foundation (Copenhagen, Denmark)
  2. Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Foundation (Kongens Lyngby)
  3. European Union/European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership [IP.2007.32080.001]
  4. Novo Nordisk Fonden [NNF15OC0018034] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

SETTING: A suburban area of Bissau, the capital of Guinea-Bissau; the study was conducted among presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (prePTB) patients seeking medical care for signs and symptoms suggestive of PTB. OBJECTIVE: To determine if a clinical TB score and a biomarker suPAR (soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor) have separate and composite ability to predict PTB diagnosis and mortality in prePTB patients. DESIGN: Observational prospective follow-up study conducted from August 2010 to August 2012. RESULTS: We included 1011 prePTB patients (mean age 34 years, 95%CI 33-35); 55% (n= 559) were female and 161 (16%) had human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. Of all included patients, 10% (n = 101) were diagnosed with PTB. Mortality during follow-up was 5% (n = 48), with a mean survival time of 158 days (95%CI 27-289) in prePTB patients diagnosed with PTB vs. 144 days (95%CI 109-178) in those not diagnosed with PTB (P = 0.774). After adjusting for HIV status and age, the best separate predictor was suPAR a >= 5 ng/ml, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 4.6 (95%CI 2.1-9.9) for mortality and 6.7 (95%CI 4.011.2) for TB diagnosis. All patients who died had a TBscore II + suPAR >= 7; the HR of the composite score for subsequent PTB diagnosis was 33.0 (95%CI 4.6236.6). CONCLUSION: The proposed composite score of suPAR + TBscore 7 can improve TB case finding and clinical monitoring.

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