The sensitivity and specificity of the skin test Diaskintest® in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis and pulmonary

Abstract

The aim of the study was to define the sensitivity and specificity of the new skin test Diaskintest® (DST) using the complex antigen consisting of recombinant CFP-10/ESAT-6 proteins.Four hundred and twenty-five patients with respiratory tuberculosis, 37 with dubious pulmonary tuberculosis process activity, and 111 with pulmonary nontuberculous diseases were examined.DST showed a high sensitivity in 84.2% of the tuberculosis patients. 84.2% of 247 patients treated for 1 to 29 days had a positive response to DST and only 38 (55.9%) of 68 patient treated for more than 100 days had it. The response was twice found in 72 patients. Three months before treatment, 32 (48.5%) of 66 patients with a baseline positive reaction showed a decreasing trend in the response and its positive to negative conversion; the average sizes of the first and second papules were 18.4 and 10.1 mm, respectively.In the patients with pulmonary nontuberculous diseases, the specificity of DST was 96.4%: 105 of the 111 patients had negative tests; the positive tests in 2 patients were accounted for by Mycobacterium tuberculosis due to their professional contact with tuberculosis patients. None of 29 cases of inactive focal tuberculous changes showed any positive response to DST. The latter may be used to detect tuberculosis, to determine the activity of the process, and to evaluate the efficiency of treatment.

Keywords

tuberculosis / Diaskintest / sensitivity / specificity

References

[1] Киселев В. И., Барановский П. М., Пупышев С. А. и др. // Молекул. мед. - 2008. - № 4. - С. 4-6.

[2] Лебедева Л. В., Грачева С. Г. // Пробл. туб. - 2007. № 1. - С. 5-9.

[3] Andersen P., Doherty T., Sorensen A. et al. // Trends Mol. Med. - 2007. - Vol. 13. - P. 175-182.

[4] Behr M., Wilson M., Gill W. et al. // Science. - 1999. - Vo. 284. - P. 1520-1523.

[5] Covert B., Spencer J., Orme I. et al. // Proteomics. - 2001. - Vol. 1. - P. 574-586.

[6] Ewer K., Deeks J., Alvarez L. et al. // Lancet. - 2003. - Vol. 361. - P. 1168-1173.

[7] Fjallbrant H. // Epidemiological and Immunological Studies in Healthy Subjects. - Gothenburg, 2008. - P. 111.

[8] Holden M., Dubin M., Diamond P. // N. Engl. J. Med. - 1971. - Vol. 285. - P. 1506-1509.

[9] Howard W., Klopfenstein M., Steininger W., Woodruff C. // Chest. - 1970. - Vol. 57. - P. 530-534.

[10] Lein A., von Reyn C., Ravn P. et al. // Clin. Diagn. Lab. Immunol. - 1999. - Vol. 6. - P. 606-609.

[11] Mahairas G., Sabo P., Hickey M. et al. // J. Bacteriol. - 1996. - Vol. 178. - P. 1274-1282.

[12] McKinney J., Honer zu Bentrup K., Munoz-Elias E. et al. // Nature. - 2000. - Vol. 406. - P. 735-738.

[13] Menzies D., Pai M., Comstock G. // Ann. of Intern. Med. - 2007. - Vol. 146, N 5. - P. 340-354.

[14] Pai M., Zwerling A., Menzies D. // Ann. Intern. Med. - 2008. - Vol. 149, N 3. - P. 177-184.

[15] Vordermeier H., Chambers M., Cockle P. et al. // Infect. and Immun. - 2002. - Vol. 70. - P. 3026-3032.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

Eco-Vector