A borderline range for Quantiferon Gold In-Tube results

Objective Interferon gamma release assays like Quantiferon Gold In-Tube (QFT) are used to identify individuals infected with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. A dichotomous cut-off (0.35 IU/ml) defines a positive QFT without considering test variability. Our objective was to evaluate the introduction of a borderline range under routine conditions. Methods Results of routine QFT samples from Sweden (2009–2014) were collected. A borderline range (0.20–0.99 IU/ml) was introduced in 2010 recommending a follow-up sample. The association between borderline results and incident active TB within 3 to 24 months was investigated through linkage with the national TB-register. Results Using the recommended QFT cut-off, 75.1% tests were negative, 21.4% positive and 3.5% indeterminate. In total, 9% (3656/40773) were within the borderline range. In follow-up samples, individuals with initial results between 0.20–0.34 IU/ml and 0.35–0.99 IU/ml displayed negative results below the borderline range (<0.20 IU/ml) in 66.1% (230/348) and 42.5% (285/671) respectively, and none developed incident TB. Among 6712 individuals with a positive initial test >0.99 IU/ml, 65 (0.97%) developed incident TB within 3–24 months. Conclusions We recommend retesting of subjects with QFT results in the range 0.20–0.99 IU/ml to enhance reliability and validity of the test. Half of the subjects in the borderline range will be negative at a level <0.20 IU/ml when retested and have a very low risk of developing incident active TB.

[1]  M. Pai,et al.  Official American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Clinical Practice Guidelines: Diagnosis of Tuberculosis in Adults and Children , 2017, Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

[2]  A. Nienhaus,et al.  QFT-Plus: a plus in variability? – Evaluation of new generation IGRA in serial testing of students with a migration background in Germany , 2017, Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology.

[3]  H. Hoffmann,et al.  Equal sensitivity of the new generation QuantiFERON-TB Gold plus in direct comparison with the presious test version QuantiFERON-TB Gold IT , 2016, Pneumologie.

[4]  S. Ishikawa,et al.  Evaluation of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus for Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection in Japan , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[5]  Mark W Moses,et al.  Serial testing for latent tuberculosis using QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube: A Markov model , 2016, Scientific Reports.

[6]  P. Rancoita,et al.  First evaluation of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus performance in contact screening , 2016, European Respiratory Journal.

[7]  T. Gamsky,et al.  Cumulative False-Positive QuantiFERON-TB Interferon-γ Release Assay Results. , 2016, Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

[8]  P. Ravn,et al.  Prognostic value of interferon-γ release assays, a population-based study from a TB low-incidence country , 2016, Thorax.

[9]  J. Yesavage,et al.  Negative Tuberculin Skin Test and Prediction of Reversion of QuantiFERON Interferon Gamma Release Assay in US Healthcare Workers , 2016, Infection Control &#x0026; Hospital Epidemiology.

[10]  M. Pai,et al.  Interferon Gamma Release Assays for Latent Tuberculosis: What Are the Sources of Variability? , 2016, Journal of Clinical Microbiology.

[11]  R. Chaisson,et al.  Latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[12]  R. Chaisson,et al.  Latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. , 2015, The New England journal of medicine.

[13]  A. Nienhaus,et al.  Occupational Screening for Tuberculosis and the Use of a Borderline Zone for Interpretation of the IGRA in German Healthcare Workers , 2014, PloS one.

[14]  A. Benedetti,et al.  Reproducibility of interferon gamma (IFN-γ) release Assays. A systematic review. , 2014, Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

[15]  G. Woods,et al.  IFN-γ release assay conversions and reversions. Challenges with serial testing in U.S. health care workers. , 2014, Annals of the American Thoracic Society.

[16]  R. Diel,et al.  Tuberculosis in healthcare workers – a narrative review from a German perspective , 2014, Journal of Occupational Medicine and Toxicology.

[17]  M. Pai,et al.  Gamma Interferon Release Assays for Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infection , 2014, Clinical Microbiology Reviews.

[18]  S. Dorman,et al.  Interferon-γ release assays and tuberculin skin testing for diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection in healthcare workers in the United States. , 2013, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[19]  Robert J Wilkinson,et al.  The immune response in tuberculosis. , 2013, Annual review of immunology.

[20]  Charles E McCulloch,et al.  Test variability of the QuantiFERON-TB gold in-tube assay in clinical practice. , 2013, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[21]  T. Simpson,et al.  Quantitative and qualitative QuantiFERON(®)-TB gold in-tube results among groups with varying risks of exposure to tuberculosis. , 2012, Heart & lung : the journal of critical care.

[22]  R. Diel,et al.  Predictive value of interferon-γ release assays and tuberculin skin testing for progression from latent TB infection to disease state: a meta-analysis. , 2012, Chest.

[23]  J.,et al.  The New England Journal of Medicine , 2012 .

[24]  M. Pai,et al.  Predictive value of interferon-γ release assays for incident active tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. , 2012, The Lancet. Infectious diseases.

[25]  J. Kaldor,et al.  Updated guidelines for using Interferon Gamma Release Assays to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection - United States, 2010. , 2010, MMWR. Recommendations and reports : Morbidity and mortality weekly report. Recommendations and reports.