Journal of microbiology, immunology, and infection = Wei mian yu gan ran za zhi · 2019
T-SPOT®.TB test and clinical risk scoring for diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection among Thai healthcare workers.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Aksornchindarat Waralee, Yodpinij Napat, Phetsuksiri Benjawan, Srisungngam Sopa, Rudeeaneksin Janisara, Bunchoo Supranee, Klayut Wiphat, Sangkitporn Somchai, Khawcharoenporn Thana
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is important to identify healthcare workers (HCWs) benefiting from preventive therapy. Interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) are sensitive and specific tests for LTBI diagnosis. However, in settings where IGRAs are not available, clinical risk assessment may be used as an alternative to diagnose LTBI.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs of a tertiary-care university hospital in Thailand. All HCWs underwent T-SPOT®.TB test (T-SPOT) and assessment of LTBI clinical risks. Clinical risks associated with T-SPOT positivity were determined by multivariable logistic regression analysis and were given scores accordingly. The performance of the clinical risk scoring was evaluated in comparison to T-SPOT.
RESULTS: Among 140 enrolled HCWs, 125 (89%) were females, the median age was 27 years and 23 (16%) had T-SPOT positivity. Independent factors associated with T-SPOT positivity were age ≥30 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.95; P = 0.002), working duration ≥60 months (aOR 3.75, P = 0.004) and frequency of TB contact ≥6 times (aOR 8.83, P = 0.005). The study's clinical risk scoring had the area under the curve by receiver operating curve analysis of 0.76 (P < 0.001) using T-SPOT positivity as a reference standard. The score of ≥3 had the best performance in diagnosing LTBI with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 70%, 71%, 32% and 92%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In this setting where LTBI was prevalent among HCWs but IGRAs are not widely available, the clinical risk scoring may be used as an alternative to diagnose LTBI in HCWs.
METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted among HCWs of a tertiary-care university hospital in Thailand. All HCWs underwent T-SPOT®.TB test (T-SPOT) and assessment of LTBI clinical risks. Clinical risks associated with T-SPOT positivity were determined by multivariable logistic regression analysis and were given scores accordingly. The performance of the clinical risk scoring was evaluated in comparison to T-SPOT.
RESULTS: Among 140 enrolled HCWs, 125 (89%) were females, the median age was 27 years and 23 (16%) had T-SPOT positivity. Independent factors associated with T-SPOT positivity were age ≥30 years (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3.95; P = 0.002), working duration ≥60 months (aOR 3.75, P = 0.004) and frequency of TB contact ≥6 times (aOR 8.83, P = 0.005). The study's clinical risk scoring had the area under the curve by receiver operating curve analysis of 0.76 (P < 0.001) using T-SPOT positivity as a reference standard. The score of ≥3 had the best performance in diagnosing LTBI with sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of 70%, 71%, 32% and 92%, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: In this setting where LTBI was prevalent among HCWs but IGRAs are not widely available, the clinical risk scoring may be used as an alternative to diagnose LTBI in HCWs.