4.7 Article

Comparison of interferon gamma release assays and conventional screening tests before tumour necrosis factor alpha blockade in patients with inflammatory arthritis

期刊

ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES
卷 69, 期 1, 页码 181-185

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/ard.2008.101857

关键词

-

资金

  1. Abbott Immunology
  2. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals
  3. Schering Plough

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the performance of two interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) and conventional screening tests in patients with inflammatory arthritis undergoing screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) before treatment with anti-tumour necrosis factor alpha (anti-TNF alpha) compounds. Methods: Successive patients were subjected to conventional LTBI screening, including a tuberculin skin test (TST). The T-SPOT. TB test was performed on all patients and the QuantiFERON-TB Gold test was performed on a large subset. The results of the IGRAs were compared with the results of conventional screening tests. Results: A total 150 patients were evaluated. The majority (57.9%) had rheumatoid arthritis. Previous vaccination with Bacille Calmette-Guerin was confirmed in 82% of patients. No patient had received prior anti-TB treatment. A total of 57 patients (38.0%) had at least one positive conventional risk factor. In contrast, an unequivocally positive T-SPOT. TB test was seen in only 14/143 (9.8%). There was 98.2% agreement between the two IGRAs. Statistically significant associations were found between each of the IGRAs and both TST and risk history, but not chest x-ray (CXR). A positive IGRA result was significantly associated with increased age. TB was not reactivated in any patient during the follow-up period. Interpretation: This study suggests that IGRAs may be useful when screening for LTBI before anti-TNFa therapy in patients with immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. The observations reported here also highlight the inadequate performance of CXR as a marker of LTBI.

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

4.7
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