4.6 Article

Factors that Predict Negative Results of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube Test in Patients with Culture-Confirmed Tuberculosis: A Multicenter Retrospective Cohort Study

Journal

PLOS ONE
Volume 10, Issue 6, Pages -

Publisher

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0129792

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Korean Health technology R&D Project, Ministry for Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI13C0871]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Interferon-gamma release assays such as the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube Test (QFT-GIT) are designed to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis infections, whether latent or manifesting as disease. However, a substantial number of persons with culture-confirmed tuberculosis (TB) have negative QFT-GITs. Information on host factors contributing to false-negative and indeterminate results are limited. Methods A multicenter retrospective cohort study was performed with 1,264 culture-confirmed TB patients older than 18 years who were subjected to the QFT-GIT at one of the six hospitals between May 2007 and February 2014. Patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection were excluded. Clinical and laboratory data were collected in South Korea. Results Of all patients, 87.6% (1,107/1,264) were diagnosed with pulmonary TB and 12.4% (157/1,264) with extrapulmonary TB. The rate of negative results was 14.4% (182/1,264). The following factors were highly correlated with false-negative results in the QFT-GIT: advanced age (age >= 65 years, odds ratio [OR] 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03-2.39), bilateral disease as determined by chest radiography (OR 1.75, 95% CI 1.13-2.72), malignancy (OR 2.42, 95% CI 1.30-4.49), and lymphocytopenia (total lymphocyte count < 1.0 x 10(9)/L, OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.21-2.87). Conclusions Consequently, QFT-GIT results need to be interpreted with caution in patients with these host risk factors such as the elderly, bilateral disease on chest radiography, or malignancy, or lymphocytopenia.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available