Koch To Quantiferon

Uploaded on

Emerging Infectious Disease Epidemiology at University of South Carolina

Emerging Infectious Disease Epidemiology at University of South Carolina

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Koch to Quantiferon: An Overview of Tuberculosis testing in the United States Jamie Ritchey, MPH April 28, 2008 EPID 755: Emerging Infectious Diseases
  • 2. Overview
    • Tuberculosis: Basics and brief History
    • Screening test validity: Specificity, Sensitivity, Positive Predictive value, Negative predictive value and disease prevalence
    • Tuberculin test
    • Background, specificity, sensitivity, PPV, NPV, strengths and weaknesses
    • Quantiferon-TB in a tube test
    • Background, specificity, sensitivity, PPV, NPV, strengths and weaknesses
    • Public Health Recommendations for Tuberculosis screening in the United States
  • 3. TB Basics
    • Tuberculosis (TB) in humans is caused by a mycobacterium tubercle bacillus
    • TB commonly infects the lungs (pulmonary TB), but can also infect the skin, bones, joints, central nervous, genitourinary, circulatory and lymphatic system(s)
    • Active pulmonary TB include chest pain, bloody sputum, fever, chills, weight loss, pallor, and fatigue
    • Latent disease is more common
    • One of the most deadly diseases globally - nearly 2 million people still dying world wide -death is largely preventable
    • TB has been considered an Emerging Infectious Disease not due to crossing of a species, but due to its resistance to several drug therapies further complicating disease management and a rapid increase in incidence in many populations
    CDC. Questions and Answers About TB, 2007. http://www.cdc.gov/tb/faqs/qa_introduction.htm#Intro1
  • 4. History of TB up to Tuberculin test
    • Rothschild et al. reported the oldest Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA extracted from a bison over 18,000 years ago ( Rothchild, 2001 ).
    • Remains of both pre-humans and mummies have shown TB infection in bones dated from 4000- 2400 B.C. (National Tuberculosis Center, 1996)
    • Phthisis a Greek term for TB was also described by Hippocrates in 460 B.C. (National Tuberculosis Center, 1996)
    • There is evidence of TB in the Paracas-Caverna culture from 750 BC- 100 AD ( South America Pre-historic findings, 2008 )
    • Biblical references to TB as well ( Daniel, 1999 )
    • In the seventeenth century, Italian medical texts began to describe the pathology and infectious nature of the disease (National Tuberculosis Center, 1996)
    • Brehmer , a botany student, retreated to the Himalayans after becoming infected with TB and attributed the fresh air to his recovery concept of Sanatoria was developed (National Tuberculosis Center, 1996)
    • Robert Koch discovered tubercle bacillus the causative agent of TB based on his famous postulates and published his classic paper in 1882
    • Koch believed tuberculin would cure TB, he discovered this later became the tuberculin skin test used for diagnosis of TB exposure, which is still commonly used today about 118 years later
  • 5. Basics of Screening Test Validity
    • Sensitivity: the ability of the test to produce a positive result in patients that have TB
    • Specificity: the ability of the test to produce a negative result in patients that do not have TB
    • Positive predictive value (PPV): if the patient has a positive tuberculin test, the probability that the patient actually has TB
    • Negative predictive value (NPV): if the patient has a negative tuberculin test, what is the probability that the patient does not have TB
    Gordis, 2000; Szklo and Nieto, 2007 203 Specificity 182/200= 91% Sensitivity 2/3 = 66.7% Total NPV 182 / 183= 99.5% True negative 182 False negative Type II error 1 Negative Test PPV 2 / 2+18= 10% False positive Type I error 18 True positive 2 Positive test Predictive value “ False” “ True” Screening Test result
  • 6. Basics of Screening Test Validity
    • Here, we can see the relationship between the prevalence of disease,
    • The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value.
    • As the prevalence decreases, we can see that increasing the specificity
    • Of a test has more of an impact on PPV compared to sensitivity
    • Note that the prevalence estimate for TB in 1971-72 was estimated to be
    • 21.5% (95% CI 17.9-25.1) and may have been subject to sampling variability
    • which would impact the PPV (Engel and Roberts, 1977).
    56% 31% 20% 50% PPV 90% 50% 50% 50% Specificity 50% 90% 50% 50% Sensitivity 20% 20% 20% 50% Prevalence Test 4 Test 3 Test 2 Test 1 Measure
  • 7. Tuberculin skin test Background
    • OT “Old Tuberculin” developed by Koch 1890’s
    • PPD-S developed in 1939 (Seibert) the International Standard for Purified Protein Derivative of Mammalian Tuberculin by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization
    • TB skin test is administered by 0.1 ml PPD containing 5 TU injected into the arm to test for exposure to TB and/or latent TB infection
    • TB tests should be analyzed on the second or third day
    • Cut-point of 10mm or larger is generally used as indicative of TB infection, but is subjective (sensitivity)
  • 8. Tuberculin skin test Specificity
    • Historical issue: Pulmonary calcifications, true negatives classified as false negatives
    • Environmental Mycobacteria cross-reactions increases false positives
    • Baccille Calmette-Guerin (BGG) vaccine increases false positives
  • 9. Tuberculin skin test Specificity: Historic Misclassification due to Pulmonary calcifications ***Lowers the NPV, specificity, and sensitivity Specificity 182 / 200= 91% 2/20= 10% Sensitivity 2/3= 66.7% 2 / 182= 1% Total NPV 182/183= 99.5% 2 / 182= 1%
    • True negative
    • 182
    • 180
    • 2
    • False negative
    • 1
    • 181
    Negative PPV = 10% False positive 18 True positive 2 Positive Predictive Value False True Test Result
  • 10. Tuberculin skin test Specificity: False positive test results ***Lowers the NPV, specificity, and sensitivity Specificity 182 / 200= 91% 2 / 200= 1% Sensitivity 2/3= 66.7% Total NPV 182/183= 99.5% 2 / 3= 66.7% True negative 182 180 2 False negative 1 Negative PPV = 10% 2 / 200= 1% False positive 18 180 198 True positive 2 Positive Predictive Value False True Test Result
  • 11. Tuberculin skin test Sensitivity
    • Cut-off point of test impacts
    • sensitivity >10mm is typically used
    • Rose et al. calculated
    • sensitivity as 100% at a 2mm
    • cut-off, yet 59% at a 16mm
    • HIV infection, immunosuppressive
    • chemotherapy, malnutrition,
    • improper administration of the test
    • and younger patient age
  • 12. Tuberculin skin test Sensitivity: inability to mount an immune response (HIV +, malnutrition, chemo) **False negative results cause a drop in sensitivity, PPV and NPV Specificity 182 / 200= 91% Sensitivity 2/3= 66.7% 1/3= 33.3% Total NPV 182/183= 99.5% 182/184= 98.9% True negative 182 False negative 1 1 2 Negative PPV 2/18= 10% 1/18= 5.6% False positive 18 True positive 2 1 Positive Predictive Value False True Test Result
  • 13. Tuberculin skin test Cost
    • Test itself is low cost, yet manpower and false positive cases are expensive
    • Public health departments TB programs costs for health care workers ranged from $92,886 - $291,248 while hospital programs ranged from $66,564-$332,728 (Lambert, 2003)
    • Per health care worker, TST programs in health departments ranged in cost from $176-$264 and $41-$362 at hospitals (Lambert, 2003)
    • Dasgupta investigated cost of screening immigrant populations prior to and after US arrival, and case-contact screening: if only considering the treatment for latent tuberculosis infections, screening all of these resulted in a cost savings for future TB case prevention
  • 14. Tuberculin skin test Strengths and Weaknesses
    • The PPD-S has been purified and standardized
    • The test is largely safe with very few allergic reactions
    • The limitations of the test have been widely researched
    • Test itself is inexpensive
    • Many providers are already trained
    • in the test use
    • No additional supplies are needed
    • In low incidence countries like the United States, many false positives occur
    • TST reacts to other tuberculin in the environment and can cause false positives
    • Slow results: 48-72 hours
    • Requires a repeat visit to provider for diagnosis, often resulting in non-compliance of patients
    • Potential bias related to test placement on patient
    • Potential bias related to physician analysis of reaction
    • Can be administered incorrectly leading to a false negative result
    • The cost of follow up care for false-positives are high
  • 15. Quantiferon-TB in a tube test Background
    • Operational definitions
    • Enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELIZA): a biochemical test used to detect antibody or antigen in a blood sample
    • Interferon gamma: a type II interferon that is secreted by T lymphocytes, dendritic cells and natural killer cells.
    • Approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2005 to diagnose both latent and active TB infection
    • QTF-G is an interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA)
    • Test work by measuring patient blood antigen-specific T-cell responses to structural antigenic target-6 (ESAT-6) and the culture filtrate protein-10 (CFP-10) that come from the region of difference-1 (RD-1) from the M. tuberculosis genome
    • In a tube simplifies the laboratory needs compared to the original Quantiferon-TB Gold test
  • 16. Quantiferon-TB in a tube test Specificity and Sensitivity
    • Specificity
    • 80% in published studies (CDC)
    • 98% in BCG vaccinated persons (Cellestis)
    • The results of the QTF-TB in tube are unaffected by vaccination due to components used in test
    • The test components are largely different from most environmental Mycobacteria, specificity problems will occur less often than TST
    • Sensitivity
    • Still under question (CDC)
    • As high as 90% in confirmed TB cases (Cellestis)
    • Correct to test sensitivity with 100% prevalence of disease?
  • 17. Quantiferon-TB in a tube test Cost
    • In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention set forth a recommendation to replace Tuberculin testing with the Quantiferon
    • Test total cost of QFT is about $33.67 per person ( Cellestis , 2008 ) [Recall: Per health care worker, TST programs in health departments ranged in cost from $176-$264 and $41-$362 at hospitals (Lambert, 2003)]
    • Test produces lower number of false positives, the costs to the medical care system will represent a substantial savings after initial investment (equipment, training, etc.) (Taylor, 2001)
  • 18. Quantiferon-TB in a tube test Strengths and Limitations
    • Test results are a simple “yes or no” no subjective interpretations
    • Test Results can be compiled in shorter period of time
    • No repeated physician visits
    • High specificity and sensitivity in low incidence countries like the United States (Shingadia, 2008)
    • M. tuberculosis complex is separate from the BCG vaccine components, and the majority of other environmental mycobacterium eliminating almost all false positives
    • In industrialized countries, the test may be less expensive given high number of false positive tuberculin skin tests that need expensive follow up care
    • Will not cause allergic reactions
    • QFT-TB in tube was found to be more effective testing method than TST in immunocompromised individuals (Kobashi, 2007)
    • Test itself is expensive
    • Initial investment: requires additional training of staff
    • May require the purchase of new/ additional equipment
    • Indeterminate QTF-TB in tube tests will need to be followed up
    • Sensitivity of the test remains largely undetermined
  • 19. Recommendations
    • The Tuberculin skin test has been an important diagnostic tool for TB since 1890, but a better test has been needed. Federal funding should be used to phase out of use of TST testing in the United States.
    • Quantiferon-TB Gold in a tube testing should replace the TST used for screening in high risk populations in the United States
    • Quantiferon-TB Gold in a tube should be used to screen all applicants immigrating into the United States from high TB prevalence countries in an effort to reduce the TB burden in the United States
    • Further studies focusing on Children <=5 years of age for Quantiferon-TB Gold in a tube testing should be performed
  • 20. Acknowledgements
    • Dr. E. Brenner
    • Dr. Phyllis Edwards
  • 21.
    • American Thoracic Society and the American Lung Association (1981). The Tuberculin Skin Test- 1981. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Joint A Statement of American Thoracic Society and Centers for Disease Control. 1-8.
    • Besser RE, Pakiz B, Schulte JM, Alvarado S, Zell ER, Kenyon TA, et al. Risk factors for positive Mantoux tuberculin skin tests in children in San Diego, California: evidence for boosting and possible foodborne transmission. Pediatrics. 2001;108:305–10.
    • Brock, T.D. (1999) Robert Koch: A Life in Medicine and Bacteriology. ASM Press. ISBN: 55581-143-3.
    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Tuberculosis Elimination (2007). Questions and Answers About TB, 2007. Accessed April 2008.
    • http://www.cdc.gov/tb/faqs/qa_introduction.htm#Intro1
    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Tuberculosis Elimination (2007) Glossary of Terms Related to TB. Accessed April 2008.
    • http://www.cdc.gov/tb/faqs/qa_glossary.htm#Active
    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2005). Guidelines for Using the QuantiFERON-TB Gold Test for Detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infection, United States. MMWR 54(RR15) 455.
    • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2007) TB Elimination Tuberculin Skin Testing. Accessed April 2008. http:// www.cdc.gov/tb/pubs/tbfactsheets/skintesting.pdf
    • Cellestis. (2008). QuantiFERON-TB Gold in-tube fact sheet.
    • Daniel, V.S and Daniel, T.M. (1999) Old Testament Biblical references to Tuberculosis. CID 29: 1557-1558.
    • Dasgupta, K. et al. (2000). Comparison of Cost effectiveness of tuberculosis screening of close contacts and foreign-born populations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2000 162: 2079-2086.
    • Edwards, P.Q. and Edwards, L.B. (1960) Story of the Tuberculin Test From an Epidemiologic Viewpoint. Tuberculosis Program, Division of Special Health Services Public Health Service,
    • Department of Education and Welfare, Washington, D.C. 81 (1): 1-47.
    • Edwards, P. (1969) Significance of the Tuberculin Test Today. US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare from Clinical Notes on Respiratory Diseases. 8 (2): 3-12.
    • Engels, A. and Roberts, J. (1977) Tuberculin Skin Test Reaction Among Adults 25-74 Years, United States, 1971-72. US Department of Health, Education and Welfare. Hyattsville, MD. DHEW Publication No. (HRA) 77-1649.
    • Fine PEM, Carneiro IAM, Milstein JB, Clements CJ. (1999). Issues relating to the use of BCG in immunisation preogrammes. Geneva: WHO .  
    • Froehlich H, Ackerson LM, Morozumi PA. Targeted testing of children for tuberculosis: validation of a risk assessment questionnaire. Pediatrics. 2001;107:E54.
    • Gordis, L. (2000) Epidemiology. Second edition. W.B. Suanders Company, New York.
    • Kaufmann, S.H.E. and Schaible, U.E. (2005) 100th Anniversary of Robert Koch’s Nobel Prize for the discovery of the tubercle bacillus. Trends in Microbiology 13 (10): 469-475.
    • Huebner RE, Schein MF, Bass JB Jr. The tuberculin skin test. Clin Infect Dis. 1993;17:968–75.
    • Institute of Medicine (IOM). Ending Neglect: the elimination of tuberculosis in the United States. Washington DC: National Academy Press; 2000.
    • Kobashi, et al. (2007). Clinical Evaluation of Quantiferon TB 2-G test for immunocompromised patients. Eur Respir J 30: 945-950.
    • Lobato MN, Hopewell PC. Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection after travel to or contact with visitors from countries with a high prevalence of tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158:1871–5.
    • Lowin A, Slater J, Hall J, Alperstein G. Cost effectiveness analysis of school based Mantoux screening for TB infection. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000;24:247–53.
    • Mazurek, G.H., et al. (2005) Guidelines for using the Quantiferon-TB Gold Test for Detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infection, United States. MMWR. December 16, 2005.
    • McCater, J. Getz, H.R., and Stiehm, R.H. A comparison of intracutaneous reactions in man to the purified protein derivatives of several species of acid-fast bacteria. Am J M Sc, 1938, 195, 479.
    • Mohle-Boetani JC, Miller B, Halpern M, Trivedi A, Lessler J, Solomon SL, et al. School-based screening for tuberculous infection. A cost-benefit analysis. JAMA. 1995;274:613–9.
    • National Tuberculosis Center (NJMS) (1996) Brief History of Tuberculosis.
    • http://www.umdnj.edu/~ntbcweb/history.htm
    • Nobelprize.org.Robert Koch and Tuberculosis. Accessed April 2008.
    • http://nobelprize.org/educational_games/medicine/tuberculosis/readmore.html
    • Ozuah PO, Ozuah TP, Stein REK, Burton W, Mulvihill M. Evaluation of a risk assessment questionnaire used to target tuberculin skin testing in children. JAMA. 2001:285:451–3.
    • Ozuah PO, Ozuah M. Screening children for tuberculosis based on residence in a high-prevalence inner-city community. J Natl Med Assoc. 2002;94:119–20.
    • Pai, M. (2005) Alternatives to the tuberculin skin test: Interferon-gamma assays in the diagnosis of Mycobacterium Tuberculosis infection. Indian Journal of Medical Microbiology 23 (3): 151-8.
    • Pearce-Duvet, J.M. (2006) The origin of human pathogens: evaluating the role of Agriculture and domestic animals in the evolution of human disease. Biol Rev Camb
    • Philos Soc 81 (3): 369-82. E-publication 2006, May 4.
    • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16672105
    • Rose D., Schecter C., Adler J. (1995) Interpretation of the tuberculin skin test. J Gen Intern Med 110: 635-42.
    • Rothschild B, Martin L, Lev G, Bercovier H, Bar-Gal G, Greenblatt C, Donoghue H, Spigelman M, Brittain D (2001). &quot;Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex DNA from an extinct bison dated 17,000 years before the present&quot;. Clin Infect Dis 33 (3): 305-11.
    • Saiman, L, San Gabriel P, Schulte J, Vargas MP, Kenyon T, Onorato I. Risk factors for latent tuberculosis infection among children in New York City. Pediatrics. 2001;107:999–1003.
    • South American PreHistoric Findings. Memorias do Instituto Oswaldo Cruz , Vol. 98 (Suppl.I) January 2003. http://memorias.ioc.fiocruz.br/98sup/6psa.html
    • Shingadia, D. and Novelli, V. (2008). The tuberculin skin test: a hundred, not out? Arch Dis Child 93 (3): 189-190.
    • Snider DE Jr. The tuberculin skin test. Am Rev Respir Dis. 1982;125:108–18.
    • Szklo, M. and Nieto, F.J. (2007) Epidemiology Beyond the Basics. Second edition. Jones and Bartlett, Sudbury, MA.
    • Tweddle, NE and Livingstone, P. (1994) Bovine tuberculosis control and eradication programs in Australia and New Zealand. Vet Microbiol 40 (1-2): 23-39.
    • http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8073626
    • World Health Organization Expert Committee on Biological Standardization. Fifth Report. World Health Organization. Technical Report Series, 1952. 56, 6.
    • Wikipedia, Tuberculosis. Accessed March 2008.
    • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuberculosis
    • Zink A, Sola C, Reischl U, Grabner W, Rastogi N, Wolf H, Nerlich A (2003). &quot;Characterization of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex DNAs from Egyptian mummies by spoligotyping&quot;. J Clin Microbiol 41 (1): 359-67.