3.9 Article

Reproducibility of QuantiFERON-TB gold in-tube assay

期刊

CLINICAL AND VACCINE IMMUNOLOGY
卷 15, 期 3, 页码 425-432

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/CVI.00398-07

关键词

-

资金

  1. Thrasher Research Fund
  2. NIH/NIAID [K23 AI054443]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ALLERGY AND INFECTIOUS DISEASES [K23AI054443, R01AI042801] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Studies are needed to characterize the reproducibility of QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT-G) for targeted U. S. screening populations. Members of northern California households were tested with the QFT-G in-tube assay (QFT-G-IT) at two home visits 3 months apart. Reproducibility and agreement with the tuberculin skin test (TST) were assessed. Monte Carlo simulation was used to evaluate the role of test-related error. Of 63 individuals (49 adults and 14 children) completing QFT-G-IT at both time points, 79% were foreign-born (98% from Latin America) and 68% reported Mycobacterium bovis BCG vaccination. At the baseline visit, 23 (37%) were TST positive and 15 (24%) were QFT-G-IT positive (kappa = 0.48 [ +/- 0.11]). At 3 months, 3/48 (6.3%; 95% confidence interval [ 95CI], 2 to 17) of those initially QFT-G-IT negative converted, and 5/15 (33%; 95CI, 15 to 58) of those initially QFT-G-IT positive reverted. Among the 8 individuals with inconsistent QFT-G-IT results, the maximum gamma interferon response at either visit was 0.68 IU/ml versus means of 4.99 (+/- 3.74) and 6.95 (+/- 5.6) for 10 persistent positives at the first and second visits, respectively. Expected false-reversion and - conversion rates were 32% (90CI, 25 to 39%) and 6.95% (90CI, 4.6 to 9.8%) when the sensitivity and specificity were assumed to average 70% and 98%, respectively. Transient responses to QFT-G-IT are common, and low positive results need to be interpreted with caution. Further studies are needed to characterize the predictive value of the test for U. S. foreign-born and other targeted screening populations.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据