Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2014
Performance of QuantiFERON-TB Gold and tuberculin skin test relative to subjects' risk of exposure to tuberculosis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
McMullen Sharon E, Pegues David A, Shofer Frances S, Sheller Alexandra C, Wiener Evelyn B
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Performance of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and tuberculin skin test (TST) has not been compared in a US college population with varying risk of tuberculosis exposure.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of students tested for tuberculosis at the University of Pennsylvania Student Health Service between 2009 and 2011. We stratified students into high-, low-, and no-risk categories for exposure to tuberculosis and compared QFT-GIT and TST performance in risk groups adjusting demographic characteristics.
RESULTS: During the study period, 15 936 tuberculosis tests were performed in 9483 college students. Coming from a tuberculosis-endemic country was the only risk factor significantly associated with having a positive result (odds ratio [OR] 12.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.2-16.5). Test specificity was higher for TST than QFT-GIT (99.7% vs 91.4%; P < .0001). Application of a higher threshold for positivity improved comparability of QFT-GIT with TST in the low-risk group (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.2; 95% CI, .4-3.3) but not in the high-risk group (AOR .4; 95% CI, .3-.5).
CONCLUSIONS: QFT-GIT was less specific than TST. Our findings support the use of TST for US college students who need tuberculosis testing and the use of risk-stratified interpretation for students who are tested with QFT-GIT.
METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of students tested for tuberculosis at the University of Pennsylvania Student Health Service between 2009 and 2011. We stratified students into high-, low-, and no-risk categories for exposure to tuberculosis and compared QFT-GIT and TST performance in risk groups adjusting demographic characteristics.
RESULTS: During the study period, 15 936 tuberculosis tests were performed in 9483 college students. Coming from a tuberculosis-endemic country was the only risk factor significantly associated with having a positive result (odds ratio [OR] 12.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 10.2-16.5). Test specificity was higher for TST than QFT-GIT (99.7% vs 91.4%; P < .0001). Application of a higher threshold for positivity improved comparability of QFT-GIT with TST in the low-risk group (adjusted OR [AOR] 1.2; 95% CI, .4-3.3) but not in the high-risk group (AOR .4; 95% CI, .3-.5).
CONCLUSIONS: QFT-GIT was less specific than TST. Our findings support the use of TST for US college students who need tuberculosis testing and the use of risk-stratified interpretation for students who are tested with QFT-GIT.