Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
    • WoS Reviewer Recognition Service
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

User menu

  • Log in
  • Subscribe
  • Contact Us
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
  • ERS Publications
    • European Respiratory Journal
    • ERJ Open Research
    • European Respiratory Review
    • Breathe
    • ERS Books
    • ERS publications home

Login

European Respiratory Society

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • ERJ Early View
  • Past issues
  • ERS Guidelines
  • Authors/reviewers
    • Instructions for authors
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Open access
    • Peer reviewer login
    • WoS Reviewer Recognition Service
  • Alerts
  • Subscriptions

Proof of concept that most borderline Quantiferon results are true antigen-specific responses

Jonathan W. Uzorka, Lucia J.M. Kroft, Jaap A. Bakker, Erik W. van Zwet, Erik Huisman, Corine Knetsch-Prins, Cornelis J. van der Zwan, Tom H.M. Ottenhoff, Sandra M. Arend
European Respiratory Journal 2017 50: 1701630; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01630-2017
Jonathan W. Uzorka
1Dept of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
2Faculty of Medicine, Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Lucia J.M. Kroft
3Dept of Radiology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jaap A. Bakker
4Dept of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erik W. van Zwet
5Dept of Medical Statistics, Leiden University Medical Center,  Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Erik Huisman
6Municipal Health Dept (GGD Hollands Midden), Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Corine Knetsch-Prins
1Dept of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Cornelis J. van der Zwan
7Occupational Health Service (Dept of Health, Safety and the Environment), Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Tom H.M. Ottenhoff
1Dept of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Sandra M. Arend
1Dept of Infectious Diseases, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: s.m.arend@lumc.nl
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Most borderline Quantiferon results are antigen-specific responses, defying the common assumption of random variation http://ow.ly/9a0X30fQBCO

To the Editor:

Interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) such as Quantiferon (QFT) that detect T-cell responses to antigens specific for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) have superior specificity to the tuberculin skin test (TST). While IGRAs are technically robust and the test result is a simple positive or negative, the interpretation nevertheless requires thorough understanding of the test's characteristics [1]. An area of debate is that of “borderline” results near the cut-off value, mentioned first in the setting of serial screening of health care workers [2]. While different authors used different ranges of test results under this denominator, borderline results were generally attributed to random assay variability [3, 4]. In reproducibility studies, conversions and reversions were often seen around the manufacturer-recommended cut-off, with the advice to “interpret such results cautiously” [5, 6].

In clinical practice, we observed borderline IGRA results predominantly in patients with evidence of tuberculosis (TB) infection, suggesting that borderline results reflected antigen-specific responses. The aims of this study were to investigate whether borderline QFT results below the regular cut-off occur in excess of random test variability and to compare patients with negative, borderline or positive results with regard to all IGRA-independent evidence of TB infection.

This proof-of-concept retrospective study with anonymous data collection was evaluated by the Medical Ethics Committee of Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), a tertiary care teaching hospital, and waived from the requirement of informed consent (protocol G16.105). Quantiferon TB Gold in-tube® has been used at LUMC in routine practice since 2010 for clinical and outpatient departments, the occupational health service (OHS) and regional municipal health service (MHS). QFT was performed according to the manufacturer's instructions.

First, the distribution of all QFT results obtained between January 2010 and September 2016 was analysed to assess excess borderline results. Of 2985 valid QFT results, 2496 (83.6%) were negative and 489 (16.4%) were positive. There was a three-fold excess of borderline test results: 128 (5.1%) were ≥0.15 and <0.35 IU·mL−1; this range defining borderline results in this study, compared to 42 (1.7%) in the corresponding inverse range between −0.35 and −0.15 IU·mL−1 (p<0.0001), while test results between −0.15 and 0.15 IU·mL−1 were distributed perfectly symmetrical relative to zero.

Secondly, patients with borderline results were compared to all patients with a low positive result (≥0.35 and <0.7 IU·mL−1) and a random selection (blinded selection by an independent person) of patients with low negative (<0.15 IU·mL−1, n=90) or high positive (≥0.70 IU·mL−1, n=30) responses.

Clinical data were retrieved from the electronic dossiers between October 2016 and June 2017.

All of the patient population originated from the hospital setting (70%), MHS (20%) or OHS (10%). The indication for QFT was evaluation of possible active TB in two-third of patients in the hospital setting, while it was mostly detection of latent TB infection in the other two settings.

Results of the comparison between patients with low negative, borderline, and low or high positive results is shown in table 1. With increasing QFT results, there was a gradual increase in the proportion of immigrants or other risk groups, travel to TB-endemic countries, reported TB contacts and TST size. Roughly one-fifth of all patients had an impaired immune status, which was independent of the QFT result. A history of active or latent TB was present in 16/293 (5.5%) individuals, seven of whom had a borderline QFT result. The proportion of patients with a positive TST result (≥10 mm) varied from 57.4% to 91.7% in a gradient along the QFT categories. The final clinical diagnosis was not associated with the TST result (data not shown) but strongly associated with the QFT result.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
TABLE 1

Comparison between individuals by Quantiferon (QFT) test results

These findings support that borderline QFT results mostly reflected MTB-specific responses rather than random assay variability. First, borderline QFT results below the cut-off occurred in three-fold excess over the number expected based on random assay variability. Secondly, patients with borderline results were similar to those with positive results with regard to all other available evidence of TB infection, except that TST size was larger in the subgroup with the highest QFT results. There was a gradient of increasing prevalence of risk factors and indicators of TB infection in association with the quantitative QFT result, with near identical findings in patients with borderline or low positive results. This “dose-response effect” suggests a causal relation. However, risk factors and indicators of TB infection, such as high TST responses, were present in a lower but still considerable proportion of patients with a low negative QFT result as well. This reflects that QFT is used predominantly in patients with a high a priori risk of infection and underscores that a negative QFT result does not rule out past or present TB infection. A previous study showed that prolonged incubation may increase the sensitivity of IGRA in patients with past TB infection [7]. Our study reflects the use of QFT in daily practice, with indications varying from patients without a diagnosis to confirmation in those with probable TB infection.

The limited specificity of the TST plus the lack of a validated gold standard has led to the proposition that latent TB infection can be defined as a persisting immunological response to MTB with IGRA as a surrogate marker [8]. That proposition would preclude analysis of the significance of borderline QFT results because these are formally negative. While this seems a deadlock, characteristics such as a documented history of TB infection, a TST result ≥15 mm, a TST result ≥10 mm in bacillus Calmette−Guérin-unvaccinated persons or vaccinated in the first year of life, or microbiological evidence will generally be agreed upon to indicate infection with MTB. In our study, such “convincing” non-IGRA parameters were found in high frequency in patients with borderline results, indicating past or present TB infection. This highlights that all available information should be taken into account regarding evaluation of TB infection.

Among the limitations of our study are the heterogeneous population of limited size, with few patients having microbiologically proven active TB. Further research should include larger homogenous groups including follow-up to study the associated risk of active TB. Comparing QFT with ELISPOT-based IGRA, for which a borderline zone for the interpretation of results is already used [9], will be especially interesting.

The practical implications of our findings depend on the risk of active TB in persons with borderline QFT results. If our findings can be confirmed, results near the cut-off could be transformed from a grey zone of uncertainty into strata characterised by a different cut-off depending on the risk of TB, analogous to the graded cut-off for the interpretation of the TST at 5, 10 or 15 mm depending on setting and immune status [10]. More studies are needed to determine cut-off values which optimise sensitivity and specificity by setting.

Of note, Quantiferon TB Gold PLUS® was recently introduced which includes a tube with additional CD8-peptides [11]; its sensitivity was comparable to that of QFT Gold in-tube [12–15]. It remains to be determined whether the formats differ with regard to detection or prediction of active TB.

In conclusion, there was a significant excess of borderline QFT results over random variability and an association of borderline results with relevant risk factors and/or evidence of TB infection. These findings justify further research using the quantitative QFT test results.

Disclosures

Supplementary Material

S.M. Arend ERJ-01630-2017_Arend

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Robert van de Peppel at Dept of Infectious Diseases for the random selection among patients with a low negative or high positive QFT result, and Marita Danhof-Pont from the Dept of Health, Safety and the Environment for assistance with data collection at the OHS.

Footnotes

  • Support statement: T.H.M. Ottenhoff was supported by EC HORIZON2020 TBVAC2020 (contract no. 643381) (the text represents the authors' views and does not necessarily represent a position of the Commission who will not be liable for the use made of such information). Funding information for this article has been deposited with the Crossref Funder Registry.

  • Conflict of interest: Disclosures can be found alongside this article at erj.ersjournals.com

  • Received June 29, 2017.
  • Accepted August 28, 2017.
  • Copyright ©ERS 2017

References

  1. ↵
    1. Menzies D,
    2. Pai M,
    3. Comstock G
    . Meta-analysis: new tests for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection: areas of uncertainty and recommendations for research. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 340–354.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  2. ↵
    1. Ringshausen FC,
    2. Nienhaus A,
    3. Schablon A
    , et al. Predictors of persistently positive Mycobacterium-tuberculosis-specific interferon-gamma responses in the serial testing of health care workers. BMC Infect Dis 2010; 10: 220.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  3. ↵
    1. Nienhaus A,
    2. Ringshausen FC,
    3. Costa JT
    , et al. IFN-gamma release assay versus tuberculin skin test for monitoring TB infection in healthcare workers. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther 2013; 11: 37–48.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Whitworth WC,
    2. Hamilton LR,
    3. Goodwin DJ
    , et al. Within-subject interlaboratory variability of QuantiFERON-TB gold in-tube tests. PLoS One 2012; 7: e43790.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Metcalfe JZ,
    2. Cattamanchi A,
    3. McCulloch CE
    , et al. Test variability of the QuantiFERON-TB gold in-tube assay in clinical practice. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2013; 187: 206–211.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  6. ↵
    1. Tagmouti S,
    2. Slater M,
    3. Benedetti A
    , et al. Reproducibility of interferon gamma (IFN-gamma) release assays. A systematic review. Ann Am Thorac Soc 2014; 11: 1267–1276.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. ↵
    1. Leyten EM,
    2. Arend SM,
    3. Prins C
    , et al. Discrepancy between Mycobacterium tuberculosis-specific gamma interferon release assays using short and prolonged in vitro incubation. Clin Vaccine Immunol 2007; 14: 880–885.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Mack U,
    2. Migliori GB,
    3. Sester M
    , et al. LTBI: latent tuberculosis infection or lasting immune responses to M. tuberculosis? A TBNET consensus statement. Eur Respir J 2009; 33: 956–973.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. ↵
    Oxford Immunotec. T-Spot.TB package insert. Marlborough, Oxford Immunotec Inc., 2015. www.tspot.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/PI-TB-US-v5.pdf
  10. ↵
    American Thoracic Society (ATS); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Targeted tuberculin testing and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000; 161: S221−S247.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. ↵
    Qiagen. QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus. Package Inserts QFT-Plus. www.quantiferon.com/products/quantiferon-tb-gold-plus/package-inserts Date last acccessed: October 19, 2017.
  12. ↵
    1. Barcellini L,
    2. Borroni E,
    3. Brown J
    , et al. First evaluation of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus performance in contact screening. Eur Respir J 2016; 48: 1411–1419.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Barcellini L,
    2. Borroni E,
    3. Brown J
    , et al. First independent evaluation of QuantiFERON-TB Plus performance. Eur Respir J 2016; 47: 1587–1590.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    1. Hoffmann H,
    2. Avsar K,
    3. Gores R
    , et al. Equal sensitivity of the new generation QuantiFERON-TB Gold plus in direct comparison with the previous test version QuantiFERON-TB Gold IT. Clin Microbiol Infect 2016; 22: 701–703.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  13. ↵
    1. Moon HW,
    2. Gaur RL,
    3. Tien SS
    , et al. Evaluation of QuantiFERON(R)-TB Gold-Plus in healthcare workers in a low-incidence setting. J Clin Microbiol 2017; 55: 1650–1657.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
PreviousNext
Back to top
View this article with LENS
Vol 50 Issue 5 Table of Contents
European Respiratory Journal: 50 (5)
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on European Respiratory Society .

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Proof of concept that most borderline Quantiferon results are true antigen-specific responses
(Your Name) has sent you a message from European Respiratory Society
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the European Respiratory Society web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Print
Citation Tools
Proof of concept that most borderline Quantiferon results are true antigen-specific responses
Jonathan W. Uzorka, Lucia J.M. Kroft, Jaap A. Bakker, Erik W. van Zwet, Erik Huisman, Corine Knetsch-Prins, Cornelis J. van der Zwan, Tom H.M. Ottenhoff, Sandra M. Arend
European Respiratory Journal Nov 2017, 50 (5) 1701630; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01630-2017

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Proof of concept that most borderline Quantiferon results are true antigen-specific responses
Jonathan W. Uzorka, Lucia J.M. Kroft, Jaap A. Bakker, Erik W. van Zwet, Erik Huisman, Corine Knetsch-Prins, Cornelis J. van der Zwan, Tom H.M. Ottenhoff, Sandra M. Arend
European Respiratory Journal Nov 2017, 50 (5) 1701630; DOI: 10.1183/13993003.01630-2017
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Technorati logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Connotea logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
Full Text (PDF)

Jump To

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • Disclosures
    • Acknowledgements
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Info & Metrics
  • PDF

Subjects

  • Respiratory infections and tuberculosis
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

More in this TOC Section

Agora

  • Airway immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in COPD patients
  • Wider access to rifapentine-based regimens is needed for TB care globally
  • Screening for PVOD in heterozygous EIF2AK4 variant carriers
Show more Agora

Research letters

  • Airway immune responses to COVID-19 vaccination in COPD patients
  • Wider access to rifapentine-based regimens is needed for TB care globally
  • Screening for PVOD in heterozygous EIF2AK4 variant carriers
Show more Research letters

Related Articles

Navigate

  • Home
  • Current issue
  • Archive

About the ERJ

  • Journal information
  • Editorial board
  • Press
  • Permissions and reprints
  • Advertising

The European Respiratory Society

  • Society home
  • myERS
  • Privacy policy
  • Accessibility

ERS publications

  • European Respiratory Journal
  • ERJ Open Research
  • European Respiratory Review
  • Breathe
  • ERS books online
  • ERS Bookshop

Help

  • Feedback

For authors

  • Instructions for authors
  • Publication ethics and malpractice
  • Submit a manuscript

For readers

  • Alerts
  • Subjects
  • Podcasts
  • RSS

Subscriptions

  • Accessing the ERS publications

Contact us

European Respiratory Society
442 Glossop Road
Sheffield S10 2PX
United Kingdom
Tel: +44 114 2672860
Email: journals@ersnet.org

ISSN

Print ISSN:  0903-1936
Online ISSN: 1399-3003

Copyright © 2023 by the European Respiratory Society