Trial reportFrontiers in immunology2026
Safety, tolerability, and concordance with interferon-γ release assays of a recombinant ESAT6-MPT64 skin test: a phase 1 randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate and cost-effective screening for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) infection remains a global challenge. While Interferon-γ Release Assays (IGRAs) offer high specificity, their widespread deployment is hindered by high costs and technical complexity. Conversely, the traditional Tuberculin Skin Test (TST) lacks specificity due to BCG cross-reactivity. Emerging recombinant skin tests predominantly rely on the ESAT6-CFP10 antigen combination. To potentially broaden the antigenic repertoire and enhance diagnostic sensitivity, we developed a novel recombinant fusion protein incorporating MPT64 (from Region of Difference 2, RD2) alongside ESAT-6. This study represents the first-in-human evaluation of the ESAT6-MPT64 (EM) skin test. Methods: This single-center, randomized, open-label, dose-escalation Phase 1 clinical trial (Registration: ChiCTR2500112887) enrolled 60 participants, comprising 30 healthy controls and 30 patients with active pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). Participants were stratified and randomized into low-, medium-, and high-dose cohorts (n = 10 per cohort/group). The primary endpoint was safety and tolerability. Secondary endpoints included diagnostic performance (sensitivity and specificity) and concordance with the T-SPOT.TB assay (IGRA). Results: The EM skin test demonstrated an excellent safety profile. Adverse events were predominantly mild (Grade 1-2), transient, and self-limiting, with no serious adverse events (SAEs) related to the investigational product reported. In terms of diagnostic performance, the test exhibited robust immunogenicity in active TB patients, achieving a peak sensitivity of 87.0% at 48 hours and maintaining 82.6% at 72 hours post-injection. In healthy controls, the test showed high specificity with a low rate of non-specific reactions (13.3%). Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) analysis indicated high diagnostic accuracy, with Area Under the Curve (AUC) values exceeding 0.80 across all dose groups at both 48- and 72-hour reading windows. Furthermore, the EM skin test demonstrated substantial concordance (κ > 0.60) with IGRA results, confirming that the specific DTH response is distinct from BCG vaccination background. Conclusion: The recombinant EM skin test is safe, well-tolerated, and demonstrates preliminary diagnostic accuracy comparable to IGRAs. By successfully validating the translational utility of the MPT64 (RD2) antigen in a human cohort, this study provides a strong proof-of-concept for the EM skin test as a scalable, specific, and cost-effective immunodiagnostic tool.
Indexed as
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.