Evaluation of QuantiFERON tuberculosis Gold In‐Tube assay for diagnosis of active tuberculosis in children

Aim Tuberculin skin test (TST) is still used in diagnostic algorithms of childhood tuberculosis (TB). QuantiFERON TB Gold In‐Tube assay (QFT‐GIT) is an alternative test to TST based on the detection of interferon‐gamma release upon in vitro induction of peripheral mononuclear cells by TB antigens. I...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of paediatrics and child health 2020-04, Vol.56 (4), p.581-585
Main Authors: Zubarioglu, Tanyel, Bayraktar, Banu, Dalgic, Nazan, Sancar, Mesut, Cakir, Erkan, Togay, Alper, Gencer, Hasim, Bulut, Emin, Yalciner, Altan
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Bioassays
Child
childhood tuberculosis
diagnosis
Diagnostic tests
Humans
interferon‐gamma
Medical diagnosis
Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Pediatrics
QuantiFERON‐TB Gold In‐Tube assay
Retrospective Studies
Tuberculin Test
Tuberculosis
Tuberculosis - diagnosis
Turkey
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Aim Tuberculin skin test (TST) is still used in diagnostic algorithms of childhood tuberculosis (TB). QuantiFERON TB Gold In‐Tube assay (QFT‐GIT) is an alternative test to TST based on the detection of interferon‐gamma release upon in vitro induction of peripheral mononuclear cells by TB antigens. In this study, we aimed to determine the diagnostic value and performance of QFT‐GIT for active childhood TB. Methods This retrospective study was conducted between January 2005 and December 2011 in three referral hospitals in Turkey with 124 children who were diagnosed with definite active TB. Sensitivity values of TST and QFT‐GIT were determined by accepting the microbiological confirmation as the gold standard of diagnosis of TB. Results In our study, sensitivity of QFT‐GIT and TST was found to be 65 and 66% respectively. However, combined usage of QFT‐GIT and TST was found to be more sensitive (85%) than TST or QFT‐GIT alone (P 
ISSN:1034-4810
1440-1754
DOI:10.1111/jpc.14687