4.7 Article

Routine hospital use of a new commercial whole blood interferon-γ assay for the diagnosis of tuberculosis infection

出版社

AMER THORACIC SOC
DOI: 10.1164/rccm.200502-196OC

关键词

diagnosis; immunosuppression; interferon-gamma; tuberculosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Rationale: Interferon (IFN)-gamma blood tests may improve the current level of diagnostic accuracy for tuberculosis infection. The Quanti-FERON-TB Gold (QFT-Gold) has been used in selected populations and shows higher specificity than the tuberculin skin test (TST). Objective: To evaluate the QFT-Gold test in unselected patients and assess the level of agreement with the TST. Methods: The test has been routinely performed on whole blood samples in our microbiology laboratory for 8 months. Demographic, clinical, and microbiological data have been collected and correlated to the QFT-Gold results. Measurements and Main Results: Of 318 patients tested, 68 (21.4%) gave an indeterminate (low positive mitogen control) QFT-Gold result. Indeterminate results were significantly overrepresented in patients with a negative TST (28.9% vs. 6.6% in TST-positive patients; p < 0.0001, chi(2) test) and were more frequent in patients receiving immunosuppressive therapies than in those who were not receiving such treatments (odds ratio, 3.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.84-6.08; p < 0.0001). After excluding indeterminate results, the concordance between QFT-Gold and TST was significantly lower in Bacille Calmette-Guerin-vaccinated individuals (41.5%) than in nonvaccinated individuals (80.3%) (p < 0.0001). In 11 patients with active tuberculosis (5 culture-confirmed), QFT-Gold provided more positive results than the TST (66.7% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.165). Conclusions: The QFT-Gold test is feasible in routine hospital use for the diagnosis of tuberculosis infection. As with the TST, immunosuppression may negatively affect the test's performance, with a significant rate of indeterminate results in the most vulnerable population.

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