BACKGROUND: Current practice for diagnosis of Q fever, caused by the intracellular pathogen Coxiella burnetii, relies mainly on serology and, in prevaccination assessment, on skin tests (STs), which both have drawbacks. In this study, C. burnetii-specific interferon γ (IFN-γ) production was used as a new diagnostic tool for previous Q fever, circumventing most of these drawbacks. Our aim was to compare this test to serology and ST. METHODS: One thousand five hundred twenty-five individuals from an endemic area with a risk for chronic Q fever were enrolled. IFN-γ production was measured after in vitro stimulation of whole blood with C. burnetii antigens. Various formats using different C. burnetii antigens were tested. Serology and ST were performed in all individuals. RESULTS: In all assay formats, C. burnetii-specific IFN-γ production was higher (P < .0001) in seropositive or ST-positive subjects than in seronegative and ST-negative subjects. Whole blood incubated for 24 hours with C. burnetii Nine Mile showed optimal performance. After excluding subjects with equivocal serology and/or borderline ST results, IFN-γ production was 449 ± 82 pg/mL in the positive individuals (n = 219) but only 21 ± 3 pg/mL in negative subjects (n = 908). Using Bayesian analysis, sensitivity and specificity (87.0% and 90.2%, respectively) were similar to the combination of serology and ST (83.0% and 95.6%, respectively). Agreement with the combination of serology and ST was moderate (84% concordance; κ = 0.542). CONCLUSIONS: Specific IFN-γ detection is a novel diagnostic assay for previous C. burnetii infection and shows similar performance and practical advantages over serology and ST. Future studies to investigate the clinical value in practice are warranted.
BACKGROUND: Current practice for diagnosis of Q fever, caused by the intracellular pathogen Coxiella burnetii, relies mainly on serology and, in prevaccination assessment, on skin tests (STs), which both have drawbacks. In this study, C. burnetii-specific interferon γ (IFN-γ) production was used as a new diagnostic tool for previous Q fever, circumventing most of these drawbacks. Our aim was to compare this test to serology and ST. METHODS: One thousand five hundred twenty-five individuals from an endemic area with a risk for chronic Q fever were enrolled. IFN-γ production was measured after in vitro stimulation of whole blood with C. burnetii antigens. Various formats using different C. burnetii antigens were tested. Serology and ST were performed in all individuals. RESULTS: In all assay formats, C. burnetii-specific IFN-γ production was higher (P < .0001) in seropositive or ST-positive subjects than in seronegative and ST-negative subjects. Whole blood incubated for 24 hours with C. burnetii Nine Mile showed optimal performance. After excluding subjects with equivocal serology and/or borderline ST results, IFN-γ production was 449 ± 82 pg/mL in the positive individuals (n = 219) but only 21 ± 3 pg/mL in negative subjects (n = 908). Using Bayesian analysis, sensitivity and specificity (87.0% and 90.2%, respectively) were similar to the combination of serology and ST (83.0% and 95.6%, respectively). Agreement with the combination of serology and ST was moderate (84% concordance; κ = 0.542). CONCLUSIONS: Specific IFN-γ detection is a novel diagnostic assay for previous C. burnetii infection and shows similar performance and practical advantages over serology and ST. Future studies to investigate the clinical value in practice are warranted.
Entities:
Keywords:
Coxiella burnetii; Q fever; interferon γ; serology; skin test
Authors: Teske Schoffelen; Joshua S Self; Kelly A Fitzpatrick; Mihai G Netea; Marcel van Deuren; Leo A B Joosten; Gilbert J Kersh Journal: Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2014-12-30 Impact factor: 2.803
Authors: Susan Raju Paul; Anja Scholzen; Ghazel Mukhtar; Stephanie Wilkinson; Peter Hobson; Richard K Dzeng; Jennifer Evans; Jennifer Robson; Rowland Cobbold; Stephen Graves; Mark C Poznansky; Anja Garritsen; Ann E Sluder Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2022-06-23 Impact factor: 8.786
Authors: Frederik R van de Schoor; Hedwig D Vrijmoeth; Michelle A E Brouwer; Hadewych J M Ter Hofstede; Heidi L M Lemmers; Helga Dijkstra; Collins K Boahen; Marije Oosting; Bart-Jan Kullberg; Joppe W Hovius; Cees C van den Wijngaard; Frank L van de Veerdonk; Mihai G Netea; Leo A B Joosten Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2022-02-07 Impact factor: 3.609
Authors: Anne F M Jansen; Annemieke Dinkla; Hendrik-Jan Roest; Chantal P Bleeker-Rovers; Teske Schoffelen; Leo A B Joosten; Peter C Wever; Marcel van Deuren; Ad P Koets Journal: Infect Immun Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 3.441
Authors: Teske Schoffelen; Marjolijn C Wegdam-Blans; Anne Ammerdorffer; Marjolijn J H Pronk; Yvonne E P Soethoudt; Mihai G Netea; Jos W M van der Meer; Chantal P Bleeker-Rovers; Marcel van Deuren Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 5.640
Authors: Anne Ammerdorffer; Hendrik-I J Roest; Annemieke Dinkla; Jacob Post; Teske Schoffelen; Marcel van Deuren; Tom Sprong; Johanna M Rebel Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-10-03 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Anne F M Jansen; Teske Schoffelen; Julien Textoris; Jean-Louis Mege; Marrigje Nabuurs-Franssen; Ruud P H Raijmakers; Mihai G Netea; Leo A B Joosten; Chantal P Bleeker-Rovers; Marcel van Deuren Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2017-08-09 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Teske Schoffelen; Gijs J M Limonard; Chantal P Bleeker-Rovers; John J M Bouwman; Jos W M van der Meer; Marrigje Nabuurs-Franssen; Tom Sprong; Marcel van Deuren Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 3.240