Clinical significance of pleural fluid lactate dehydrogenase/adenosine deaminase ratio in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion

Abstract Background Pleural fluid is one of the common complications of thoracic diseases, and tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE) is the most common cause of pleural effusion in TB-endemic areas and the most common type of exudative pleural effusion in China. In clinical practice, distinguishing TPE from pleural effusion caused by other reasons remains a relatively challenging issue. The objective of present study was to explore the clinical significance of the pleural fluid lactate dehydrogenase/adenosine deaminase ratio (pfLDH/pfADA) in the diagnosis of TPE. Methods The clinical data of 618 patients with pleural effusion were retrospectively collected, and the patients were divided into 3 groups: the TPE group (412 patients), the parapneumonic pleural effusion (PPE) group (106 patients), and the malignant pleural effusion (MPE) group (100 patients). The differences in the ratios of pleural effusion-related and serology-related indicators were compared among the three groups, and receiver operating characteristic curves were drawn to analyze the sensitivity and specificity of the parameter ratios of different indicators for the diagnosis of TPE. Results The median serum ADA level was higher in the TPE group (13 U/L) than in the PPE group (10 U/L, P < 0.01) and MPE group (10 U/L, P < 0.001). The median pfADA level in the TPE group was 41 (32, 52) U/L; it was lowest in the MPE group at 9 (7, 12) U/L and highest in the PPE group at 43 (23, 145) U/L. The pfLDH level in the PPE group was 2542 (1109, 6219) U/L, which was significantly higher than that in the TPE group 449 (293, 664) U/L. In the differential diagnosis between TPE and non-TPE, the AUC of pfLDH/pfADA for diagnosing TPE was the highest at 0.946 (0.925, 0.966), with an optimal cutoff value of 23.20, sensitivity of 93.9%, specificity of 87.0%, and Youden index of 0.809. In the differential diagnosis of TPE and PPE, the AUC of pfLDH/pfADA was the highest at 0.964 (0.939, 0.989), with an optimal cutoff value of 24.32, sensitivity of 94.6%, and specificity of 94.4%; this indicated significantly better diagnostic efficacy than that of the single index of pfLDH. In the differential diagnosis between TPE and MPE, the AUC of pfLDH/pfADA was 0.926 (0.896, 0.956), with a sensitivity of 93.4% and specificity of 80.0%; this was not significantly different from the diagnostic efficacy of pfADA. Conclusions Compared with single biomarkers, pfLDH/pfADA has higher diagnostic value for TPE and can identify patients with TPE early, easily, and economically.