ArticleERJ open research2022
Interferon-γ release assay screening in biologics: safe and reliable, but not perfect.
Article in ERJ open research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Vitamin D and human health: evidence from Mendelian randomization studies.European journal of epidemiology · 2024Pooled it
- Tuberculosis Infection Screening Recommendations for Targeted Immunotherapies: Comparison of US Prescribing Information, Clinical Resources, and Quality Measures.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2026Article
- Associations between the EQ-5D-5L and exacerbations of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in the ETHOS trial.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Systemic biologic agents can increase the risk of re-activation of latent tuberculosis (TB). Prior to initiation, screening for latent TB using an interferon-γ release assay (IGRA) is recommended. There is concern that false-negative IGRAs may be more likely in this context. Methods: This retrospective analysis of IGRAs, specifically T-SPOT.TB, results and outcomes of patients already on or due to start biologics identifies the rate of TB re-activation in a low TB incidence setting. Additionally, we estimate the negative predictive value (NPV) of IGRAs in this population. Results: Patients on biologics were more likely to have a negative IGRA result than patients not on biologics. There was no statistically significant change in conversion or reversion rates between groups. Of 9263 patients on biologics, 19 developed active TB after starting biologics at an incidence rate of 55.1 per 100 000 patient-years. This occurred despite screening in half of the 16 patients for whom we were able to review medical records. Most drugs implicated were known to be high risk, although rituximab and natalizumab were being taken by five patients and one patient, respectively. The T-SPOT.TB NPV was 99.20% and dropped only slightly to 99.17% when we simulated an approach where all borderline IGRA results were regarded as being negative. Conclusions: Negative IGRA results confer a low risk of subsequent active TB in patients on biologics in a low TB incidence setting. However, continued awareness is needed given that a number of active TB cases will have had a prior negative result.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.