Dataset Information

Comparing the Diagnostic Performance of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus to Other Tests of Latent Tuberculosis Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

We conducted a review to compare the sensitivity, specificity, reproducibility, and predictive ability of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) with that of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT; QIAGEN, Hilden, Germany) and other latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) tests.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from January 2013 through May 2020. We included studies comparing QFT-Plus with at least one other LTBI test. We estimated sensitivity from studies of patients with active tuberculosis, and specificity from studies of healthy individuals with low risk of LTBI. Three independent reviewers evaluated eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias.

Results

Compared with QFT-GIT, the sensitivity of QFT-Plus in patients with active TB was 1.3% higher (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.3% to 2.9%); in 2 studies of patients with very low probability of LTBI, the specificity was 0.9% lower (95% CI, -2.4% to 0.6%). These differences were not statistically significant. The agreement between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT was high, with a pooled Cohen's kappa statistic of 0.83 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.88). The reproducibility of QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus was similarly poor. All participants in the studies to estimate sensitivity were aged ≥15 years, and only 6 were people living with human immunodeficiency virus. We found no studies to assess predictive ability.

Conclusions

QFT-Plus has diagnostic performance that is very similar to that of QFT-GIT. Further studies are needed to assess the sensitivity of QFT-Plus in immunocompromised patients and younger children before concluding if this new version offers advantages.

SUBMITTER: Oh CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8423471 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) is an important test that has emerged in recent years for detecting TB infection. We conducted a review to compare the sensitivity, specificity and positive rate of QFT-Plus with that of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT), T-cell spot of tuberculosis assay (T-SPOT.TB) and Tuberculin test (TST).MethodsPubMed and Embase were searched, without language restrictions, from 1 January 2015 to 31 March 2022 using "Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infections" and "QuantiFERON-TB-Plus" as search phrases. We estimated the sensitivity from studies of patients with active tuberculosis, specificity from studies of populations with very low risk of TB exposure, and positive rate from studies of high-risk populations. The methodological quality of the eligible studies was assessed, and a random-effects model meta-analysis was used to determine the risk difference (RD). We assessed the pooled rate by using a random-effects model. This study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42021267432).ResultsOf 3996 studies, 83 were eligible for full-text screening and 41 were included in the meta-analysis. In patients with active TB, the sensitivity of QFT-Plus was compared to that of QFT-GIT and T-SPOT.TB, respectively, and no statistically differences were found. In populations with a very low risk of TB exposure, the specificity of QFT-Plus was compared with that of QFT-GTI and T-SPOT.TB, respectively, and no statistically differences were found. Two studies were eligible to compare the specificity of the QFT-Plus test with that of the TST test, and the pooled RD was 0.12 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.22). In high-risk populations, 18 studies were eligible to compare the positive rate of the QFT-Plus test with that of the QFT-GIT test, and the pooled RD was 0.02 (95% CI 0.01 to 0.03). The positive rate of QFT-Plus was compared with that of T-SPOT.TB and TST groups, and no statistically differences were found.ConclusionsThe diagnostic performance of QFT-Plus was similar to that of QFT-GIT and T-SPOT.TB, but was slightly more specific than TST.