Tuberculin skin test versus interferon-gamma release assays for the diagnosis of tuberculosis infection.

IF 1.1 4区 医学 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Acta Clinica Belgica Pub Date : 2014-10-01 Epub Date: 2014-07-14 DOI:10.1179/2295333714Y.0000000043
E De Keyser, F De Keyser, F De Baets
{"title":"Tuberculin skin test versus interferon-gamma release assays for the diagnosis of tuberculosis infection.","authors":"E De Keyser,&nbsp;F De Keyser,&nbsp;F De Baets","doi":"10.1179/2295333714Y.0000000043","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Accurate detection of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is becoming increasingly important due to the increasing use of immunosuppressive medications and the human immunodeficiency epidemic, which have increased the risk for reactivation to active tuberculosis (TB) infection. LTBI is detected by tuberculin skin test (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs). The latter include T-SPOT(®).TB (Oxford Immunotec) and QuantiFERON(®)-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT; Cellestis). We examined the value of TST versus IGRAs in the diagnosis of TB infection by meta-analysis based on data derived from a systematic literature review.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PubMed was searched for articles in English published between January 2010 and July 2012 in which TST and IGRA were performed simultaneously in individuals with and without active TB infection. A random effect model meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled sensitivity and specificity values for TST, T-SPOT.TB, and QFT-GIT. Owing to the absence of a gold standard for the diagnosis of LTBI, active TB infection was used as a surrogate for LTBI.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Nineteen studies were included. T-SPOT.TB was significantly more sensitive [90% (95% confidence interval: 85-95) versus 64% (46-81)] than TST. The specificity of T-SPOT.TB was higher than the specificity of TST, but there was overlap between confidence intervals [77% (68-85) versus 57% (41-72)]. QFT-GIT seemed to be more sensitive than TST [75% (61-86) versus 64% (48-78)] but similarly specific [71% (62-86) versus 70% (57-81)].</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>IGRAs, especially T-SPOT.TB, are more effective at detecting TB infection than TST. Despite their higher cost, they have added value and can be requested in addition to TST.</p>","PeriodicalId":48865,"journal":{"name":"Acta Clinica Belgica","volume":"69 5","pages":"358-66"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2014-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1179/2295333714Y.0000000043","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Clinica Belgica","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1179/2295333714Y.0000000043","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2014/7/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Objective: Accurate detection of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is becoming increasingly important due to the increasing use of immunosuppressive medications and the human immunodeficiency epidemic, which have increased the risk for reactivation to active tuberculosis (TB) infection. LTBI is detected by tuberculin skin test (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs). The latter include T-SPOT(®).TB (Oxford Immunotec) and QuantiFERON(®)-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT; Cellestis). We examined the value of TST versus IGRAs in the diagnosis of TB infection by meta-analysis based on data derived from a systematic literature review.

Methods: PubMed was searched for articles in English published between January 2010 and July 2012 in which TST and IGRA were performed simultaneously in individuals with and without active TB infection. A random effect model meta-analysis was performed to determine pooled sensitivity and specificity values for TST, T-SPOT.TB, and QFT-GIT. Owing to the absence of a gold standard for the diagnosis of LTBI, active TB infection was used as a surrogate for LTBI.

Results: Nineteen studies were included. T-SPOT.TB was significantly more sensitive [90% (95% confidence interval: 85-95) versus 64% (46-81)] than TST. The specificity of T-SPOT.TB was higher than the specificity of TST, but there was overlap between confidence intervals [77% (68-85) versus 57% (41-72)]. QFT-GIT seemed to be more sensitive than TST [75% (61-86) versus 64% (48-78)] but similarly specific [71% (62-86) versus 70% (57-81)].

Conclusions: IGRAs, especially T-SPOT.TB, are more effective at detecting TB infection than TST. Despite their higher cost, they have added value and can be requested in addition to TST.

结核菌素皮试与干扰素释放试验诊断结核感染的比较。
目的:由于免疫抑制药物的使用增加和人类免疫缺陷的流行,增加了活动性结核病(TB)感染再激活的风险,因此准确检测潜伏性结核病感染(LTBI)变得越来越重要。通过结核菌素皮肤试验(TST)和干扰素释放试验(IGRAs)检测LTBI。后者包括T-SPOT(®)。TB (Oxford immunnotec)和QuantiFERON(®)-TB金管(QFT-GIT);Cellestis)。基于系统文献综述的数据,我们通过荟萃分析检验了TST与IGRAs在结核病感染诊断中的价值。方法:在PubMed检索2010年1月至2012年7月期间发表的在结核病患者和非活动性结核病患者中同时进行TST和IGRA的英文文章。随机效应模型荟萃分析确定TST、T-SPOT的敏感性和特异性。TB和QFT-GIT。由于缺乏诊断LTBI的金标准,活动性结核感染被用作LTBI的替代指标。结果:共纳入19项研究。T-SPOT。TB明显比TST更敏感[90%(95%可信区间:85-95)vs 64%(46-81)]。T-SPOT的特异性。TB的特异性高于TST,但置信区间之间存在重叠[77%(68-85)对57%(41-72)]。QFT-GIT似乎比TST更敏感[75%(61-86)对64%(48-78)],但特异性相似[71%(62-86)对70%(57-81)]。结论:IGRAs,尤其是T-SPOT。在检测结核感染方面比TST更有效。尽管它们的成本较高,但它们具有附加值,并且可以在TST之外要求。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Acta Clinica Belgica
Acta Clinica Belgica MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: Acta Clinica Belgica: International Journal of Clinical and Laboratory Medicine primarily publishes papers on clinical medicine, clinical chemistry, pathology and molecular biology, provided they describe results which contribute to our understanding of clinical problems or describe new methods applicable to clinical investigation. Readership includes physicians, pathologists, pharmacists and physicians working in non-academic and academic hospitals, practicing internal medicine and its subspecialties.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信