Comparison of an in-house and a commercial RDI-based ELISPOT-IFN-γ assay for the diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection

15Citations
Citations of this article
42Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To compare a RDI-based in-house ELISPOT-interferon-γ (IFN-γ) assay with a commercial (T-SPOT.TB™) assay for the diagnosis of Mycobocterium tuberculosis (TB) infection and the efficacy of the tuberculin skin test (TST) and ELISPOT assay in detecting latent TB infection (LTBI). Design: Eighty-six subjects (65 household contacts of contagious TB-infected patients, 13 subjects with active or previous TB infection, and 8 with suspected TB infection) were consecutively recruited in the context of a surveillance program. Methods: Enrolled subjects underwent the Mantoux TST and two different ELISPOT-IFN-γ assays: an in-house assay using a pool of selected M. tuberculosis peptides (MTP) and the commercial T-SPOT.TB assay. Results: The in-house and commercial ELISPOT-IFN-γ assays showed almost complete concordance (99%) in diagnosing acute or LTBI. When comparing the efficacy of the TST with the in-house ELISPOT assay in detecting TB infection, a small agreement was observed (k=0.344, P0.0001): 36% of the subjects with a positive TST were ELISPOT-MTP negative and 12% with a negative TST were ELISPOT-MTP positive. Furthermore, 78% of the ELISPOT-MTP negative individuals were ELISPOT- Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) positive, most of whom had received BCG vaccination. Conclusion: Our in-house ELISPOT assay based on a restricted pool of highly selected peptides is equivalent to the commercial T-SPOT.TB assay, is cheaper and is probably not confounded, unlike the TST, by BCG vaccination in our setting. ©2006 Marshfield Clinic.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Mantegani, P., Piana, F., Codecasa, L., Galli, L., Scarpellini, P., Lazzarin, A., … Fortis, C. (2006). Comparison of an in-house and a commercial RDI-based ELISPOT-IFN-γ assay for the diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection. Clinical Medicine and Research, 4(4), 266–272. https://doi.org/10.3121/cmr.4.4.266

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free