4.5 Article

Quantiferon Gold-in-tube assay for TB screening in HIV infected children: influence of quantitative values

期刊

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
卷 14, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2334-14-516

关键词

HIV; Tuberculosis; Screening; IGRA; Quantiferon

资金

  1. Department of Pediatrics, Hospital for Sick Children

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: HIV infected children are at increased risk of TB disease and require annual TB screening. Data on use of IGRA for TB screening in them are limited. We retrospectively evaluated the usefulness of Quantiferon Gold-in-tube test (QFT), an IGRA in screening for LTBI in relatively healthy, immunologically stable HIV infected children. Methods: HIV infected children with no prior history of TB were screened for latent TB as part of routine care. They underwent risk of TB assessment, TST and QFT. QFT was repeated twice or three times depending on the quantitative values. Independent test validation was also performed. Results: Eighty one children had 109 QFT tests. All had adequate mitogen responses. The initial QFT was positive in 15 (18.5%) children; quantitative IGRA responses were 0.35-1.0 IU/mL in 9 (60%), 1.0-10 IU/mL in5 (33.3%) and >10 IU/mL in 1 (6.7%). None that tested positive had documented TB exposure or TB disease. Baseline characteristics in the QFT positive and negative groups were similar. Repeat testing within 17 weeks demonstrated reversion to negative in 79% of cases. Repeat blinded independent testing of all QFT positive results and a random selection of initial negative tests demonstrated concordance in 96% of cases. Seven children (QFT > 1.0 IU/mL or positive TST) were offered INH preventive therapy. In no case has TB disease developed in 2 years of close follow-up. Conclusions: QFT is a valid method for LTBI screening relatively healthy, immunologically stable HIV infected children. However, reversion to negative on repeat testing and lack of correlation with TST results and risk of TB exposure makes interpretation difficult.

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

4.5
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