E D Pieterman1, F G Liqui Lung2, A Verbon3, H I Bax4, C W Ang5, J Berkhout6, G Blaauw7, A Brandenburg8, N D van Burgel9, A Claessen10, K van Dijk5, M Heron11, M Hooghiemstra8, R Leussenkamp-Hummelink12, E van Lochem13, I H M van Loo14, B Mulder12, A Ott15, O Pontesilli16, A Reuwer11, P Rombouts17, V Saegeman18, M Scholing19, S Vainio10, J E M de Steenwinkel2. 1. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. Electronic address: e.pieterman@erasmusmc.nl. 2. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 3. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 4. Department of Internal Medicine, Section of Infectious Diseases, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 5. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infection Control, VU Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 6. Department of Medical Microbiology, Canisius Wilhelmina Hospital, Nijmegen, The Netherlands. 7. Department of Medical Microbiology, Gelre Hospital, Apeldoorn, The Netherlands. 8. Izore Centre for Infectious Diseases Friesland, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. 9. Department of Medical Microbiology, HAGA Hospital, Den Haag, The Netherlands. 10. Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, The Netherlands. 11. Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Elisabeth-TweeSteden Hospital, Tilburg, The Netherlands. 12. Labmicta, Hengelo, The Netherlands. 13. Department of Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Rijnstate Hospital, Arnhem, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Chemistry, Gelderse Vallei Hospital, Ede, The Netherlands. 14. Department of Medical Microbiology, Maastricht University Medical Centre, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 15. Department of Medical Microbiology, Certe, Groningen, The Netherlands. 16. Department of Medical Microbiology, Maasstad Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 17. Department of Medical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, Ikazia Hospital, Rotterdam, The Netherlands. 18. Department of Laboratory Medicine, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Department of Microbiology and Immunology, K.U. Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 19. Department of Medical Microbiology, OLVG, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Public Health Laboratory, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this verification study was to compare the QuantiFERON®-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) to the QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In Tube (QFT-GIT). The new QFT-Plus test contains an extra antigen tube which, according to the manufacturer additionally elicits a CD8+ T-cell response above the CD4+ T-cell response. We assessed the value of this tube in detecting recent latent tuberculosis infections. METHODS: Between May 2015 and December 2016, 1031 subjects underwent QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT test. Overall agreement between both tests and performance for different test indications and/or immune states was assessed. A difference of >0.6 IU/mL interferon-γ release between the two antigen tubes of the QFT-Plus assay was considered a true difference and used as estimation for CD8+ T-cell response. RESULTS: Analysis of the QuantiFERON tests resulted in an overall agreement between assays of 95%. Subjects considered to be recently exposed to tuberculosis had significantly more often a true difference in interferon-γ release compared to all other subjects (p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: Results of QFT-Plus are highly comparable to QFT-GIT. Although there is an indication that a true difference in interferon-γ release between the antigen tubes is associated with recent latent tuberculosis infection, the QFT-Plus could not be used to exclude recent exposure.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this verification study was to compare the QuantiFERON®-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) to the QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In Tube (QFT-GIT). The new QFT-Plus test contains an extra antigen tube which, according to the manufacturer additionally elicits a CD8+ T-cell response above the CD4+ T-cell response. We assessed the value of this tube in detecting recent latent tuberculosis infections. METHODS: Between May 2015 and December 2016, 1031 subjects underwent QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT test. Overall agreement between both tests and performance for different test indications and/or immune states was assessed. A difference of >0.6 IU/mL interferon-γ release between the two antigen tubes of the QFT-Plus assay was considered a true difference and used as estimation for CD8+ T-cell response. RESULTS: Analysis of the QuantiFERON tests resulted in an overall agreement between assays of 95%. Subjects considered to be recently exposed to tuberculosis had significantly more often a true difference in interferon-γ release compared to all other subjects (p = 0.029). CONCLUSION: Results of QFT-Plus are highly comparable to QFT-GIT. Although there is an indication that a true difference in interferon-γ release between the antigen tubes is associated with recent latent tuberculosis infection, the QFT-Plus could not be used to exclude recent exposure.
Authors: Thara K Venkatappa; Rose Punnoose; Dolly J Katz; Michael P Higgins; Niaz Banaei; Edward A Graviss; Robert W Belknap; Christine S Ho Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2019-10-23 Impact factor: 5.948
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: Duc T Nguyen; Ha Phan; Trang Trinh; Hang Nguyen; Ha Doan; Nam Pham; Hung Nguyen; Hanh Nguyen; Hung V Nguyen; Hoi V Le; Nhung Nguyen; Edward A Graviss Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 3.240