4.6 Article

Diagnostic and prognostic value of serum antibodies against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis

期刊

THORAX
卷 61, 期 8, 页码 684-688

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/thx.2005.049536

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Eradication of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in patients with cystic fibrosis (CF) is possible if initiated early in the course of colonisation. To detect P aeruginosa as early as possible is therefore a major goal. This study was undertaken to validate a commercialised test for the detection of serum Pseudomonas antibodies in patients with CF. Methods: A representative cross sectional analysis of serum antibodies against three Pseudomonas antigens ( alkaline protease, elastase, and exotoxin A) was performed in 183 patients with CF of mean age 16.7 years and FEV1 85.9% predicted. The results were correlated with microbiological results from the previous 2 years to calculate sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values. The following 2 years were assessed to determine prognostic predictive values. Results: A combination of all three tested antibodies yielded the best results with a sensitivity of 86%, specificity of 96%, and a positive predictive value of 97%. These values were higher if only patients in whom sputum cultures were available were considered (n = 76, sensitivity 95%, specificity 100%, positive predictive value 100%). The prognostic positive predictive value was high in intermittently infected patients (83%) but low in patients free of infection (33%), whereas the prognostic negative predictive value was high in patients free of infection (78%) and low in intermittently infected patients (58%). Conclusions: Regular determination of serum antibodies may be useful in CF patients with negative or intermittent but not with positive P aeruginosa status. A rise in antibody titres indicates probable infection and eradication treatment may be initiated even in the absence of microbiological detection of P aeruginosa.

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