medigraphic.com
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Mexicana de Infectología Pediátrica y la SLIPE.

2008, Number 83

<< Back Next >>

Rev Enfer Infec Pediatr 2008; 21.22 (83)

PPD reactivity in biomedical science students of the Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, Mexico, 2005.

Madrigal AB, Vázquez PME, Arellano PG, Prado GT, Guzmán MCE, Gallegos CA, de Lima GEE, Hernández GPD, Villanueva VJU

Language: Spanish
References: 24
Page: 68-74
PDF size: 296.83 Kb.


ABSTRACT

A study was conducted in 2005, with students from biomedical careers (medicine, nursing and stomatology) and compared to students of a non-biomedical career (public accounts) from the Autonomous University of Aguascalientes, all enrolled on initial semesters, intermediate and the end of their studies. All students were applied five units of purified protein derivative CT68 of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and the interpretation of the test was made within 48 to 72 hours applied, in accordance with internationalstandards. The reading was interpreted as a negative test when the induration was less than 5 mm; negative but expected by previous vaccination with BCG when there were between 5 and 10 mm, and positive with an induration exceeding 10 mm. The differences in the mean, standard deviation and standard error of the reading is presented in the PPD of medical students between the fifth and ninth semester (5º‹ 9 º, p ‹ 0.05) in the nursing between the fifth and seventh semester (5º‹ 7º, p ‹ 0.05), and students from public accountancy between the fifth and ninth semesters (5 º ‹ º 9, p‹ 0.01), with no differences in the reactivity of pupils of different semesters of stomatology. The most marked difference was presented at the reactivity exceeding 10 mm in nursing groups, with 0% in the first half to 50% in students from the last semesters, which suggests exposure to mycobacteria, and requires assessing whether that happened in strengthened response versus positive conversion to the test. It is recommended by the survey results, that the medical and nursing students in contact with patients in their clinical practice are at risk of infection, not present due to an appropriate immune response, without developing disease or even as having it as an occupational risk, to have an annual monitoring since joining with PPD to evaluate conversion to the test, as well as strengthen preventive measures against tuberculosis.


REFERENCES

  1. Choi C. Management of tuberculosis: specials considerations. Dis Manag Heakth Outcomes 1998;4(4):205-16.

  2. What can be done to stop the global threat of tuberculosis? Drug & Ther Perspect 1999;14(12):8-12.

  3. Sawert H. The re-emergence of tuberculosis and its economic implications. Pharmacoeconomics 1996;9(5):379-81.

  4. Greener M. Tuberculosis: out of sanitoriums and into complacency. Pharmacoecon Outcomes News 1998;9(194):3-4.

  5. González N, Torales TA, Gómez Barreto D. Infectología Clínica Pediátrica. 7ª edición. Editorial Trillas. México, 2004. p. 133-72.

  6. Hopewell PC. Tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus infection. Semin Respir Infect 1989;4:111-22.

  7. Neu N, Saiman L, et al. Diagnosis of pediatric tuberculosis in the modern era. Pediatr Infect Dis J 1999;18(2):122-6.

  8. Miller B, Castro KG. Sharpen available tools for tuberculosis control, but new tools needed for elimination. JAMA 1996;276:1916-17.

  9. Menzies D, Fanning A, Yuan LF. Tuberculosis among health care workers. New Engl J Med 1995;332(2):92-8.

  10. Plitt SS, et al. Prevalence and determinants of tuberculin reactivity among physicians in Edmonton, Canada: 1996-1997. Intern J Epidemiology 2001;30:1022-8.

  11. Homolka J, Krejbich F, Simecek P. The risk of TB infection in medical students of Charles University. Chest 2005;128(Supp 4):402S.

  12. García GML, et al. Factor associated with tuberculin reactivity in two general hospitals in México. Inf Control & Hosp Edpidemiology 2001;22(2):88-93.

  13. Menzies D. Interpretation of repetead tuberculin tests. Boosting, conversion, and reversion. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1999;159:15-21.

  14. Silva VM, et al. Tuberculin skin test conversion among medical students at a teaching hospital in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology 2002;23(10):591-4.

  15. Maciel ELN, et al. Prevalence and incidence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in nursing students in Vitória, Spirito Santo. Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical 2005;38(6):649-72.

  16. Brewer TF, Wilson ME, Nardell EA. BCG Immunization: review of past experience, current use, and future prospects. Curr Clin Topics Inf Dis 1995;15:253-70.

  17. Programa sustantivo de prevención y control de micobacteriosis. Secretaría de Salud, SSA. México, 1998.

  18. Manual de procedimientos técnicos del Programa de Vacunación Universal. Secretaría de Salud, SSA. México, 1996.

  19. Diario Oficial de la Federación. Secretaría de Salud. Modificación a la Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM-006-SSA2-1993 para la prevención y control de la tuberculosis en la atención primaria a la salud. 23 de junio de 2000.

  20. Cauthen GM, Suider D, et al. Boosting of tuberculin sensitivity among southeast Asian refugees. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1994;149:1597-600.

  21. Duchin JS, Jereb JA, Nolan C, et al. Comparison of sensivities to two commercially available tuberculin skin test reagents in persons with recent tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis 1997;25:661-3.

  22. Villorino ME, Burman W, Wang YL, et al. Comparable Specificity of two commercial tuberculin reagents in persons at low risk for tuberculosis infection. JAMA 1999;281:169-71.

  23. Huebner RE, Schein MF, Bass JB Jr. The tuberculin skin test. Clin Infect Dis 1993;17:968-75.

  24. CDC. Efficacy of a new standard reference of tuberculin. Am J Resp Crit Care Med 2000;161:1167-71.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com