Diagnostic Model for Discrimination Between Tuberculous Meningitis and Bacterial Meningitis.

Abstract

Listen

Translate article

BackgroundThe differential diagnosis between tuberculous meningitis (TBM) and bacterial meningitis (BM) remains challenging in clinical practice. This study aimed to establish a diagnostic model that could accurately distinguish TBM from BM.MethodsPatients with TBM or BM were recruited between January 2017 and January 2021 at Tongji Hospital (Qiaokou cohort) and Sino-French New City Hospital (Caidian cohort). The detection for indicators involved in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and T-SPOT assay were performed simultaneously. Multivariate logistic regression was used to create a diagnostic model.ResultsA total of 174 patients (76 TBM and 98 BM) and another 105 cases (39 TBM and 66 BM) were enrolled from Qiaokou cohort and Caidian cohort, respectively. Significantly higher level of CSF lymphocyte proportion while significantly lower levels of CSF chlorine, nucleated cell count, and neutrophil proportion were observed in TBM group when comparing with those in BM group. However, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis showed that the areas under the ROC curve (AUCs) produced by these indicators were all under 0.8. Meanwhile, tuberculosis-specific antigen/phytohemagglutinin (TBAg/PHA) ratio yielded an AUC of 0.889 (95% CI, 0.840–0.938) in distinguishing TBM from BM, with a sensitivity of 68.42% (95% CI, 57.30%–77.77%) and a specificity of 92.86% (95% CI, 85.98%–96.50%) when a cutoff value of 0.163 was used. Consequently, we successfully established a diagnostic model based on the combination of TBAg/PHA ratio, CSF chlorine, CSF nucleated cell count, and CSF lymphocyte proportion for discrimination between TBM and BM. The established model showed good performance in differentiating TBM from BM (AUC: 0.949; 95% CI, 0.921–0.978), with 81.58% (95% CI, 71.42%–88.70%) sensitivity and 91.84% (95% CI, 84.71%–95.81%) specificity. The performance of the diagnostic model obtained in Qiaokou cohort was further validated in Caidian cohort. The diagnostic model in Caidian cohort produced an AUC of 0.923 (95% CI, 0.867–0.980) with 79.49% (95% CI, 64.47%–89.22%) sensitivity and 90.91% (95% CI, 81.55%–95.77%) specificity.ConclusionsThe diagnostic model established based on the combination of four indicators had excellent utility in the discrimination between TBM and BM.