4.8 Article

Use in routine clinical practice of two commercial blood tests for diagnosis of infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis:: a prospective study

期刊

LANCET
卷 367, 期 9519, 页码 1328-1334

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68579-6

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Two commercial blood assays for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection-T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON-TB Gold-have been separately compared with the tuberculin skin test. Our aim was to compare the efficacy of all three tests in the same population sample. Methods We did a prospective study in 393 consecutively enrolled patients who were tested simultaneously with T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON-TB Gold because of suspected latent or active tuberculosis. 318 patients also had results available for a tuberculin skin test. Findings Overall agreement with the skin test was similar (T-SPOT. TB kappa = 0.508, QuantiFERON-TB Gold kappa = 0.460), but fewer BCG-vaccinated individuals were identified as positive by the two blood assays than by the tuberculin skin test (p = 0.003 for T-SPOT.TB and p < 0.0001 for QuantiFERON-TB Gold). Indeterminate results were significantly more frequent with QuantiFERON-TB Gold (11%, 43 of 383) than with T-SPOT.TB (3%,12 of 383; p < 0.0001) and were associated with immunosuppressive treatments for both tests. Age younger than 5 years was significantly associated with indeterminate results with QuantiFERON-TB Gold (p = 0.003), but not with T-SPOT.TB. Overall, T-SPOT.TB produced significantly more positive results (38%, n = 144, vs 26%, n = 100, with QuantiFERON-TB Gold; p < 0.0001), and close contacts of patients with active tuberculosis were more likely to be positive with T-SPOT.TB than with QuantiFERON-TB Gold (p = 0.0010). Interpretation T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON-TB Gold have higher specificity than the tuberculin skin test. Rates of indeterminate and positive results, however, differ between the blood tests, suggesting that they might provide different results in routine clinical practice.

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

4.8
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