| Literature DB >> 34046032 |
Jeroen Bok1,2,3,4, Regina W Hofland4, Carlton A Evans1,2,3.
Abstract
Background: Whole blood mycobacterial growth assays (WBMGA) quantify mycobacterial growth in fresh blood samples and may have potential for assessing tuberculosis vaccines and identifying individuals at risk of tuberculosis. We evaluated the evidence for the underlying assumption that in vitro WBMGA results can predict in vivo tuberculosis susceptibility.Entities:
Keywords: MGIA; mycobacterial growth assay; mycobacterial growth inhibition assay; risk ; susceptibility; tuberculosis
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34046032 PMCID: PMC8144701 DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2021.641082
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Immunol ISSN: 1664-3224 Impact factor: 7.561
Figure 1Flow chart of paper selection.
Figure 2(A) Relative mycobacterial growth ratios of comparisons made in studies of BCG vaccination. (B) Relative mycobacterial growth ratios of comparisons made in studies of parasitism, vitamin D, and altitude, respectively. +Note the Eisen et al. (8) considered growth relative to control samples to adjust for altitude effects on mycobacterial growth. (C) Relative mycobacterial growth ratios of comparisons made in studies of HIV and its treatment. (D) Relative mycobacterial growth ratios of comparisons made in studies of TB infection. †Approximation of population (E) Relative mycobacterial growth ratios of comparisons made in studies of TB disease. Note that higher relative mycobacterial growth ratio indicates greater mycobacterial growth so may be interpreted as implying relative susceptibility to mycobacterial infection in the participants listed without parentheses (compared with the participants listed in parentheses). Filled circles indicate P <0. 05. Meta-analysis mean and confidence interval methodology are explained in the Methods. BCG indicates Bacille Calmette Guerin. IGRA indicates the Interferon- γ release assay. *Comparisons included in the meta-analysis are marked with the corresponding letter (A–C).
Overview of factors believed to decrease TB susceptibility and their association with less mycobacterial growth in WBMGA.
| Category | Publication | Study group vs comparator | Bacteria† | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TB risk | – | No studies predicting risk of infection or disease | NA | NA |
| BCG vaccination | Cheon et al. ( | After primary vaccination (vs pre-vaccination) | BCG-lux^ | NS |
| After booster (vs pre-vaccination) | BCG-lux^ |
| ||
| Hoft et al. ( | After primary vaccination (vs pre-vaccination) | BCG-lux | NS | |
| After booster (vs pre-vaccination) | BCG-lux |
| ||
| Kampmann et al. ( | After primary vaccination (vs pre-vaccination) | BCG-lux |
| |
| Fletcher et al. ( | Previously vaccinated (vs unvaccinated) | BCG | NS | |
| After primary vaccination (vs pre-vaccination) | BCG |
| ||
| After booster (vs pre-booster) | BCG | NS | ||
| Vitamin D supplementation | Martineau et al. ( | Vitamin D supplemented (vs placebo) | BCG-lux |
|
| Altitude | Eisen et al. ( | High- (vs low-) altitude residents at high altitude | BCG-lux | NS |
| Before (vs after) ascent for low altitude residents | BCG-lux |
| ||
| HIV sero-negativity | Kampmann et al. ( | After starting HAART treatment (vs pre-HAART) | BCG-lux |
|
| Tena et al. ( | HIV-uninfected (vs HIV-infected children (without HAART)) | BCG-lux |
|
†Growth of BCG-lux mycobacteria is measured using a BCG-lux assay, expect in the study by Cheon, where an MGIT assay was used.
*Any comparison was statistically significant.
NS, Not statistically significant comparison; NA, Statistical testing not available.
Figure 3(A) Relative mycobacterial growth (ratios) of BCG vaccination studies using the same population but different assays. The solid line represents no difference between assay results. The dotted lines represent a 2-fold difference between assay results. (B) Relative mycobacterial growth (ratios) of BCG vaccination studies per month post-vaccination. (C) Histogram of log10 of relative mycobacterial growth ratios. Note this refers to the ratios as presented in . (D) Pseudo-funnel plot (see Methods).
Overview of results of factors that may affect TB susceptibility and their association with less mycobacterial growth in WBMGA.
| Category | Publication | Study group vs comparator | Bacteria | P-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| TB infection | Tena et al. ( | TST+ (vs TST-) | BCG-lux | NA |
| Kampmann et al. ( | TST+ (vs TST-) | BCG-lux |
| |
| Martineau et al. ( | TST+ (vs TST-) | BCG-lux | NS | |
| Baguma et al. ( | IGRA+ (vs IGRA-) | BCG | NS | |
| O’Shea et al. ( | IGRA+ (vs IGRA-) | BCG |
| |
| IGRA+ pre-Rx (vs IGRA+ post-Rx) | BCG |
| ||
| TB disease | TB disease (vs IGRA-) | BCG |
| |
| TB disease (vs IGRA+) | BCG |
| ||
| TB disease pre-Rx (vs cured TB disease) | BCG |
| ||
| Wallis et al. ( | Cured TB disease (vs TST-) | Own$ |
| |
| Nicol et al. ( | Erythema nodosum/TST+ (vs TB disease) | BCG-lux |
| |
| Parasitism | O’Shea et al. ( | Hookworm infected (vs uninfected) | H37Rv |
|
| Hookworm infected pre- (vs post-) Rx | H37Rv |
|
Own$ indicates the M. tuberculosis strain that caused the participant’s disease.
*Any comparison was statistically significant.
**All of multiple comparisons were statistically significant.
NS, Not statistically significant comparison; NA, Statistical testing not available; IGRA, indicates the Interferon- γ release assay.
Study characteristics.
| Publication | N | Participants | Setting | Study design | Reported statistic |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheon et al. ( | 10 | Healthy adults | St. Louis, USA | Longitudinal | Mean (standard deviation) |
| Hoft et al. ( | 10 | Healthy adults | St. Louis, USA | Longitudinal | Median (50% range, non-outlier range) |
| Kampmann et al. ( | 35 | Healthy neonates | Cape Town, South Africa | Longitudinal | Median (range) |
| Fletcher et al. ( | 18 | Healthy adults | United Kingdom | Cross-sectional/longitudinal | Median (lowest of 25th quartile, highest of 75th quartile) |
| Martineau et al. ( | 131 | Adult TB contacts | United Kingdom | Randomized controlled trial | Mean (confidence interval of group difference) |
| Eisen et al. ( | 62 | Healthy adults | Lima, Peru (low altitude) | Cross-sectional/longitudinal | Median (interquartile range) |
| Kampmann et al. ( | 15 | HIV-infected, BCG-vaccinated children | Cape Town, South Africa | Longitudinal | Median (range) |
| Tena et al. ( | 22 | HIV-infected children | Cape Town, South Africa | Cross-sectional | Median (range) |
| Kampmann et al. ( | 20 | Healthy adults | United Kingdom | Cross-sectional | Median (range) |
| Martineau et al. ( | 126 | Adult TB contacts | London, United Kingdom | Cross-sectional | Mean (standard deviation) |
| Baguma et al. ( | 161 | BCG-vaccinated children and adults | Western Cape Province, South Africa | Cross-sectional | Median (interquartile range, range) |
| O’Shea et al. ( | 19 | Active TB patients | United Kingdom, various locations | Cross-sectional/longitudinal | Mean (standard deviation) |
| Wallis et al. ( | 32 | Cured TB patients | Vitória, Brazil (TB patients) | Cross-sectional | Mean |
| Nicol et al. ( | 5 | Children with erythema nodosum | Cape Town, South Africa | Cross-sectional | Median |
| O’Shea et al. ( | 22 | Healthy adult migrants from Nepal | United Kingdom | Cross-sectional/longitudinal | Mean (standard deviation) |
Note that ‘N’ indicates the study population (including those that did not complete follow-up, in cases where this is applicable). Also note that the order of the publications in this table, and in and , is consistent with and .
Assay methodology.
| Publication | Growth calculation | Assay type | MOI | Concentration | Volume per assay (ml) | Media added pervolume of blood | Incubation time (h) | Replicates | Assay controls |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheon et al. ( | Δlog10CFU = log10(final) – log10(initial) | MGIT | NR | 10,000 CFU/ml (100,000 RLU/ml) | 0.6 | 1:1 RPMI + glutamine + 25 mM HEPES | 96 | 2 | Simultaneous direct mycobacterial inoculation of MGIT tube |
| Hoft et al. ( | Mycobacterial inhibition index = (RLU at pre-BCG day 3 or day 4/RLU at pre-BCG day 0)/(Post-BCG day 3 or day 4 RLU/post-BCG day 0 RLU) | BCG-lux | NR | 10,000 CFU/ml (100,000 RLU/ml) | 1 | 1:2 RPMI | 96 | 3 | None reported |
| Kampmann et al. ( | Growth ratio = RLU at T96/RLU at T0 | BCG-lux | NR | 1,000,000 CFU/ml (10,000,000 RLU/ml) | 1 | 1:1 RPMI | 96 | 3 | None reported |
| Fletcher et al. ( | Δlog10 CFU per day = log((CFU of sample at T96/CFU of control at T96)/4) | MGIT | NR | 150 CFU in 600 μl | 0.6 | 1:1 RPMI | 96 | 2 | Simultaneous direct mycobacterial inoculation of MGIT tube (duplicate) |
| Martineau et al. ( | Luminescence ratio = RLU at T24 or T96/RLU at T0 | BCG-lux | 1 | 300,000 CFU/ml | 1 | 1:1 RPMI + 2 mM glutamine + 25 mM HEPES | 96 | 3 | None reported |
| Eisen et al. ( | (RLU at T96 – RLU at T0)/RLU of culture broth | BCG-lux | 30 | 10,000 CFU/ml (100,000 RLU/ml), 200 ul blood in each of quadruplet tests | 1 | 1:1 RPMI + 1% HEPES | 72 | 4 | Supplemented 7H9 broth; plasma |
| Kampmann et al. ( | Growth ratio = RLU at T96/RLU at T0 | BCG-lux | NR | 1,000,000 CFU/ml (10,000,000 RLU/ml) | 1 | 1:1 RPMI | 96 | 3 | None reported |
| Tena et al. ( | Growth ratio = RLU at T96/RLU at T0 | BCG-lux | NR | 1,000,000 CFU/ml (10,000,000 RLU/ml) | 1 | 1:1 RPMI | 96 | 3 | None reported |
| Kampmann et al. ( | Growth ratio = (RLU at T96 – RLU at T0)/(RLU at T0) | BCG-lux | NR | 10,000 CFU/ml (100,000 RLU/ml) | 1 | 1:1 RPMI + 1% L-glutamine and heparin | 96 | 3 | Plasma |
| Martineau et al. ( | Luminescence ratio = RLU at T96/RLU at T0 | BCG-lux | 1 | 300,000 CFU/ml | 1 | 1:1 RPMI + 2 mM glutamine + 25 mM HEPES | 96 | 3 | None reported |
| Baguma et al. ( | Δlog10 CFU = log10(final) – log10(initial) | MGIT | NR | 8,500 – 2,4000 CFU/ml | 0.6 | 1:1 RPMI | 96 | 2 | Simultaneous direct mycobacterial inoculation of MGIT tube |
| O’Shea et al. ( | Growth ratio = log10(CFU of sample/CFU of control) | MGIT | NR | 150 CFU/600 μl | 0.6 | 1:1 RPMI containing 10% pooled human serum + 2 mM L-glutamine and 25 mM HEPES | 96 | 2 | Simultaneous direct mycobacterial inoculation of MGIT tube (duplicate) |
| Wallis et al. ( | Δlog10CFU = log10(final) – log10(initial) | MGIT | NR | 10,000 CFU/ml (100,000 RLU/ml) | 0.6 | 1:1 tissue culture | 72 | 2/1* | Simultaneous direct mycobacterial inoculation of MGIT tube |
| Nicol et al. ( | Growth ratio = RLU at T96/RLU at T0 | BCG-lux | NR | 1,000,000 CFU/ml (10,000,000 RLU/ml) | 1 | 1:1 RPMI | 96 | 3 | None reported |
| O’Shea et al. ( | Growth ratio = log10(CFU of sample/CFU of control) | MGIT | NR | 150 CFU/600 μl | 0.6 | 1:1 RPMI containing 10% pooled human serum + 2 mM L-glutamine and 25 mM HEPES | 96 | 2 | Simultaneous direct mycobacterial inoculation of MGIT tube (duplicate) |
Note MOI indicates the multiplicity of infection stated as the number of monocytes estimated to be present in the assay per colony forming unit of mycobacteria. RLU, relative light units; GI, growth index; CFU, colony forming units; BCG, bacille Calmette-Guerrin; MOI, Multiplicity of Infection, mycobacteria per macrophage; *Duplicate in Brazil, single in USA.
Study quality.
| Publication | Objective1 | Population2 | Participation3 | Recruitment4 | Sample size5 | Exposure measurement6 | Timeframe7 | Exposure levels8 | Exposure validity9 | Exposure assessed10 | Outcome validity11 | Blinding12 | Loss to follow-up13 | Adjustment confounders14 | Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheon et al. ( | Yes | No | NA | NR | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | NA | NA | NR | NA | No | Fair |
| Hoft et al. ( | Yes | No | NA | NR | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | NA | NA | NR | NA | No | Fair |
| Kampmann et al. ( | Yes | No | NR | NR | No | Yes | No | NA | Yes | NA | NA | NR | NA | No | Fair |
| Fletcher et al. ( | Yes | No | NR | NR | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | NA | NA | NR | NA | No | Poor |
| Martineau et al. ( | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | No | No | Yes | No | No | Good |
| Eisen et al. ( | Yes | No | NR | NR | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | NA | NA | NR | NA | No | Fair |
| Kampmann et al. ( | Yes | Yes | NR | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | NA | Yes | No | NA | NR | NA | No | Fair |
| Tena et al. ( | Yes | No | NR | NR | No | Yes | Yes | NA | No | No | NA | NR | NA | No | Fair |
| Kampmann et al. ( | Yes | No | NR | NR | No | Yes | Yes | NA | Yes | No | NA | NR | NA | No | Fair |
| Martineau et al. ( | NA | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | NA | Yes | No | NA | NR | NA | Yes | Fair |
| Baguma et al. ( | Yes | No | NR | NR | No | Yes | Yes | NA | Yes | No | NA | NR | NA | No | Fair |
| O’Shea et al. ( | Yes | No | NR | NR | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | NA | NR | NA | No | Good |
| Wallis et al. ( | Yes | No | NR | No | No | Yes | Yes | NA | Yes | No | NA | NR | NA | No | Poor |
| Nicol et al. ( | Yes | No | NR | NR | No | Yes | Yes | NA | No | No | NA | NR | NA | No | Poor |
| O’Shea et al. ( | Yes | Yes | NR | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | NA | Yes | No | NA | NR | NR | No | Fair |
Numbers refer to the following questions that are part of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute’s (NHLBI) Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies:
1. Was the research question or objective in this paper clearly stated?
2. Was the study population clearly specified and defined?
3. Was the participation rate of eligible persons at least 50%?
4. Were all the subjects selected or recruited from the same or similar populations (including the same time period)? Were inclusion and exclusion criteria for being in the study prespecified and applied uniformly to all participants?
5. Was a sample size justification, power description, or variance and effect estimates provided?
6. For the analyses in this paper, were the exposure(s) of interest measured prior to the outcome(s) being measured?
7. Was the timeframe sufficient so that one could reasonably expect to see an association between exposure and outcome if it existed?
8. For exposures that can vary in amount or level, did the study examine different levels of the exposure as related to the outcome (e.g., categories of exposure, or exposure measured as continuous variable)?
9. Were the exposure measures (independent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?
10. Was the exposure(s) assessed more than once over time?
11. Were the outcome measures (dependent variables) clearly defined, valid, reliable, and implemented consistently across all study participants?
12. Were the outcome assessors blinded to the exposure status of participants?
13. Was loss to follow-up after baseline 20% or less?
14. Were key potential confounding variables measured and adjusted statistically for their impact on the relationship between exposure(s) and outcome(s)?
Possible answers: Yes; No; CD, cannot determine; NA, not applicable; NR, not reported.
Possible ratings: good, fair, poor.
Rating of this applies to quality of data extracted for this systematic review, not to quality of main study.