RATIONALE: Most immunocompetent patients diagnosed with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) will not progress to tuberculosis (TB) reactivation. However, current diagnostic tools cannot reliably distinguish nonprogressing from progressing patients a priori, and thus LTBI therapy must be prescribed with suboptimal patient specificity. We hypothesized that LTBI diagnostics could be improved by generating immunomarker profiles capable of categorizing distinct patient subsets by a combinatorial immunoassay approach. OBJECTIVES: A combinatorial immunoassay analysis was applied to identify potential immunomarker combinations that distinguish among unexposed subjects, untreated patients with LTBI, and treated patients with LTBI and to differentiate risk of reactivation. METHODS: IFN-γ release assay (IGRA) was combined with a flow cytometric assay that detects induction of CD25(+)CD134(+) coexpression on TB antigen-stimulated T cells from peripheral blood. The combinatorial immunoassay analysis was based on receiver operating characteristic curves, technical cut-offs, 95% bivariate normal density ellipse prediction, and statistical analysis. Risk of reactivation was estimated with a prediction formula. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-five out of 150 subjects were included. The combinatorial immunoassay approach identified at least four different T-cell subsets. The representation of these immune phenotypes was more heterogeneous in untreated patients with LTBI than in treated patients with LTBI or unexposed groups. Patients with IGRA(+) CD4(+)CD25(+)CD134(+) T-cell phenotypes had the highest estimated reactivation risk (4.11 ± 2.11%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that immune phenotypes defined by combinatorial assays may potentially have a role in identifying those at risk of developing TB; this potential role is supported by risk of reactivation modeling. Prospective studies will be needed to test this novel approach.
RATIONALE: Most immunocompetent patients diagnosed with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) will not progress to tuberculosis (TB) reactivation. However, current diagnostic tools cannot reliably distinguish nonprogressing from progressing patients a priori, and thus LTBI therapy must be prescribed with suboptimal patient specificity. We hypothesized that LTBI diagnostics could be improved by generating immunomarker profiles capable of categorizing distinct patient subsets by a combinatorial immunoassay approach. OBJECTIVES: A combinatorial immunoassay analysis was applied to identify potential immunomarker combinations that distinguish among unexposed subjects, untreated patients with LTBI, and treated patients with LTBI and to differentiate risk of reactivation. METHODS: IFN-γ release assay (IGRA) was combined with a flow cytometric assay that detects induction of CD25(+)CD134(+) coexpression on TB antigen-stimulated T cells from peripheral blood. The combinatorial immunoassay analysis was based on receiver operating characteristic curves, technical cut-offs, 95% bivariate normal density ellipse prediction, and statistical analysis. Risk of reactivation was estimated with a prediction formula. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Sixty-five out of 150 subjects were included. The combinatorial immunoassay approach identified at least four different T-cell subsets. The representation of these immune phenotypes was more heterogeneous in untreated patients with LTBI than in treated patients with LTBI or unexposed groups. Patients with IGRA(+) CD4(+)CD25(+)CD134(+) T-cell phenotypes had the highest estimated reactivation risk (4.11 ± 2.11%). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that immune phenotypes defined by combinatorial assays may potentially have a role in identifying those at risk of developing TB; this potential role is supported by risk of reactivation modeling. Prospective studies will be needed to test this novel approach.
Authors: John J Zaunders; Mee Ling Munier; Nabila Seddiki; Sarah Pett; Susanna Ip; Michelle Bailey; Yin Xu; Kai Brown; Wayne B Dyer; Min Kim; Robert de Rose; Stephen J Kent; Lele Jiang; Samuel N Breit; Sean Emery; Anthony L Cunningham; David A Cooper; Anthony D Kelleher Journal: J Immunol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: A K Detjen; L Loebenberg; H M S Grewal; K Stanley; A Gutschmidt; C Kruger; N Du Plessis; M Kidd; N Beyers; G Walzl; A C Hesseling Journal: Clin Vaccine Immunol Date: 2009-06-17
Authors: U Mack; G B Migliori; M Sester; H L Rieder; S Ehlers; D Goletti; A Bossink; K Magdorf; C Hölscher; B Kampmann; S M Arend; A Detjen; G Bothamley; J P Zellweger; H Milburn; R Diel; P Ravn; F Cobelens; P J Cardona; B Kan; I Solovic; R Duarte; D M Cirillo Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: George Janossy; Simon M Barry; Ronan A M Breen; Gareth A D Hardy; Marc Lipman; Florian Kern Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2008 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: Richard N van Zyl-Smit; Madhukar Pai; Kwaku Peprah; Richard Meldau; Jackie Kieck; June Juritz; Motasim Badri; Alimuddin Zumla; Leonardo A Sechi; Eric D Bateman; Keertan Dheda Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2009-04-02 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: John L Johnson; Hendrik Geldenhuys; Bonnie A Thiel; Asma Toefy; Sara Suliman; Bernadette Pienaar; Phalkun Chheng; Thomas Scriba; W Henry Boom; Willem Hanekom; Mark Hatherill Journal: Chest Date: 2014-03-01 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Ross Sadler; Elizabeth A L Bateman; Victoria Heath; Smita Y Patel; Phillip P Schwingshackl; Alice C Cullinane; Lisa Ayers; Berne L Ferry Journal: Cytometry B Clin Cytom Date: 2014-05-14 Impact factor: 3.058
Authors: Cheryl L Day; Noella D Moshi; Deborah A Abrahams; Michele van Rooyen; Terrence O'rie; Marwou de Kock; Willem A Hanekom Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-16 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Melissa R Nyendak; Byung Park; Megan D Null; Joy Baseke; Gwendolyn Swarbrick; Harriet Mayanja-Kizza; Mary Nsereko; Denise F Johnson; Phineas Gitta; Alphonse Okwera; Stefan Goldberg; Lorna Bozeman; John L Johnson; W Henry Boom; Deborah A Lewinsohn; David M Lewinsohn Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-12-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elitza S Theel; Heather Hilgart; Margaret Breen-Lyles; Kevin McCoy; Rhiannon Flury; Laura E Breeher; John Wilson; Irene G Sia; Jennifer A Whitaker; Jeremy Clain; Timothy R Aksamit; Patricio Escalante Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2018-06-25 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Jennifer M Dan; Cecilia S Lindestam Arlehamn; Daniela Weiskopf; Ricardo da Silva Antunes; Colin Havenar-Daughton; Samantha M Reiss; Matthew Brigger; Marcella Bothwell; Alessandro Sette; Shane Crotty Journal: J Immunol Date: 2016-06-24 Impact factor: 5.422
Authors: Alexander V Panteleev; Irina Yu Nikitina; Irina A Burmistrova; George A Kosmiadi; Tatyana V Radaeva; Rasul B Amansahedov; Pavel V Sadikov; Yana V Serdyuk; Elena E Larionova; Tatef R Bagdasarian; Larisa N Chernousova; Vitaly V Ganusov; Irina V Lyadova Journal: Front Immunol Date: 2017-08-21 Impact factor: 7.561
Authors: Kelly Pennington; Humberto C Sasieta; Guiherme P Ramos; Courtney L Erskine; Virginia P Van Keulen; Tobias Peikert; Patricio Escalante Journal: Clin Med Insights Case Rep Date: 2017-08-24