Combination of Blood Routine Examination and T-SPOT.TB Assay for Distinguishing Between Active Tuberculosis and Latent Tuberculosis Infection

• Main Authors: Ying Luo, Guoxing Tang, Xu Yuan, Qun Lin, Liyan Mao, Huijuan Song, Ying Xue, Shiji Wu, Renren Ouyang, Hongyan Hou, Feng Wang, Ziyong Sun
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-06-01
• Series: Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
• Subjects: active tuberculosis; latent tuberculosis infection; differential diagnosis; diagnostic model; blood routine examination; T-SPOT.TB
• Online Access: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fcimb.2021.575650/full

BackgroundDistinguishing between active tuberculosis (ATB) and latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) remains challenging.MethodsBetween 2013 and 2019, 2,059 (1,097 ATB and 962 LTBI) and another 883 (372 ATB and 511 LTBI) participants were recruited based on positive T-SPOT.TB (T-SPOT) results from Qiaokou (training) and Caidian (validation) cohorts, respectively. Blood routine examination (BRE) was performed simultaneously. Diagnostic model was established according to multivariate logistic regression.ResultsSignificant differences were observed in all indicators of BRE and T-SPOT assay between ATB and LTBI. Diagnostic model built on BRE showed area under the curve (AUC) of 0.846 and 0.850 for discriminating ATB from LTBI in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. Meanwhile, TB-specific antigens spot-forming cells (SFC) (the larger of early secreted antigenic target 6 and culture filtrate protein 10 SFC in T-SPOT assay) produced lower AUC of 0.775 and 0.800 in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. The diagnostic model based on combination of BRE and T-SPOT showed an AUC of 0.909 for differentiating ATB from LTBI, with 78.03% sensitivity and 90.23% specificity when a cutoff value of 0.587 was used in the training cohort. Application of the model to the validation cohort showed similar performance. The AUC, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.910, 78.23%, and 90.02%, respectively. Furthermore, we also assessed the performance of our model in differentiating ATB from LTBI with lung lesions. Receiver operating characteristic analysis showed that the AUC of established model was 0.885, while a threshold of 0.587 yield a sensitivity of 78.03% and a specificity of 85.69%, respectively.ConclusionsThe diagnostic model based on combination of BRE and T-SPOT could provide a reliable differentiation between ATB and LTBI.