| Literature DB >> 26493989 |
Irene Andia Biraro1, Moses Egesa2, Simon Kimuda3, Steven G Smith4, Frederic Toulza5, Jonathan Levin6,7, Moses Joloba8, Achilles Katamba9, Stephen Cose10,11, Hazel M Dockrell12, Alison M Elliott13,14.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: With the renewed emphasis to implement isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) in Sub-Saharan Africa, we investigated the effect of IPT on immunological profiles among household contacts with latent tuberculosis.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26493989 PMCID: PMC4619204 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-015-1201-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1Flow diagram showing the recruitment and follow up process
Baseline characteristics of the household contacts with latent tuberculosis infection that were randomised to either the no IPT or IPT arms
| Variable | Level | No IPT ( | IPT ( |
|---|---|---|---|
| Household contact relating factors | |||
| Sex | Female | 16 (70) | 15 (63) |
| Male | 7 (30) | 9 (37) | |
| Age (median) | 25 | 24 | |
| Age group | 6–12 | 3 (13) | 4 (17) |
| 13–18 | 3 (13) | 3 (13) | |
| >18 | 17 (74) | 17 (70) | |
| Socio-economic status | Lower | 11 (48) | 10 (42) |
| higher | 12 (52) | 14 (58) | |
| Relationship to index case | First degree relative | 18 (78) | 20 (83) |
| Not first degree relative | 5 (22) | 4 (17) | |
| Proximity to index case | Shared meals with index case | 0 | 2 (8) |
| Cared for index case | 7 (30) | 12 (50) | |
| Shared room with index case | 12 (52) | 6 (25) | |
| Shared bed with index case | 4 (18) | 4 (17) | |
| Duration of contact with index case | >6 h/day | 22 (96) | 20 (83) |
| <6 h/day | 1 (4) | 4 (17) | |
| Smoking | No | 18 (78) | 20 (83) |
| Yes | 5 (22) | 4 (17) | |
| Alcohol | No | 15 (65) | 17 (71) |
| Yes | 8 (35) | 7 (29) | |
| BCG scar | No | 12 (52) | 7 (29) |
| Yes | 11 (48) | 17 (71) | |
| aBaseline cytokine responses (medians (IQR)) pg/ml | IFNγ | 1201.1 (336.8–2246.6) | 648 (259.6–2605.4) |
| TNFα | 1 (1–11.4) | 6.8 (1–74.6) | |
| IL-2 | 339.8 (138.4–415.2) | 291.2 (80.6–444.4) | |
| IL-5 | 2.1 (1–9.9) | 1 (1–1) | |
| IL-13 | 21.9 (2.3-35.3) | 2.1 (1–10.6) | |
| IL-10 | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | |
| IL-17a | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1.8) | |
| IL-17f | 3.8 (1–6.7) | 1 (1–1.9) | |
| IL-21 | 1 (1–1) | 1 (1–1) | |
| IL-22 | 1.1 (1–12.4) | 1 (1–4.9) | |
|
| PPD | 5200 (2950–8800) | 5550 (3250–8200) |
| (medians (IQR)) ng/ml | CFP-10 | 3100 (1500–4800) | 2700 (2050–4900) |
| ESAT-6 | 5000 (2400–7900) | 3700 (2550–5600) | |
| Index case relating factors | |||
| HIV status of index case | Negative | 20 (87) | 18 (82) |
| Positive | 3 (13) | 4 (18) | |
| Sputum positivity | 1+ | 4 (17) | 7 (29) |
| 2+ | 10 (43) | 4 (17) | |
| 3+ | 9 (40) | 13 (54) | |
| Duration of Index patient cough (weeks) | 0–4 | 6 (26) | 7 (29) |
| 5–14 | 9 (39) | 7 (29) | |
| 15–24 | 4 (17) | 8 (33) | |
| >25 | 4 (17) | 2 (8) |
aBaseline cytokine responses were obtained from QFN culture supernatants and are represented as net (antigen stimulated minus unstimulated) values
Fig. 2Comparison of the change in M.tb-specific net IFNγ and IL-2 cytokine production between enrolment and after 6 months of follow up in the no IPT or IPT treatment arms. Net cytokine production (after subtraction of spontaneous cytokine production) was determined in response to TB antigens (ESAT-6, CFP-10 and TB7.7 (peptide 4)) in QFN supernatants tested for cytokine content using multiplex bead array between baseline and end of six months among the household contacts with latent tuberculosis infection
The impact of isoniazid preventive therapy on the net cytokine responses at the end of six-months follow up among household contacts with latent tuberculosis infection
| Cytokine | Mean at end of six months | Mean at end of six months | Adjusted mean difference at the end of six monthsa |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| (pg/ml; 95 % CI) | (pg/ml; 95 % CI) | (pg/ml; 95 % CI) | ||
| No IPT ( | IPT ( | |||
| IFN-γ | 2003.6(372.7, 3634.4) | 541.1 (290.8, 791.3) | −1488.6(−2682.5, −294.8) | 0.01 |
| IL-2 | 337.0(167.3, 506.8) | 193.9 108.5, 279.3) | −213.1(−419.2, −7.0) | 0.04 |
| TNF-α | 34.4(−10.6, 79.4) | 55.6(−6.3, 117.6) | 34.1(−40.0, 108.2) | 0.36 |
| IL-5 | 15.5(−3.8, 34.9) | 1.1(0.8, 1.4) | −21.2 (−53.9, 11.3) | 0.20 |
| IL-13 | 35.4(−3.2, 74.2) | 5.1(0.9, 9.4) | −45.4(−104.4, 13.4) | 0.13 |
| IL-10 | 1.0(0.9, 1.1) | 3.3(−0.8, 7.6) | 2.0 (−1.43, 5.4) | 0.25 |
| IL-17a | 2.4(−0.4, 5.2) | 1.5(0.7, 2.3) | 0.4 (−0.4, 1.2) | 0.33 |
| IL-17f | 12.3(3.3, 21.3) | 10.2(−6.1, 26.6) | −5.8(−17.5, 5.7) | 0.32 |
| IL-21 | 34.0(−22.7, 90.7) | 123.8(−133.9, 381.6) | −11.6(−40.9, 17.5) | 0.43 |
| IL-22 | 27.0(1.3, 52.7) | 6.1(−0.2, 12.6) | −6.8(−88.8, 75.0) | 0.86 |
aThis is the expected value of the mean difference in cytokine level at six months, comparing participants who received IPT to those did not receive IPT, adjusting for the baseline level of the cytokine and the BCG scar status. Each cytokine was analysed in a separate model, with bootstrapping to estimate the confidence intervals
Fig. 3Comparison of the change in M.tb-specific antibody production between enrolment and after 6 months of follow up in the no IPT or IPT treatment arms. Antibody concentrations were determined in response to TB antigens (PPD, CFP-10 and ESAT-6) in QFN supernatants using an IgG ELISA assay among the household contacts with latent tuberculosis infection
The impact of isoniazid preventive therapy on the net log10 transformed M.tb specific-antibody concentration at the end of six months follow up among household contacts with latent tuberculosis infection
| Antibody | Geometric Mean at the end of six months | Geometric Mean at the end of six months | Adjusted geometric mean ratio (bootstrap 95 % CI)a |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No IPT ( | IPT ( | |||
| PPD | 3.7(3.5, 4.0) | 3.6(3.4, 3.8) | 1.03(0.76, 1.40) | 0.82 |
| CFP-10 | 3.6(3.3, 3.9) | 3.4(3.3, 3.5) | 0.58(0.35, 0.98) | 0.04 |
| ESAT-6 | 3.6(3.4, 3.9) | 3.5(3.4, 3.7) | 0.87(0.65, 1.18) | 0.60 |
aThis is the ratio of the expected value of the geometric mean antibody level at six months comparing participants who received IPT to those who did not receive IPT, adjusting for the baseline level of the antibody and the BCG scar status. Each antibody was analysed in a separate model