4.7 Article

IP-10 differentiates between active and latent tuberculosis irrespective of HIV status and declines during therapy

期刊

JOURNAL OF INFECTION
卷 70, 期 4, 页码 381-391

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jinf.2014.12.019

关键词

Cytokines; Biomarker; IP-10; sTNFr2; Tuberculosis; HIV; Therapy

资金

  1. Norwegian Extra-Foundation for Health and Rehabilitation [2008-2-0159]
  2. North Norway Regional Health Authority [SFP890-09]
  3. Blakstad and Maarschalk Tuberkulosefond

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Biomarkers for diagnosis and therapy efficacy in tuberculosis (TB) are requested. We have studied biomarkers that may differentiate between active and latent TB infection (LTBI), the influence of HIV infection and changes during anti-TB chemotherapy. Methods: Thirty-eight plasma cytokines, assessed by multiplex and enzyme immunoassays, were analyzed in patients with active TB before and during 24 weeks of anti-TB chemotherapy (n = 65), from individuals with LTBI (n = 34) and from QuantiFERON-TB (QFT) negative controls (n = 65). The study participants were grouped according to HIV status. Results: Plasma levels of the CXC chemokine IP-10 and soluble TNF receptor type 2 (sTNFr2) significantly differentiated active TB from the LTBI group, irrespective of HIV status. In the HIV-infected group the sensitivity and specificity was 100% for IP-10 with a cut-off of 2547 pg/mL. Plasma IP-10 declined gradually during anti-TB chemotherapy (12-24 weeks, p = 0.002) to a level comparable to LTBI and QFT negative control groups. sTNFr2 fluctuated throughout therapy, but was decreased after 12-24 weeks (p = 0.006). Conclusions: IP-10 distinguished with high accuracy active TB from LTBI irrespective of HIV infection and declined during anti-TB chemotherapy. Plasma IP-10 may serve as a diagnostic biomarker to differentiate between the stages of TB infection and for monitoring therapy efficacy. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd on behalf of the The British Infection Association.

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