Comparison of interferon-{gamma} release assays and tuberculin skin test in predicting active tuberculosis (TB) in children in the UK: a paediatric TB network study

Background The value of interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) to diagnose active tuberculosis (TB) in children is not established, but these assays are being widely used for this purpose. The authors examined the sensitivity of commercially available IGRA to diagnose active TB in children in the UK compared with the tuberculin skin test (TST). Methods The authors established a paediatric tuberculosis network and conducted a retrospective analysis of data from children investigated for active TB at six large UK paediatric centres. All centres had used TST and at least one of the commercially available IGRA (T-Spot.TB or Quantiferon-Gold in Tube) in the diagnostic work-up for active TB. Data were available from 333 children aged 2 months to 16 years. The authors measured the sensitivity of TST and IGRA in definite (culture confirmed) and probable TB in children, agreement between TST and either IGRA, and their combined sensitivity. Results Of 333 children, 49 fulfilled the criteria of definite TB, and 146 had probable TB. Within the definite cohort, TST had a sensitivity of 82%, Quantiferon-Gold in tube (QFT-IT) had a sensitivity of 78% and T-Spot.TB of 66%. Neither IGRA performed significantly better than a TST with a cut-off of 15 mm. Combining the results of TST and IGRA increased the sensitivity to 96% for TST plus T-Spot.TB and 91% for TST plus QFG-IT in the definite TB cohort. Conclusions A negative IGRA does not exclude active TB disease, but a combination of TST and IGRA increases the sensitivity for identifying children with active TB

Gaps in guidelines for the management of diabetes in low- and middle-income versus high-income countriesda systematic review

OBJECTIVE: The extentto which diabetes (DM) practice guidelines, often basedon evidence from high-income countries (HIC), can be implemented to improve outcomes in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is a critical challenge. We carried out a systematic review to compare type 2 DM guidelines in individual LMIC versus HIC over the past decade to identify aspects that could be improved to facilitate implementation. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Eligible guidelines were sought from online databases and websites of diabetes associations and ministries of health. Type 2 DM guidelines published between 2006 and 2016 with accessible full publications were included. Each of the 54 eligible guidelines was assessed for compliance with the Institute of Medicine (IOM) standards, coverage of the cardiovascular quadrangle (epidemiologic surveillance, prevention, acute care, and rehabilitation), translatability, and its target audiences. RESULTS: Most LMIC guidelines were inadequate in terms of applicability, clarity, and dissemination planaswellassocioeconomic and ethical-legal contextualization.LMIC guidelines targeted mainly health care providers, with only a few including patients (7%), payers (11%), and policy makers (18%) as their target audiences. Compared with HIC guidelines, the spectrum of DM clinical care addressed by LMIC guidelines was narrow. Most guidelines from the LMIC complied with less than half of the IOM standards, with 12% of the LMIC guidelines satisfying at least four IOM criteria as opposed to 60% of the HIC guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A new approachto the contextualization, content development, and deliveryofLMIC guidelines is needed to improve outcomes. © 2018 by the American Diabetes Association