4.6 Article

MPT64 antigen detection test improves routine diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis in a low-resource setting: A study from the tertiary care hospital in Zanzibar

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 13, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0196723

关键词

-

资金

  1. Research Council of Norway through the Global Health and Vaccination Programme [234457]
  2. European Union
  3. Department of International Collaboration (DIC), Haukeland University Hospital, Norway

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) is a diagnostic challenge. An immunochemistry-based MPT64 antigen detection test (MPT64 test) has reported higher sensitivity in the diagnosis of EPTB compared with conventional methods. The objective of this study was to implement and evaluate the MPT64 test in routine diagnostics in a low-resource setting. Methods Patients with presumptive EPTB were prospectively enrolled at Mnazi Mmoja Hospital, Zanzibar, and followed to the end of treatment. Specimens collected were subjected to routine diagnostics, GeneXpert (R) MTB/RIF assay and the MPT64 test. The performance of the MPT64 test was assessed using a composite reference standard, defining the patients as tuberculosis (TB) cases or non-TB cases. Results Patients (n = 132) were classified as confirmed TB (n = 12), probable TB (n = 34), possible TB (n = 18), non-TB (n = 62) and uncategorized (n = 6) cases. Overall, in comparison to the composite reference standard for diagnosis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of the MPT64 test was 69%, 95%, 94%, 75% and 82%, respectively. The MPT64 test performance was best in TB lymphadenitis cases (n = 67, sensitivity 79%, specificity 97%) and in paediatric TB (n = 41, sensitivity 100%, specificity 96%). Conclusions We show that the MPT64 test can be implemented in routine diagnostics in a low-resource setting and improves the diagnosis of EPTB, especially in TB lymphadenitis and in children.

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