Inflammatory markers and clinical characteristics for predicting persistent positivity of interferon gamma release assay in dialysis population

Plasma Concentrations of sTREM-1 as Markers for Systemic Adverse Reactions in Subjects Treated With Weekly Rifapentine and Isoniazid for Latent Tuberculosis Infection

Background

A regimen of once-weekly rifapentine plus isoniazid for 3 months (3HP) is an effective treatment for subjects with latent tuberculosis infection; however, no reliable biomarker exists for predicting systemic adverse reactions (SARs) to 3HP treatment.

Methods

This prospective, multi-center study evaluated the plasma concentrations of soluble triggering receptors expressed on myeloid cells (sTREM)-1 and sTREM-2 in subjects undergoing 3HP treatment and examined the associations between these biomarkers and SARs.

Results

This study enrolled 80 consecutive subjects receiving 3HP treatment, 25 of whom had SARs and 55 of whom did not. Subjects with SARs presented higher concentrations of sTREM-1 at baseline than those without SARs (240.1 ± 19.1 vs. 176.7 ± 9.4 pg/mL, P = 0.001). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curves revealed that day 1 plasma levels of sTREM-1 (0.708, 95% CI, 0.584–0.833, P = 0.003) and sTREM-2 (0.343, 95% CI, 0.227–0.459, P = 0.025) as well as the sTREM-1/sTREM-2 ratio (0.748, 95% CI, 0.638–0.858, P = 0.001) had modest discriminative power pertaining to the development of SARs. An sTREM-1 level exceeding the cut-off value (>187.4 pg/mL) (hazard ratio [HR], 6.15; 95% CI 1.67–22.70, P = 0.006) and a sTREM-2 below the cut-off value (<237.2 pg/mL) (HR, 4.46; 95% CI 1.41–14.1, P = 0.011) were independent predictors of SARs after controlling for other variables.

Conclusions

Plasma sTREM-1 and sTREM-2 levels are useful biomarkers for predicting SARs during 3HP treatment.

Clinical trial government

NCT04655794

CD4 response of QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus for positive consistency of latent tuberculosis infection in patients on dialysis

A significantly negative reversion in the QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-tube (QFT-GIT) test is reported in patients on dialysis, which makes the results unreliable. The CD4 and CD8 responses of the QFT-Gold plus (QFT-Plus) may have better positive consistency, but this needs to be investigated. We enrolled dialysis patients with baseline positive QFT-GIT₀ results and conducted two rounds of follow-up paired QFT-GIT_1&2 and QFT-Plus_1&2 tests at an interval of 6 months. The positive consistency, concordance, and discordance of the QFT results were analyzed. A total of 236 patients on dialysis were screened, and 73 participants with positive QFT-GIT₀ results were enrolled. The baseline QFT-GIT₀ response was higher in the 1st QFT-Plus₁(+) group than in the QFT-Plus₁(-) group, but insignificantly different between the 1st QFT-GIT₁(+) and QFT-GIT₁(-) groups. The two assays had good correlation when concurrently tested. Fifty-three subjects completed a second round of the QFT-GIT₂ and QFT-Plus₂. Persistent positivity was higher with the QFT-Plus₂ (81.8%) than with the QFT-GIT₂ (58.8%, p = 0.040). The QFT-GIT₁ and QFT-Plus₁ CD4 responses were higher in patients with persistent positivity than in those with negative reversion, whereas the difference of the QFT-Plus TB1 and TB2 data, representative of the CD8 response, were similar between positive persistence and negative reversion. In conclusion, the QFT-Plus provides more reliable positive consistency than does the QFT-GIT. The CD4 interferon-γ response might play a role in maintaining positivity of LTBI.