| Literature DB >> 21483746 |
Kwame Shanaube1, James Hargreaves, Katherine Fielding, Ab Schaap, Katherine-Anne Lawrence, Bernadette Hensen, Charalambos Sismanidis, Angela Menezes, Nulda Beyers, Helen Ayles, Peter Godfrey-Faussett.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The utility of T-cell based interferon-gamma release assays for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection remains unclear in settings with a high burden of tuberculosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2011 PMID: 21483746 PMCID: PMC3070723 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0018206
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Flow diagram of study participants.
QFT-GIT (QuantiFERON-TB Gold In Tube) not done was due to refusal (18.4%), being absent (18.3%), insufficient blood samples (0.4%) or missing data (1.6%). TST (Tuberculin skin test) not done was due to refusal (5.6%), not returning for reading (3.6%) or missing data (0.8%). Individuals with QFT-GIT/TST not done and those with indeterminate QFT-GIT results were excluded from analysis.
Characteristics of the study population.
| Study participants n (column %) | |
| Total | 2220 |
|
| |
| Male | 666 (30.1) |
| Female | 1545 (69.9) |
| Missing | 9 |
|
| |
| 15–24 | 835 (38.3) |
| 25–34 | 556 (25.5) |
| 35–44 | 302 (13.9) |
| 45–54 | 246 (11.3) |
| 55–64 | 134 (6.1) |
| >65 | 106 (4.9) |
| Missing | 41 |
| Age in years: Median 28 (IQR:21–42); mean 33 | |
|
| |
| Not attended school | 142 (6.5) |
| Primary school | 689 (31.9) |
| Secondary school | 1126 (52.1) |
| College or University | 203 (9.4) |
| Missing | 60 |
|
| |
| Daily smoker | 220 (10.0) |
| Occasional smoker | 73 (3.3) |
| Ex-smoker | 104 (4.7) |
| Never smoked | 1801 (81.9) |
| Missing | 22 |
|
| |
| No | 1648 (75.2) |
| Yes | 544 (24.8) |
| Missing | 28 |
|
| |
| 1–3 | 331 (15.0) |
| 4–6 | 848 (38.4) |
| 7–9 | 554 (25.1) |
| ≥10 | 477 (21.6) |
| Missing | 10 |
|
| |
| Negative | 1271 (62.4) |
| Positive | 765 (37.6) |
| Missing | 184 |
|
| |
| Smear negative | 741 (49.2) |
| Smear positive | 766 (50.8) |
| Missing | 713 |
Defined as alcohol consumption four weeks prior to the interview.
TB infection prevalence estimates and Cohen's kappa coefficients per community.
| Community code | Geography | Urban/rural |
| Number with both TST & QFT results | QFT-GIT positive (%) | TST positive (10 mm) (%) | Kappa |
| SA1 | Province | Urban | Moderate | 109 | 78 | 42 | 0.17 |
| SA 3 | Metropole | Urban | High | 98 | 77 | 77 | 0.49 |
| SA 6 | Province | Rural | Moderate | 70 | 77 | 27 | 0.15 |
| Z 4 | Lusaka | Urban | High | 69 | 72 | 41 | 0.25 |
| SA 5 | Metropole | Urban | Moderate | 52 | 71 | 62 | 0.28 |
| Z 5 | Copperbelt | Urban | High | 45 | 71 | 13 | −0.09 |
| SA 2 | Province | Rural | Moderate | 87 | 70 | 28 | 0.16 |
| SA 4 | Metropole | Urban | High | 140 | 68 | 61 | 0.18 |
| Z1 | Lusaka | Urban | High | 93 | 67 | 49 | 0.36 |
| Z 15 | Luapula | Rural | Moderate | 24 | 67 | 33 | 0.25 |
| SA 7 | Metropole | Urban | High | 74 | 66 | 76 | 0.38 |
| Z 11 | Luapula | Rural | Moderate | 40 | 65 | 73 | 0.02 |
| SA 8 | Metropole | Urban | High | 124 | 65 | 24 | −0.01 |
| Z 7 | Lusaka | Urban | High | 92 | 61 | 38 | 0.19 |
| Z 6 | Lusaka | Urban | High | 84 | 61 | 61 | 0.48 |
| Z 8 | Southern | Urban | High | 121 | 60 | 42 | 0.41 |
| Z 3 | Copperbelt | Urban | High | 48 | 60 | 17 | 0.16 |
| Z 10 | Central | Urban | High | 68 | 59 | 34 | 0.08 |
| Z 12 | Copperbelt | Urban | High | 97 | 59 | 15 | 0.19 |
| Z 13 | Central | Urban | High | 103 | 50 | 23 | 0.16 |
| Z 2 | Copperbelt | Urban | High | 90 | 48 | 28 | 0.32 |
| Z 16 | Southern | Rural | Moderate | 18 | 44 | 17 | 0.16 |
| Z 9 | Southern | Urban | High | 29 | 38 | 7 | 0.22 |
| Z 14 | Southern | Rural | Moderate | 28 | 29 | 11 | 0.25 |
Communities arranged from highest to lowest TB infection prevalence estimates as defined by Quantiferon-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) test. SA: South African community; Z: Zambian community; TST (Tuberculin skin test). Geography, urban/rural and HIV prevalence as described elsewhere [22], [25].
A panel of eight experts critically examined data from ante-natal clinic surveillance, prevention of mother-to-child transmission programmes, voluntary counseling and testing clinics and provincial demographic and health survey data and made an informed decision whether to categorize HIV prevalence as ‘high’ or ‘moderate’ for each community [25].
Figure 2Scatter plot of positive QFT-GIT results in contacts and infection prevalence results from previous TST surveys.
Previous TST surveys among children were conducted within the same communities as those of contacts. Infection prevalence in children was defined as TST ≥10 mm.
Figure 3Scatter plot of positive TST results in contacts and infection prevalence results from previous TST surveys.
Previous TST surveys among children were conducted within the same communities as those of contacts. Infection prevalence in contacts and children was defined as TST ≥10 mm.
Univariable and multivariable odds ratios showing risk factors associated with positive QuantiFERON-TB Gold In Tube assay results.
| QFT positive | |||
| n (row %) | Crude OR (95% CI) | Adjusted OR (95% CI) | |
| Total | 1147/1803 (63.6%) | ||
|
| |||
| Male | 333(63.5) | 1 | 1 |
| Female | 809 (63.7) | 1.08 (0.76–1.25) | 0.93 (0.72–1.20) |
| Missing | 5 | ||
|
| |||
| 15–24 | 417 (60.8) | 1 | 1 |
| 25–34 | 276 (61.3) | 1.00 (0.74–1.34) | 1.00 (0.74–1.34) |
| 35–44 | 159 (66.5) | 1.35 (0.93–1.96) | 1.34 (0.92–1.94) |
| 45–54 | 139 (68.5) | 1.49 (1.0–2.22) | 1.47 (0.98–2.20) |
| 55–64 | 87 (75.6) | 2.46 (1.43– 4.23) | 2.56 (1.47–4.48) |
| >65 | 53 (64.6) | 1.42 (0.79– 2.53) | 1.46 (0.79–2.70) |
| Missing | 16 | ||
|
| |||
| Not attended school | 75 (64.7) | 1 | 1 |
| Primary school | 378 (67.1) | 1.11 (0.68—1.81) | 1.4 0 (0.82–2.38) |
| Secondary school | 551 (60.9) | 0.79 (0.49–1.28) | 0.99 (0.57–1.71) |
| College or University | 111 (67.3) | 1.12 (0.62–2.02) | 1.40 (0.73–2.69) |
| Missing | 32 | ||
|
| |||
| Never smoked | 913 (62.7) | 1 | 1 |
| Ex-smoker | 42 (53.9) | 0.73 (0.43–1.24) | 0.60 (0.34–1.07) |
| Occasional smoker | 43 (70.5) | 1.40 (0.73–2.66) | 1.13 (0.57–2.25) |
| Daily smoker | 137 (72.9) | 1.69 (1.14–2.50) | 1.14(0.73–1.77) |
| Missing | 12 | ||
|
| |||
| No | 844 (62.9) | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 285 (65.4) | 1.11 (0.85–1.45) | 1.04 (0.78–1.38) |
| Missing | 18 | ||
|
| |||
| 1–3 | 170 (61.8) | 1 | 1 |
| 4–6 | 415 (62.7) | 1.03 (0.73–1.46) | 1.30 (0.90–1.87) |
| 7–9 | 302 (64.4) | 1.14 (0.78– 1.67) | 1.46 (0.97–2.19) |
| ≥10 | 258 (65.3) | 1.16 (0.77–1.75) | 1.68(1.09–2.61) |
| Missing | 2 | ||
|
| |||
| Negative | 728 (69.0) | 1 | 1 |
| Positive | 335 (54.6) | 0.48 (0.37–0.61) | 0.51 (0.39–0.67) |
| Missing | 84 | ||
|
| |||
| Smear negative | 373 (60.8) | 1 | 1 |
| Smear positive | 426 (67.6) | 1.48 (1.09– 2.01) | 1.25 (0.90–1.74) |
| Missing | 348 | ||
|
| |||
| Different house | 72(57.6) | 1 | 1 |
| Same house | 355 (63.6) | 1.31 (0.78–2.18) | 1.07 (0.61–1.86) |
| Same room | 36 (56.3) | 0.92 (0.42–2.02) | 1.19 (0.52–2.72) |
| Same bed | 142 (62.3) | 1.26 (0.71–2.23) | 1.16 (0.62–2.14) |
| Unknown | 221 (63.1) | 1.26 (0.73–2.16) | 1.10(0.61–1.99) |
| Missing | 321 |
Odds ratios-adjusted for sex, age and community using random effects logistic regression.
Univariable and multivariable odds ratios showing risk factors associated with positive tuberculin skin test results.
| TST ≥10 mm | |||
| n (row %) | Crude OR (95% CI) |
| |
| Total | 725/1803 (40.2%) | ||
|
| |||
| Male | 203 (38.7) | 1 | 1 |
| Female | 520 (40.9) | 1.22 (0.92–1.62) | 1.18 (0.90 – 1.56) |
| Missing | 2 | ||
|
| |||
| 15–24 | 263 (38.4) | 1 | 1 |
| 25–34 | 177 (39.3) | 1.10 (0.79–1.54) | 1.05 (0.77–1.45) |
| 35–44 | 102 (42.7) | 1.41 (0.93–2.13) | 1.49 (1.00–2.21) |
| 45–54 | 88 (43.3) | 1.34(0.87–2.07) | 1.34 (0.89–2.04) |
| 55–64 | 58 (50.4) | 2.01(1.17–3.47) | 2.03 (1.19–3.45) |
| >65 | 28 (34.1) | 1.05(0.55–2.00) | 1.12 (0.58–2.17) |
| Missing | 9 | ||
|
| |||
| Not attended school | 39 (33.6) | 1 | 1 |
| Primary school | 236 (41.9) | 1.47 (0.85–2.55) | 1.53 (0.88–2.66) |
| Secondary school | 365 (40.3) | 1.22 (0.72–2.10) | 1.29 (0.72–2.31) |
| College or University | 74 (44.8) | 1.49 (0.77–2.90) | 1.13 (0.57–2.25) |
| Missing | 11 | ||
|
| |||
| Never smoked | 573 (39.3) | 1 | 1 |
| Ex-smoker | 32 (41.0) | 1.19 (0.64–2.20) | 1.09 (0.59–2.02) |
| Occasional smoker | 31 (50.8) | 1.51 (0.75–3.02) | 1.26 (0.63—2.54) |
| Daily smoker | 85 (45.2) | 1.33 (0.87–2.02) | 1.10 (0.70–1.73) |
| Missing | 4 | ||
|
| |||
| No | 544 (40.6) | 1 | 1 |
| Yes | 174 (39.9) | 0.93 (0.68–1.27) | 0.94 (0.69–1.28) |
| Missing | 7 | ||
|
| |||
| 1–3 | 127 (46.2) | 1 | 1 |
| 4–6 | 261 (39.4) | 0.68 (0.44–1.03) | 0.77 (0.52–1.13) |
| 7–9 | 192 (40.9) | 0.72 (0.46–1.14) | 0.91 (0.59–1.40) |
| ≥10 | 144 (36.5) | 0.57 (0.35–0.94) | 0.71 (0.44–1.13) |
| Missing | 1 | ||
|
| |||
| Negative | 465 (44.1) | 1 | 1 |
| Positive | 207 (33.8) | 0.57 (0.43–0.76) | 0.61 (0.46 – 0.82) |
| Missing | 53 | ||
|
| |||
| Smear negative | 230 (37.5) | 1 | 1 |
| Smear positive | 290 (46.0) | 1.65 (1.15–2.36) | 1.39 (0.98 – 1.98) |
| Missing | 205 | ||
|
| |||
| Different house | 43 (34.4) | 1 | 1 |
| Same house | 202 (36.2) | 1.08 (0.62–1.89) | 0.76 (0.44–1.30) |
| Same room | 20 (31.2) | 0.80 (0.34–1.92) | 0.94 (0.41–2.15) |
| Same bed | 91 (39.9) | 1.37(0.74–2.55) | 0.80 (0.44–1.46) |
| Unknown | 128 (36.6) | 1.11 (0.61–2.00) | 0.74 (0.41–1.33) |
| Missing | 241 |
Odds ratios-adjusted for sex, age and community using random effects logistic regression.
Hypotheses of expected performance of QFT-GIT and TST in our setting and the results obtained.
| Prevailing Understanding | Hypothesis | Result |
| TST is more likely to give false negative results in HIV positives than QFT-GIT. | 1. HIV is a risk factor for TST negativity conditional on a QFT-GIT positive result. | Adjusted odds ratio for HIV on TST positivity among QFT-GIT positives = 0.94 (95% CI:0.62-1.40) Wald-test p = 0.75 |
| QFT-GIT positivity is related to recent acquisition of | 2. Age trend is stronger for TST than QFT-GIT because age is as proxy for likelihood of lifetime exposure to | Wald-test for age'*‘diagnostic test’ interaction parameter in conditional logistic regression; p = 0.94 |
| 3. Stronger association between residence with a smear positive TB case and QFT-GIT positivity than for TST positivity, because smear status is a marker of infectivity and thus of likelihood of recent exposure to | Wald-test for ‘smear status of index case’*‘diagnostic test’ interaction parameter in conditional logistic regression; p = 0.45 | |
| 4. Stronger association between sleeping in same room as index case and QFT-GIT positivity than for TST positivity, because sleeping in the same room is a marker of likelihood of recent exposure to MTB. | Wald-test for ‘sleeping in same room as index’*‘diagnostic test’ interaction parameter in conditional logistic regression; p = 0.76 |