ライフサイエンスコーパス: QFT

1 QFT conversions occurred in 17/147 participants (11.6%;

2 QFT conversions were defined as baseline IFN-gamma less

3 QFT negative, HIV uninfected young children aged 18-24 w

4 QFT positivity was independently associated with househo

5 QFT reversion risk was inversely associated with interfe

6 QFT reversions occurred in 2/28 participants (7%) with b

7 QFT reversions were defined as baseline IFN-gamma greate

8 QFT was positive in 208 (70.1%) patients and ATT was ins

9 QFT was significantly more sensitive (72.2%) than TST (5

10 QFT-GIT implementation for LTBI evaluation in a public h

11 QFT-GIT results should be carefully interpreted, particu

12 QFT-GIT supernatants from 13 people with concordant posi

13 QFT-GIT testing had no impact on treatment initiation or

14 QFT-negative participants received two vaccinations of d

15 QFT-Plus had similar concordance as QFT-GIT with TST (77

16 QFT-Plus was considered positive if either antigen tube

17 tions, of which 27 observational studies (17 QFT-GIT and 10 T-SPOT) evaluating 590 human immunodefici

18 IGRA result, tuberculosis incidence was 0.2 (QFT) and 0 (TSPOT) per 100 patient-years when contacts r

19 received preventive chemotherapy versus 1.2 (QFT) and 0.8 (TSPOT) per 100 patient-years in those not

20 te the quantitative relation between day 336 QFT value and subsequent disease risk, and we compared d

21 5 [0.3%] current active TB, and 594 [32.4%] QFT-positive without previous or current active TB).

22 ngle-step TST plus QFT Gold In-Tube; and (4) QFT Gold In-Tube (or QFT Gold Plus) alone.

23 cted persons (T-SPOT, 52% [95% CI, 40%-63%]; QFT-GIT, 50% [95% CI, 35%-65%]).

24 tive value of all tests was high (TST 97.7%, QFT 98.6%, TSPOT 97.6%).

25 participants (T-SPOT, 61% [95% CI, 40%-79%]; QFT-GIT, 52% [95% CI, 41%-62%]) and among HIV-infected p

26 Among 91 QFT converters who were given a repeat test, 53 (58%) re

27 Of all 92 QFT-G-positive patients, culture-proven active TB was ob

28 The best estimate of a QFT level separating TB-positive and TB-negative patient

29 A conservative definition of a QFT-Plus-positive result yielded a positivity rate of 1.

30 Of all QFT-G-positive patients with uveitis, 17 patients had ch

31 results, and conversion rates with alternate QFT cutoffs.

32 Among QFT-Plus-positive participants in pregnancy, Mycobacteri

33 ncident tuberculosis was 8-fold higher among QFT reverters than in participants with all negative QFT

34 ivity (>/=10 mm) ranged from 15% to 42%, and QFT positivity rates ranged from 13% to 20%.

35 lts between QFT and QFT-Plus TB1 (84.8%) and QFT and QFT-Plus TB2 (88.6%) fell within the range of 0.

36 A bridge between entanglement and QFT will allow incorporating a spectral analysis to the

37 dy showed high agreement between QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus in a direct comparison.

38 nd TST conversion concordance was higher and QFT reversion rates were lower than reported in low-burd

39 se risk was not significantly increased, and QFT reversion was common, following QFT conversion at in

40 Agreement between TST (10 mm increment) and QFT conversions (>or= 0.70 IU/ml) was 96% (kappa = 0.70)

41 ale sex, and ages of 60 years and older, and QFT-only positive results associated with male sex and a

42 fference in sensitivity between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT in active TB patients was not significant in nea

43 k groups, the agreement between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT was 89.9 to 96.0% (kappa coefficient range, 0.80

44 ts showed 94% agreement between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT, with 19% positive and 75% negative results.

45 doses and regimens to both QFT-positive and QFT-negative individuals.

46 Subsequently, QFT-positive and QFT-negative participants were randomized to receive two

47 ecognition was evaluated in QFT-positive and QFT-negative South African adolescents.

48 jority of discordant results between QFT and QFT-Plus TB1 (84.8%) and QFT and QFT-Plus TB2 (88.6%) fe

49 een QFT and QFT-Plus TB1 (84.8%) and QFT and QFT-Plus TB2 (88.6%) fell within the range of 0.2 to 0.7

50 3.2) and 3.0% (CI, 1.7 to 4.3) with QFT and QFT-Plus, respectively.

51 al of 989 HCWs were tested with both QFT and QFT-Plus.

52 Although TST and QFT concordance was high (kappa = 0.78), 1.0% of PTST an

53 Half of the participants had TST and QFT performed at additional time points.

54 not be classified due to discordant TST and QFT results.

55 >=1.00 IU/mL QFT, >=8 spots TSPOT), TST and QFT specificity was significantly lower than TSPOT.

56 sed sample of concurrently performed TST and QFT tests in a low tuberculosis incidence population, pr

57 I were generally similar between the TST and QFT-GIT.

58 Annualized QFT and TST conversion risks were 14.0 and 13.0%, respec

59 QFT-Plus had similar concordance as QFT-GIT with TST (77% and 77%, respectively) and T-SPOT

60 The QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube assay (QFT) is increasingly being used for latent tuberculosis

61 of serial QuantiFERON-TB gold in-tube assay (QFT) testing on 149 patients with active tuberculosis an

62 ng to the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube assay (QFT) to receive a weekly oral dose of either 14,000 IU o

63 cy of the QuantiFERON-TB gold in-tube assay (QFT-GIT) were measured.

64 on of the QuantiFERON-TB Gold in-tube assay (QFT-IT) prior to large-scale implementation at the Stanf

65 ly associated with interferon-gamma value at QFT conversion and was highest with interferon-gamma val

66 The study showed high agreement between QFT-GIT and QFT-Plus in a direct comparison.

67 ists for information about agreement between QFT-Plus and other tests.

68 mong high-risk groups, the agreement between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT was 89.9 to 96.0% (kappa coefficien

69 06 participants showed 94% agreement between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT, with 19% positive and 75% negative

70 risk, and we compared disease rates between QFT strata using a two-sample Poisson test.

71 The majority of discordant results between QFT and QFT-Plus TB1 (84.8%) and QFT and QFT-Plus TB2 (8

72 The difference in sensitivity between QFT-Plus and QFT-GIT in active TB patients was not signi

73 e, gender and residence were similar between QFT-G positive and negative groups.

74 bility of vaccine doses and regimens to both QFT-positive and QFT-negative individuals.

75 A total of 989 HCWs were tested with both QFT and QFT-Plus.

76 was 4.4% as measured by the TST and 4.8% by QFT-GIT, corresponding to 12,398,000 and 13,628,000 indi

77 ositive for 125 (5.2%) by TST, 118 (4.9%) by QFT-GIT, and 144 (6.0%) by T-SPOT.

78 R- KTRs who received prophylaxis, CMV-CMI by QFT-CMV increased over time.

79 When infection status was defined by QFT, enrichment of Type I IFN and antiviral gene signatu

80 When infection status was defined by QFT, enrichment of type I interferon was observed.

81 ordance for 15 of 170 (8.8%) participants by QFT-GIT and for 19 of 151 (12.6%) by T-SPOT when blood w

82 (75%), 48 (19%), and 14 (6%) were tested by QFT, T-SPOT.TB, or TST, respectively.

83 rs (HCWs) at a single U.S. center to compare QFT-Plus to QuantiFERON-TB Gold in-tube (QFT).

84 es for exposure to tuberculosis and compared QFT-GIT and TST performance in risk groups adjusting dem

85 Studies comparing QFT-Plus to QFT-GIT currently do not support the superio

86 By contrast, QFT conversion at very high interferon-gamma values (>4.

87 ollow-up testing, of 11 HCWs with discordant QFT-Plus results, 90.9% (10/11) had a negative QFT resul

88 ict case definitions were used that excluded QFT results.

89 sed, and QFT reversion was common, following QFT conversion at interferon-gamma values up to 10 times

90 For QFT converters, the TB incidence rate (all cases) was 1.

91 t incident TB waned for all tests (61.0% for QFT-GIT >=0.35 IU/ml vs. 23.2% for >=4.00 IU/ml; 65.4% f

92 e value with the higher thresholds (3.0% for QFT-GIT >=0.35 IU/ml vs. 3.6% for >=4.00 IU/ml; 3.4% for

93 nd 21 of 2,293 (0.9%) for TST (P < 0.001 for QFT-GIT vs. TST and for T-SPOT vs. TST; P = 0.005 for QF

94 s. TST and for T-SPOT vs. TST; P = 0.005 for QFT-GIT vs. T-SPOT).

95 he study period were 138 of 2,263 (6.1%) for QFT-GIT, 177 of 2,137 (8.3%) for T-SPOT, and 21 of 2,293

96 ment over the reported rates of 5 to 40% for QFT-IT.

97 2%) for T-SPOT and 60% (95% CI, 34%-82%) for QFT-GIT.

98 Blood for QFT was obtained pre-randomization.

99 e low-risk population was slightly lower for QFT-Plus than for QFT-GIT, with the difference ranging f

100 (0.32% [95% CI, 0.03-1.14]) was observed for QFT nonconverters.

101 all patients, 13% (92/710) were positive for QFT-G.

102 ing and laboratory tests were registered for QFT-G-positive patients with uveitis.

103 tudy to assess agreement of test results for QFT-Plus with those of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-

104 dless of clinical suspicion, were tested for QFT-G.

105 ion was slightly lower for QFT-Plus than for QFT-GIT, with the difference ranging from -7.4 to 0%.

106 ons: Implementation of higher thresholds for QFT-GIT, T-SPOT.TB, and TST modestly increases positive

107 erminants of a positive QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT) assay result in children aged 6-13 years attending

108 rculin skin test (TST), QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT-G), and T-SPOT.TB.

109 ere concordantly TST-/ quantiferon-TB Gold- (QFT-), and 16.3% converted to TST+/QFT+ LTBI.

110 uggestive of ocular TB, 267 patients who had QFT and complete data were evaluated.

111 A significantly higher QFT cutoff value is needed to match the historical TST c

112 However, QFT conversion at interferon-gamma values higher than 4.

113 pants were concurrently tested with 2 IGRAs (QFT-GIT from Qiagen and TSPOT from Oxford Immunotec) and

114 ee IGRA antigen recognition was evaluated in QFT-positive and QFT-negative South African adolescents.

115 ients with unexplained uveitis was higher in QFT-G-positive patients.

116 th uveitis of unknown etiology was higher in QFT-G-positive than in the QFT-G-negative patients (54/9

117 ESAT-6 was only immunogenic in QFT-negative participants who received three vaccination

118 adolescents, levels of IFN-gamma released in QFT and ESAT-6-free IGRA were highly correlated (P < .00

119 BCG revaccination in QFT-test negative, HIV-negative adolescents did not prov

120 The threshold between TB and non-TB in QFT values was implausibly low and removing QFT from the

121 l underwent evaluation for uveitis including QFT-G testing.

122 A detailed analysis of indeterminate QFT-GIT assay results is presented.

123 The initial QFT showed positive results in 32 (10.5%) and 24 (20.0%)

124 When longitudinal QFT data were analyzed in a cross-sectional manner, the

125 st cutoffs evaluated (15mm TST, >=1.00 IU/mL QFT, >=8 spots TSPOT), TST and QFT specificity was signi

126 andard U.S. cutoffs (>=5mm TST, >=0.35 IU/mL QFT, >=8 spots TSPOT).

127 d the QFT results from HCWs with two or more QFT tests performed between June 2008 and July 2010 at a

128 A total of 9,153 HCWs with two or more QFT tests were included in the analysis.

129 T-Plus results, 90.9% (10/11) had a negative QFT result.

130 rters than in participants with all negative QFT results (1.47 vs. 0.18 cases/100 person-years, P = 0

131 A total of 216 contacts had negative QFT result at baseline, with 179 (82.9%) completing foll

132 For participants with initial negative QFT, positive QFT conversion within a 2-year follow-up w

133 t often in the direction of QFT-GIT negative/QFT-Plus positive.

134 Twenty-nine QFT-G-positive patients with otherwise unexplained uveit

135 No QFT differences were observed between placebo and MVA85A

136 ere independent risk factors for nonpositive QFT-GIT results.

137 Other prominent markers in nonstimulated QFT-GIT supernatants were the complement-3 components C3

138 ffect of incubation delay on the accuracy of QFT-IT remains to be determined.

139 Agreement of QFT with QFT-Plus was high, at 95.6% (95% confidence int

140 ubsequent active tuberculosis disease and of QFT reversion.

141 old for positivity improved comparability of QFT-GIT with TST in the low-risk group (adjusted OR [AOR

142 Concordance of QFT-GIT with TST was low (183/352[52%]).

143 The manufacturer's definition of QFT conversion results in an inflated conversion rate th

144 greed, it was most often in the direction of QFT-GIT negative/QFT-Plus positive.

145 The uveitis features of QFT-G-positive patients were mainly nonspecific.

146 B) infection, but the programmatic impact of QFT-GIT implementation is largely unknown.

147 We conclude that immediate incubation of QFT-IT tubes is an effective way to minimize indetermina

148 A conservative interpretation of QFT-Plus eliminated nearly all nonreproducible positive

149 red to validate a modified interpretation of QFT-Plus for the identification of false-positive result

150 The novelty of QFT-Plus is that it elicits a response from CD8 T cells,

151 minireview, we summarize the performance of QFT-Plus compared with that of QFT-GIT among active tube

152 y do not support the superior performance of QFT-Plus in individuals with active TB and LTBI.

153 sess variables associated with positivity of QFT and tuberculin skin tests.

154 n-born individuals had higher proportions of QFT-GIT positivity (57%) than US-born individuals (36%;

155 o improve the quality and reproducibility of QFT-GIT results.

156 o ordinal strata for quantitative results of QFT-GIT, T-SPOT.TB, and TST (with adjustment for prior b

157 ared qualitative and quantitative results of QFT-Plus with the other tests.

158 ed to accurately evaluate the sensitivity of QFT-Plus in immunocompromised hosts and children.

159 erformance of QFT-Plus compared with that of QFT-GIT among active tuberculosis (TB) patients (a surro

160 tors for LTBI acquisition and followed up on QFT assay test for 2 years among those initially without

161 te various methods within the split-operator QFT (SO-QFT) Hamiltonian simulation paradigm, including

162 itive reading at follow-up classified TST or QFT converters and a negative reading at both time point

163 itive reading at follow-up classified TST or QFT converters and a negative reading at both time-point

164 eading at both time-points classified TST or QFT non-converters.

165 eading at both time points classified TST or QFT nonconverters.

166 T Gold In-Tube; and (4) QFT Gold In-Tube (or QFT Gold Plus) alone.

167 BCHD performed QFT-GIT testing for 375/543 (69%) eligible individuals i

168 culin skin test (TST); (2) two-step TST plus QFT Gold In-Tube; (3) single-step TST plus QFT Gold In-T

169 s QFT Gold In-Tube; (3) single-step TST plus QFT Gold In-Tube; and (4) QFT Gold In-Tube (or QFT Gold

170 TST/QFT); and third, a single-step TST plus QFT-GIT (TST/QFT).

171 culosis infection, QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) has replaced the earlier version, QuantiFERON-

172 QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus) is the latest generation of interferon gamma r

173 ut the accuracy of QuantiFERON-TB Gold-Plus (QFT-Plus) for diagnosis of latent M. tuberculosis infect

174 s with a baseline negative QuantiFERON Plus (QFT-Plus) underwent personal ambient CO2 monitoring.

175 mma release assay (QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus [QFT]) indicating tuberculosis infection.

176 The primary outcome was a positive QFT result at the 3-year follow-up, expressed as a propo

177 x of 9810 (9.6%) participants had a positive QFT result.

178 e association between uveitis and a positive QFT-G test might be coincidental, the majority of treate

179 2,751 (51.4%) and 2,987 (55.8%) had positive QFT and TST results, respectively, at baseline.

180 icipants with initial negative QFT, positive QFT conversion within a 2-year follow-up was higher afte

181 retrospective analysis of repeating positive QFT assays as a strategy to identify false-positive resu

182 hese individuals, 30 (68%) had true-positive QFT-GIT results.

183 Most individuals in the pre- and post-QFT-GIT periods were referred on the basis of a positive

184 ders for suspected LTBI in the pre- and post-QFT-GIT periods, respectively.

185 ceived a final diagnosis of LTBI in the post-QFT-GIT period (397/567 [70%]) compared to the pre-QFT-G

186 5/543 (69%) eligible individuals in the post-QFT-GIT period, of which 185 (49%) were positive, 178 (4

187 In the post-QFT-GIT period, only 230/399 (58%) of those receiving QF

188 vs. 133/167 [80%], respectively) in the post-QFT-GIT period.

189 T period (397/567 [70%]) compared to the pre-QFT-GIT period (445/452 [98%], p<0.001).

190 Unlike its predecessor, QFT-Plus utilizes two antigen tubes to elicit an immune

191 rent blood-based tests, such as QuantiFERON (QFT) do not distinguish active TB disease from asymptoma

192 in skin test (TST; cohort 1) or QuantiFERON (QFT; cohort 2).

193 in skin test (TST; cohort 1) or QuantiFERON (QFT; cohort 2.

194 interferon-gamma release assay (QuantiFERON [QFT]) to test for latent infection.

195 We stratified participants by quantitative QFT result (interferon-gamma <0.35 IU/mL, 0.35-4.00 IU/m

196 eriod, only 230/399 (58%) of those receiving QFT-GIT testing had a final diagnosis of LTBI, while 167

197 Recent QFT conversion was indicative of an approximately eight

198 Among recent QFT converters, the magnitude of the QFT value was stron

199 QFT values was implausibly low and removing QFT from the model made prediction slightly worse.

200 Health Department (BCHD) introduced routine QFT-GIT testing for individuals referred to the TB progr

201 Serial QFT testing of HCWs in North America may result in treme

202 Serial testing using a single QFT with the recommended conversion cutoff (IFN-g > 0.35

203 us methods within the split-operator QFT (SO-QFT) Hamiltonian simulation paradigm, including protocol

204 in independent cohorts compared to standard QFT, and perform a technical qualification of antigen-co

205 ndings underscore the need for standardizing QFT-GIT preanalytical practices.

206 Adolescents with converted IGRA status (QFT converters [n = 534]) and randomly chosen adolescent

207 In this study, QFT-IT was performed with samples from healthy volunteer

208 Subsequently, QFT-positive and QFT-negative participants were randomiz

209 a median 30 months of follow-up, a sustained QFT test conversion was observed in 62 of 871 participan

210 .tb infection was defined by QuantiFERON-TB (QFT) assay.

211 test (TST) and the QuantiFERON-TB Gold test (QFT-GT) to detect latent tuberculosis in newly hired hea

212 p TST plus QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube test (QFT-GIT) (2-step TST/QFT); and third, a single-step TST

213 he TST and QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube test (QFT-GIT).

214 4% (95% CI 76.6-85.3), which was higher than QFT-GIT (67.3% [62.0-72.1]).

215 positive predictive value (90.0%, PPV) than QFT (96.5% specificity, 50.7% PPV) and TST (96.8% specif

216 a broader response from T-cell subsets than QFT-GIT.

217 Test specificity was higher for TST than QFT-GIT (99.7% vs 91.4%; P < .0001).

218 We show that QFT results do not offer much value for treatment monito

219 The QFT response value in patients with LTBI was higher in t

220 The QFT-G and the T-SPOT.TB tests were more sensitive than t

221 The QFT-G test had a pooled sensitivity of 53% (46%-59%) and

222 The QFT-G tested positive in 13% of patients with uveitis in

223 The QFT-Plus assay showed a high degree of agreement with QF

224 ent between the tuberculin skin test and the QFT test was moderate (81.06%; kappa coefficient 0.485),

225 itivity for the tuberculin skin test and the QFT test were low in study participants younger than 20

226 Agreement between the QFT-Plus CLIA and QIAreach with QFT-Plus was excellent (

227 We retrospectively evaluated the QFT results from HCWs with two or more QFT tests perform

228 .1-3.0) and 99.9% (95% CI, 99.7-100) for the QFT and 0.7% (95% CI, 0.1-2.6) and 99.7% (95% CI, 99.1-9

229 ogy was higher in QFT-G-positive than in the QFT-G-negative patients (54/92, 59% vs 238/618, 39%; P =

230 lenge to the efficient implementation of the QFT and its dependent algorithms.

231 recent QFT converters, the magnitude of the QFT value was strongly inversely associated with risk of

232 Of the QFT-GIT and T-SPOT converters, 81 of 106 (76.4%) and 91

233 Diagnostic performance of the QFT-GIT assay was evaluated in 44 patients with miliary

234 results were subsequently screened using the QFT-GT.

235 ative result, 4.4% (n = 361) converted their QFT result over 2 years.

236 e IGRA had diagnostic accuracy comparable to QFT and is suitable for use in clinical trials to assess

237 LTBI (p < 0.0001 AUC = 0.81) as compared to QFT (p = 0.45 AUC = 0.56), based on an IFNgamma readout

238 A lower NPA was observed (85.2%) compared to QFT-Plus, which may be due to a higher sensitivity demon

239 e used as stimuli, with direct comparison to QFT.

240 Study clinicians were not masked to QFT values, but strict case definitions were used that e

241 Studies comparing QFT-Plus to QFT-GIT currently do not support the superior performanc

242 ght be coincidental, the majority of treated QFT-G-positive patients with otherwise unexplained sever

243 TST(+)/QFT(-) discordance was associated with age, male sex, bl

244 TST(-)/QFT(+) discordance was associated with older age, previo

245 TB Gold- (QFT-), and 16.3% converted to TST+/QFT+ LTBI.

246 test sensitivity or specificity of the TST, QFT-G, and TSPOT.TB with regards to determining latent t

247 d third, a single-step TST plus QFT-GIT (TST/QFT).

248 diagnoses decreased with the single-step TST/QFT (26.5%) compared with the 2-step TST (42.5%; P < .00

249 2-step TST (42.5%; P < .001) and 2-step TST/QFT (38.5%; P = .02); the incidence of tuberculosis amon

250 N-TB Gold In-Tube test (QFT-GIT) (2-step TST/QFT); and third, a single-step TST plus QFT-GIT (TST/QFT

251 (LTBI) with the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT) assay, which exhibits frequent conversions and reve

252 elation between QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT) conversion interferon-gamma values and risk of subs

253 were measured from QuantiFERON Gold in-tube (QFT) plasma samples in 421 HIV-1-infected persons recrui

254 rculosis by the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT) test or the T-SPOT.TB (TSPOT) were prospectively co

255 culosis (TB) by QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT) tests using latent class analysis model.

256 istics of the TST, QuantiFERON Gold In-Tube (QFT), and T.SPOT-TB (TSPOT) among a prospective, multice

257 are QFT-Plus to QuantiFERON-TB Gold in-tube (QFT).

258 o) with TST and QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT).

259 itive result of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-tube (QFT).

260 n comparison to QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-tube (QFT).

261 performance of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB (T-SPOT) among adults with suspec

262 Performance of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and tuberculin skin test (TST) has not been com

263 The QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) assay provides suboptimal diagnostic performanc

264 ults from 3,263 QuantiFERON-TB Gold in-tube (QFT-GIT) assays were analyzed to determine the impact of

265 QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) is considered an alternative to the tuberculin

266 roducibility of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) results for 50 subjects (33 uninfected and 17 i

267 test (TST), the Quantiferon-TB Gold in-tube (QFT-GIT), and the T-SPOT.TB (T-SPOT).

268 s with those of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT), T-SPOT.TB (T-SPOT), and the tuberculin skin te

269 QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT), T-SPOT.TB (T-SPOT), and TST were performed at

270 ly recommended for QuantiFERON Gold-in-Tube (QFT-GIT), T-SPOT.TB, and the tuberculin skin test (TST)

271 ts predecessor, QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT).

272 arlier version, QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT).

273 (T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube [QFT-GIT]) and second-generation (incorporating novel M t

274 total of 388 patients with uveitis underwent QFT-G testing, of which 17 (4.38%) were positive.

275 ormed for all uveitis patients who underwent QFT-G testing at the University of Colorado Eye Center f

276 samples were also collected, cultured using QFT-GIT and the supernatant (plasma) harvested to evalua

277 Among children with a valid QFT result at the end of the trial, the percentage with

278 0% (CI, 0.2 to 1.7; P value of 0.0002 versus QFT-Plus and 0.07 versus QFT).

279 ue of 0.0002 versus QFT-Plus and 0.07 versus QFT).

280 8 (22%) were TST-positive, and 38 (18%) were QFT-positive at baseline.

281 pDM (age: 64.2 9.7 years), 261 (26.6%) were QFT-positive.

282 d LTBI, and 3.9% reverted their TST and were QFT-.

283 isk of infection was extremely high, whereas QFT and TST conversion concordance was higher and QFT re

284 ipants with QFT-negative results and 12 with QFT-positive results were randomly allocated to receive

285 ipants with QFT-negative results and 24 with QFT-positive results were randomly allocated to receive

286 , 1.0 to 3.2) and 3.0% (CI, 1.7 to 4.3) with QFT and QFT-Plus, respectively.

287 assay showed a high degree of agreement with QFT in U.S.

288 dex cases were independently associated with QFT-Plus conversion from negative to positive (OR: 1.61,

289 e, not using metformin, were associated with QFT-positivity.

290 erson-years [95% CI 0.4-1.1]), children with QFT conversion at interferon-gamma values between 0.35-4

291 Among 2512 young children with QFT tests done at day 336, 172 (7%) were positive; 87 (7

292 Compared with QFT non-converters (tuberculosis disease incidence 0.7 p

293 BVAC to 96 (67%) of 143.12 participants with QFT-negative results and 12 with QFT-positive results we

294 each dose of MTBVAC and 24 participants with QFT-negative results and 24 with QFT-positive results we

295 Agreement of QFT with QFT-Plus was high, at 95.6% (95% confidence interval [CI

296 between the QFT-Plus CLIA and QIAreach with QFT-Plus was excellent (pooled kappa statistics of 0.86

297 erpretation for students who are tested with QFT-GIT.

298 nt initiation between those with and without QFT-GIT testing (175/230 [76%]) vs. 133/167 [80%], respe

299 in two versions, first with and then without QFT.

300 f LTBI, while 167/168 (99%) of those without QFT-GIT testing were diagnosed with LTBI (p<0.001).

301 remained negative over a period of 2 years (QFT nonconverters [n = 629]) were identified in a cohort