The ESAT-6:CFP-10 Antigen Complex: From Mycobacterium tuberculosis Virulence Factor to a Cornerstone of Modern Tuberculosis Diagnostics

Section 1: Introduction to ESAT-6 and CFP-10

The global effort to control and eliminate tuberculosis (TB), a persistent infectious disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tuberculosis), has been profoundly shaped by advancements in diagnostics. Central to this progress is the ESAT-6:CFP-10 protein complex, a pair of antigens that has enabled a paradigm shift in the identification of TB infection. This report provides a comprehensive, expert-level analysis of this critical molecular entity, tracing its role from an essential virulence factor in pathogenesis to its application as a highly specific target in modern diagnostic tests.

Clarification of Terminology: Antigen vs. Allergen

It is essential to begin with a clarification of scientific terminology. The user query refers to the "ESAT6-CFP10 allergen." In immunology, an allergen is a substance that induces an allergic, or IgE-mediated, hypersensitivity reaction. The ESAT-6:CFP-10 complex, however, is an antigen. An antigen is any molecule that elicits a specific immune response, particularly the activation of lymphocytes.[1] In the context of TB, ESAT-6 and CFP-10 provoke a powerful cell-mediated (Type IV) immune response, characterized by the activation of T-lymphocytes and the release of cytokines like interferon-gamma (IFN-γ).[3] While this response can manifest as a delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction in the skin, the correct scientific term for the molecular trigger is "antigen." Furthermore, the term "medication" is inapplicable; ESAT-6:CFP-10 is not a therapeutic agent but rather a key reagent used in

in vitro and in vivo diagnostic tests to determine if an individual has been infected with M. tuberculosis.[3]

The Central Role of ESAT-6:CFP-10 in the Fight Against Tuberculosis

For over a century, the primary tool for diagnosing TB infection was the tuberculin skin test (TST), which uses a crude mixture of mycobacterial proteins called Purified Protein Derivative (PPD).[5] The TST suffers from a significant limitation: its lack of specificity. The PPD antigens cross-react with the Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine strain and various non-tuberculous mycobacteria (NTMs), leading to a high rate of false-positive results.[6] This has major public health implications, leading to unnecessary anxiety, costly follow-up investigations, and the potential for inappropriate prescription of preventive therapy.

The discovery and characterization of the ESAT-6 and CFP-10 antigens represented a watershed moment. These proteins are secreted by pathogenic M. tuberculosis but are absent from the BCG vaccine and most NTMs.[5] This unique specificity allowed for the development of a new generation of immunodiagnostic tests—Interferon-Gamma Release Assays (IGRAs) and novel antigen-based skin tests—that can accurately identify true

M. tuberculosis infection, even in heavily BCG-vaccinated populations.[9] This leap in diagnostic precision has been hailed as the "100-year upgrade" to the TST and is a cornerstone of modern TB control strategies in many parts of the world.[5]

Overview of the Report's Scope and Structure

This report will systematically explore the ESAT-6:CFP-10 complex from multiple perspectives. It will begin with its fundamental molecular biology and crucial role in the pathogenesis of TB. It will then detail the immunological principles that make it an ideal diagnostic target. A comprehensive review of the diagnostic tests that utilize these antigens will follow, including a deep dive into their clinical performance, comparative effectiveness, and limitations. The report will also navigate the complex landscape of regulatory approvals and public health guidelines from major bodies like the World Health Organization (WHO) and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Finally, it will look to the future, examining the next generation of diagnostics being developed to overcome current challenges.

Section 2: Molecular Biology and Pathogenic Function of the ESAT-6:CFP-10 Complex

The significance of ESAT-6 and CFP-10 in diagnostics is intrinsically linked to their essential role in the lifecycle and virulence of M. tuberculosis. Understanding their molecular biology is crucial to appreciating why they are such powerful tools.

Genomic Origin: The Region of Difference 1 (RD1) and the ESX-1 Secretion System

The genes that code for ESAT-6 (also known as EsxA) and CFP-10 (also known as EsxB or M. tuberculosis-specific antigen 10) are located within a specific segment of the M. tuberculosis genome known as the Region of Difference 1 (RD1).[10] This genomic region is of paramount importance for two reasons. First, it is present in virulent strains of

M. tuberculosis and M. bovis but is conspicuously absent from all attenuated M. bovis BCG vaccine strains and most NTMs.[5] This genetic deletion in BCG is a key reason for its attenuation and is the molecular foundation for the high specificity of diagnostic tests based on these antigens.

Second, the RD1 locus encodes not only ESAT-6 and CFP-10 but also the components of a specialized protein secretion apparatus called the ESX-1 secretion system (also known as the ESAT-6 Secretion System 1).[10] The genes for ESAT-6 and CFP-10 are co-transcribed from the same messenger RNA, ensuring their coordinated production, which is a prerequisite for their function.[1] The ESX-1 system is responsible for exporting the ESAT-6:CFP-10 complex from the bacterial cytoplasm into the host cell environment, a process that is absolutely essential for

M. tuberculosis virulence.[8] Notably, these proteins are secreted despite lacking a conventional N-terminal signal sequence, highlighting the unique nature of the ESX-1 pathway.[11]

Structure and Function of the Heterodimer: A Symbiotic and Multi-Stage Relationship

ESAT-6, a 6-kDa protein, and CFP-10, a 10-kDa protein, do not function in isolation. They form a tight, stable 1:1 heterodimeric complex that is the functional unit for secretion and initial host interaction.[10] The solution structure of the complex reveals that each protein is composed of a flexible N- and C-terminal arm and a central two-helix hairpin. These hairpins intertwine to create a compact, stable four-helix bundle.[11] The complex operates as a sophisticated, multi-stage pathogenic device, with each component playing distinct but complementary roles that are triggered by environmental cues within the host cell.

CFP-10's Multifaceted Role: Chaperone, Guide, and Activator

Initially, CFP-10 was described simply as a chaperone for ESAT-6.[8] Its role is to bind to and stabilize the ESAT-6 protein, preventing its premature degradation within the bacterium and guiding it to the ESX-1 secretion machinery.[10] The C-terminal region of CFP-10 contains the specific sequence that acts as a signal for the secretion of the entire complex.[10]

However, its function extends far beyond that of a passive chaperone. Structural analysis reveals a long, flexible arm at the C-terminus of CFP-10 that is exposed on the surface of the complex. This arm has been shown to be essential for the specific binding of the intact ESAT-6:CFP-10 complex to the surface of host cells, including macrophages and monocytes.[11] This suggests a direct role in host cell signaling and docking, modulating host cell behavior to the pathogen's advantage. Furthermore, research has demonstrated that CFP-10 has its own independent biological activity. It can selectively activate human neutrophils, triggering a transient release of intracellular calcium through a pertussis toxin-sensitive G-protein-coupled receptor. This indicates that CFP-10 can act as a pro-inflammatory and chemotactic factor, potentially contributing to the recruitment of neutrophils to the site of infection.[10]

ESAT-6's Role: The pH-Triggered Effector

While CFP-10 directs the complex's interaction with the host, ESAT-6 is the primary effector molecule responsible for a key step in pathogenesis. At the neutral pH of the extracellular environment or the bacterial cytoplasm, ESAT-6 remains tightly bound to CFP-10, and its potent biological activity is masked.[8] A critical design feature of the complex is its ability to dissociate under acidic conditions (

pH<6.0), such as those found within the maturing phagosome after the bacterium has been engulfed by a macrophage.[8]

Once the acidic environment of the phagolysosome triggers the dissociation of the complex, the ESAT-6 protein is released. Freed from its chaperone, ESAT-6 exhibits a strong affinity for biological membranes, particularly lipid bilayers containing cholesterol.[8] Cryoelectron microscopy has demonstrated that ESAT-6 then destabilizes and lyses these membranes, while CFP-10 does not possess this activity.[8] This membrane-lysing function is the proposed mechanism for causing phagosomal rupture, which allows

M. tuberculosis to escape from the confines of the phagolysosome and translocate into the nutrient-rich cytoplasm of the host cell. This escape is a critical event that enables bacterial replication and cell-to-cell spread, and it is a hallmark of M. tuberculosis virulence.[8] An early structural analysis of the complex argued against a classic pore-forming role due to the lack of significant hydrophobic patches on its surface.[11] However, the definitive functional evidence of membrane lysis suggests that ESAT-6 may act by destabilizing the lipid bilayer rather than forming a stable, transmembrane pore, reconciling these observations.

This intricate, pH-dependent mechanism reveals the ESAT-6:CFP-10 complex to be a highly evolved pathogenic tool. It is not a static molecule but a dynamic, multi-stage device that senses its intracellular location and deploys different functions accordingly: initial host cell binding and signaling via the intact complex, followed by pH-triggered dissociation and membrane disruption by ESAT-6 to facilitate intracellular escape. The description of CFP-10 as merely a chaperone is a significant oversimplification of its active and multifaceted role in this process.

Implications for M. tuberculosis Virulence and Survival

The functions of the ESAT-6:CFP-10 complex are indispensable for the success of M. tuberculosis as a pathogen. The ability to escape the phagosome is a central immune evasion strategy, protecting the bacterium from the harsh microbicidal environment of the phagolysosome and allowing it to establish a replicative niche within the host cell cytoplasm. The pro-inflammatory activity of CFP-10 may also manipulate the host immune response to the bacterium's benefit, for instance by inducing neutrophil necrosis through an RD1-dependent mechanism, which could facilitate further spread.[10]

This highlights a fascinating evolutionary trade-off. The very proteins that are absolutely essential for the bacterium's virulence are also highly immunogenic and are secreted in abundance during active infection. This makes them prime targets for the host immune system. The host mounts a robust and specific T-cell response against these foreign proteins, a response that, while part of the effort to control the infection, also creates a durable immunological signature. It is this signature—the presence of memory T-cells sensitized to ESAT-6 and CFP-10—that modern diagnostic tests are designed to detect. In essence, the bacterium's most critical pathogenic weapons have become its immunological Achilles' heel, allowing for its precise detection.

Section 3: The Immunological Foundation of ESAT-6:CFP-10 Based Diagnostics

The transition from non-specific to specific TB diagnostics is rooted in a fundamental understanding of the cell-mediated immune response to M. tuberculosis and the unique properties of the ESAT-6 and CFP-10 antigens.

The T-Cell Mediated Immune Response to M. tuberculosis

When M. tuberculosis bacilli enter the lungs, they are primarily engulfed by alveolar macrophages, which are professional antigen-presenting cells.[3] Inside the macrophage, the bacteria are processed, and their protein antigens are broken down into peptides. These peptides are then presented on the macrophage's surface via Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) class II molecules. This antigen presentation is recognized by T-lymphocytes, specifically CD4+ T helper cells.[3]

This recognition event triggers the activation and proliferation of T-cells that are specific to the presented antigens. A subset of these activated T-cells develops into a long-lived population of "memory" T-cells. This process, known as sensitization, means the host's immune system is now primed to mount a rapid and robust response upon any subsequent encounter with the same antigens. This entire cascade is a classic example of a Type IV, or cell-mediated, immune response, which is the primary defense mechanism against intracellular pathogens like M. tuberculosis.[3]

Interferon-Gamma (IFN-γ): The Key Cytokine Marker

Central to this cell-mediated response is the cytokine interferon-gamma (IFN-γ). Upon re-encountering their specific M. tuberculosis antigens, sensitized memory T-cells release large quantities of IFN-γ.[3] IFN-γ is the principal cytokine that orchestrates the anti-mycobacterial immune defense. Its primary function is to "activate" macrophages, supercharging their antimicrobial mechanisms and enhancing their ability to kill the intracellular bacilli they harbor. This creates a powerful positive feedback loop: infected macrophages present antigens to T-cells, T-cells release IFN-γ, and IFN-γ in turn activates macrophages to better control the infection.[3]

The entire principle of Interferon-Gamma Release Assays (IGRAs) is built upon detecting this specific event. By taking a sample of a patient's blood and exposing it to M. tuberculosis antigens in vitro (in a test tube), clinicians can determine if the patient has sensitized memory T-cells. If such cells are present, they will recognize the antigens and release IFN-γ, which can then be measured. A significant release of IFN-γ is a direct indicator of prior infection and sensitization.[3]

The Specificity Advantage: Why ESAT-6 and CFP-10 Surpass Traditional Antigens (PPD)

The revolutionary impact of ESAT-6 and CFP-10 lies in their specificity. The traditional TST uses Purified Protein Derivative (PPD), which is a poorly defined, crude cocktail of more than 200 different mycobacterial proteins extracted from culture filtrates of M. tuberculosis.[2] The critical flaw of PPD is that many of these proteins are not unique to

M. tuberculosis. They are conserved across the mycobacterial genus and are also present in the BCG vaccine strain and in many common NTMs.[2]

This lack of specificity leads to significant antigenic cross-reactivity. An individual who has been vaccinated with BCG or has been exposed to certain environmental NTMs will have T-cells sensitized to these shared antigens. When challenged with a TST, these T-cells will react to the cross-reactive proteins in the PPD, resulting in a positive skin reaction even in the absence of a true M. tuberculosis infection. This leads to a high rate of false-positive results, which undermines the test's reliability and positive predictive value, particularly in countries with high BCG vaccination coverage.[5]

In stark contrast, ESAT-6 and CFP-10 are encoded by the RD1 genomic region, which, as previously noted, is deleted from all BCG strains and is absent from the vast majority of NTMs (with rare exceptions like M. kansasii, M. szulgai, and M. marinum).[5] Therefore, an immune response to these specific antigens is a highly reliable indicator of infection with a bacterium from the

M. tuberculosis complex. Tests based on ESAT-6 and CFP-10 are not confounded by prior BCG vaccination, which dramatically increases their specificity and allows for a much more accurate diagnosis of TB infection.[6]

This shift from PPD to ESAT-6:CFP-10 represents a fundamental evolution in diagnostic philosophy. The TST asks a broad, somewhat ambiguous question: "Has this person's immune system ever encountered a mycobacterium?" Due to cross-reactivity, the answer is often "yes" even for harmless exposures, leading to diagnostic uncertainty and potentially unnecessary treatment.[5] In contrast, ESAT-6:CFP-10-based tests ask a much more precise and clinically relevant question: "Has this person's immune system encountered the specific virulence-associated proteins of pathogenic

M. tuberculosis?" A positive answer to this question is far more indicative of a true infection that may warrant clinical intervention. This move from detecting a general anti-mycobacterial response to identifying a specific "pathogenicity signature" is the single greatest contribution of the ESAT-6:CFP-10 complex to the field of TB diagnostics.

Section 4: A Comprehensive Review of Diagnostic Modalities

The unique immunological properties of ESAT-6 and CFP-10 have been harnessed to develop two major classes of modern diagnostic tests: laboratory-based blood tests known as IGRAs and a new generation of field-friendly skin tests.

Subsection 4.1: Interferon-Gamma Release Assays (IGRAs)

IGRAs are in vitro diagnostic tests performed on a blood sample. They offer several operational advantages over the TST, most notably requiring only a single patient visit for a blood draw, thus eliminating the need for a return visit for a reading and reducing the risk of patients being lost to follow-up.[12] Two main IGRA platforms are commercially available and widely used.

4.1.1: The QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT) Platform

The QuantiFERON family of tests, manufactured by Qiagen, is based on the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique. The test measures the concentration of IFN-γ that is released into the plasma after a patient's whole blood is incubated overnight with specific TB antigens.[3]

• Mechanism and Antigen Composition: The test system uses specialized blood collection tubes with the antigens pre-coated on the inner surface. When whole blood is drawn into these tubes, the patient's lymphocytes are immediately exposed to the antigens.[12] The most widely used version, QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT), utilizes a peptide cocktail derived from three M. tuberculosis-specific antigens: ESAT-6, CFP-10, and TB7.7(p4).[3] The newest generation, QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus), employs a more advanced design with two distinct antigen tubes. The TB1 tube contains long peptides from ESAT-6 and CFP-10 designed to specifically stimulate a CD4+ T helper cell response. The TB2 tube contains a mix of long and short peptides from ESAT-6 and CFP-10, designed to elicit a response from both CD4+ T helper cells and CD8+ cytotoxic T-cells, with the goal of providing a more comprehensive picture of the immune response.[18]
• Test Controls and Interpretation: The QFT system includes critical internal controls. A Nil tube contains no antigens and measures the background level of IFN-γ in the patient's blood. A Mitogen tube contains a non-specific T-cell stimulant (phytohemagglutinin) and serves as a positive control, confirming that the patient's T-cells are viable and capable of producing IFN-γ. The final result is calculated by subtracting the Nil value from the TB antigen value and is reported as a quantitative concentration in International Units per milliliter (IU/mL). A result is typically considered positive if it is ≥0.35 IU/mL.[3] A test is deemed "indeterminate" if the background Nil value is too high or if the response to the Mitogen positive control is too low, which can occur in individuals with profound immunosuppression.[12]

4.1.2: The T-SPOT.TB Platform

The T-SPOT.TB test, manufactured by Oxford Immunotec (now part of Revvity), uses a different technique known as the enzyme-linked immunospot (ELISPOT) assay. Instead of measuring the concentration of IFN-γ in the plasma, this test directly counts the number of individual T-cells that secrete IFN-γ in response to the antigens.[3]

• Mechanism and Antigen Composition: The T-SPOT.TB test uses two separate panels of overlapping peptides derived from ESAT-6 and CFP-10.[20] A key procedural difference from QFT is that peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs), which include the T-lymphocytes, are first separated from the whole blood sample, washed, and counted. A standardized number of these cells is then added to wells of a microtiter plate that are coated with antibodies that capture IFN-γ.[20] After incubation with the antigens, a second antibody is used to create a visible "spot" wherever an individual T-cell has secreted IFN-γ. The number of these spots is then enumerated.
• Test Controls and Interpretation: Similar to QFT, the T-SPOT.TB test includes a Nil (negative) control and a Mitogen (positive) control. The final result is determined by subtracting the spot count in the Nil well from the spot counts in the antigen wells. A result is generally considered positive if the spot count is ≥8 spots, negative if it is ≤4 spots, and "borderline" (or equivocal) if the count is 5, 6, or 7 spots, in which case a retest may be recommended.[20] The process of isolating and normalizing the number of PBMCs is a distinguishing feature of the T-SPOT.TB test, designed to reduce variability and improve performance, particularly in lymphopenic or immunocompromised patients.[27]

Subsection 4.2: Novel M. tuberculosis Antigen-Based Skin Tests (TBSTs)

While IGRAs offer superior specificity, their reliance on laboratory infrastructure, higher cost, and need for trained personnel pose significant barriers to their widespread adoption in many high-burden, low-resource settings.[7] This has driven the development of a new class of diagnostics: skin tests that combine the operational simplicity of the TST with the high specificity of IGRAs. These novel TBSTs have recently been endorsed by the WHO as viable alternatives to both TST and IGRAs.[28]

• The Rationale and Mechanism: These tests operate on the same principle as the TST—an intradermal injection of antigens that elicits a localized delayed-type hypersensitivity reaction (induration) in sensitized individuals, which is measured 48–72 hours later.[28] However, instead of using the non-specific PPD cocktail, they use recombinant ESAT-6 and CFP-10 proteins.[1] This provides the specificity of an IGRA in a field-friendly format that does not require a laboratory or specialized equipment for the primary result.
• Profile of Key Tests:
• ESAT6-CFP10 (EC) Skin Test (also known as C-TST): Developed in China by Anhui Zhifei Longcom, this test has been extensively studied. In a study among people living with HIV (PLHIV), it demonstrated excellent specificity of 99.6% and a moderate sensitivity of 81.4% (at a ≥5 mm cutoff), performing comparably to the TST in terms of sensitivity but without being confounded by BCG vaccination status.[28] It has been shown to perform well in outbreak investigations in schools [29] and is recognized by the WHO as an acceptable alternative diagnostic.[29]
• Diaskintest®: Developed in Russia, this test utilizes a single recombinant fusion protein that combines ESAT-6 and CFP-10 into one molecule.[1]
• C-Tb: Developed in Denmark by the Statens Serum Institut, this test is similar to the EC test but uses separate, non-fused recombinant ESAT-6 and CFP-10 proteins.[1]

The emergence of these different diagnostic modalities reflects a pragmatic evolution in the global TB control strategy. It is not simply a matter of replacing an old test with a new one, but rather of developing a diversified portfolio of tools suitable for different healthcare ecosystems. This creates two parallel diagnostic tracks, both based on the same specific antigens. A high-tech, laboratory-based track (IGRAs) is well-suited for well-resourced settings where automation, objectivity, and single-visit convenience are priorities. A low-tech, field-based track (novel TBSTs) offers a scalable and affordable solution for high-burden, resource-limited settings, combining the specificity of modern immunology with the operational simplicity of a century-old technique.

However, a note of caution has been raised by a bioinformatics study which found that the genes for ESAT-6 and CFP-10 may not be universally present in all strains within the M. tuberculosis complex, and conversely, may be present in a few non-pathogenic mycobacterial species.[1] While the vast majority of clinical data supports the extremely high specificity of these antigens, this finding suggests that rare false-positive or false-negative results due to genomic variability are theoretically possible and warrant ongoing vigilance.

Section 5: In-Depth Clinical Performance and Comparative Analysis

The value of any diagnostic test is determined by its performance in real-world clinical settings. Extensive research has been conducted to compare the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of ESAT-6:CFP-10-based tests against the traditional TST and against each other.

Subsection 5.1: IGRAs versus the Tuberculin Skin Test (TST)

The comparison between IGRAs and the TST is the most studied aspect of these new diagnostics, revealing clear trade-offs between the tests.

• Sensitivity: For detecting active TB, which serves as a surrogate for 100% true infection, meta-analyses generally show that the sensitivity of IGRAs is comparable to, or in some cases slightly higher than, the TST. Pooled sensitivities for active TB typically range from 70% to 90% for all tests.[31] For example, one large meta-analysis reported a sensitivity of 77% for TST, 78% for QFT, and 92% for T-SPOT.TB, suggesting the ELISPOT format may be more sensitive.[34] However, a critical conclusion from these studies is that no currently available immunodiagnostic test, including IGRAs and TST, is sensitive enough to be used as a "rule-out" test for active TB. A negative result cannot definitively exclude the disease in a symptomatic patient.[31]
• Specificity: This is the domain where IGRAs demonstrate a clear and clinically significant superiority. In populations that have not been vaccinated with BCG, the TST has a very high specificity, often cited as around 97%.[34] However, in BCG-vaccinated individuals, its specificity plummets, with some meta-analyses reporting it as low as 59%.[34] This means that nearly half of positive TST results in this population could be false positives. In contrast, the specificity of IGRAs remains consistently high (typically >95%) regardless of a person's BCG vaccination history.[5] This high specificity is the primary driver behind the preference for IGRAs in guidelines from the CDC and other bodies in countries with low TB incidence but historical BCG use.[13]
• Predictive Value for Progression: A crucial question for any test for latent infection is its ability to predict which individuals will progress to active disease. This is arguably the biggest challenge for all current tests. While a positive result from either a TST or an IGRA is associated with an increased risk of future TB disease, large longitudinal studies and meta-analyses have consistently shown that IGRAs and the TST have a similarly poor ability to discriminate the small fraction of infected individuals who will progress from the vast majority who will not.[34] Some studies suggest a modest advantage for IGRAs in predicting progression [36], but the effect is not large enough to be transformative. This remains a major unmet need in TB diagnostics.
• Operational Differences: As noted previously, IGRAs have significant operational advantages, including the need for only a single patient visit, objective laboratory-based results that eliminate inter-reader variability, and the absence of the "booster phenomenon," where repeated TSTs can augment a response, complicating interpretation.[12]

Table 1: Comparison of Key Diagnostic Tests for M. tuberculosis Infection

Feature	Tuberculin Skin Test (TST)	QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus)	T-SPOT.TB	Novel TBSTs (e.g., EC Test)
Principle	In vivo delayed-type hypersensitivity	In vitro ELISA (measures IFN-γ concentration)	In vitro ELISPOT (counts IFN-γ secreting cells)	In vivo delayed-type hypersensitivity
Antigens	Purified Protein Derivative (>200 proteins) 2	ESAT-6, CFP-10 peptides (CD4+ & CD8+ response) 18	ESAT-6, CFP-10 peptides 20	Recombinant ESAT-6, CFP-10 proteins 1
BCG Cross-Reactivity	Yes (significant) 6	No 9	No 23	No 28
Patient Visits	Two 3	One 12	One 20	Two 28
Result Interpretation	Subjective (ruler measurement of induration) 3	Objective (quantitative IU/mL) 3	Objective (spot count) 5	Subjective (ruler measurement of induration) 29
Key Limitation	Low specificity in BCG-vaccinated; reader variability 5	High cost; conversion/reversion issues in serial testing 39	High cost; complex procedure; borderline results 26	Limited global availability; less data than IGRAs 28

Subsection 5.2: Head-to-Head Comparison of IGRA Platforms

When choosing between the two major IGRA platforms, clinicians and laboratories must consider subtle but important differences in their performance characteristics.

• Sensitivity: In direct comparisons, the T-SPOT.TB (ELISPOT) test often demonstrates slightly higher sensitivity for active TB than the QFT (ELISA) tests, particularly in immunocompromised groups.[31] A meta-analysis focusing on active TB diagnosis found that while sensitivities in blood were similar (81% for T-SPOT.TB vs. 80% for QFT-GIT), the difference was stark when testing extrasanguinous fluids like pleural or cerebrospinal fluid, where T-SPOT.TB maintained a high sensitivity of 88% compared to only 48% for QFT-GIT.[31]
• Specificity: Conversely, QFT tests generally show slightly higher specificity than T-SPOT.TB in most studies.[31] The same meta-analysis reported a pooled specificity in blood of 79% for QFT-GIT versus 59% for T-SPOT.TB, though this low specificity for T-SPOT.TB was an outlier compared to other studies and may reflect the populations tested.[31]
• Indeterminate/Invalid Results: The rate of indeterminate or invalid results can impact test utility. The QFT test can yield indeterminate results due to either a high background (Nil) response or a low Mitogen response, the latter being more common in patients with immunosuppression.[14] The T-SPOT.TB test, by normalizing the number of cells used in the assay, may be less affected by low lymphocyte counts and some studies suggest it has a lower rate of invalid results in high-risk populations.[27]

Table 2: Summary of Pooled Sensitivity and Specificity of IGRAs for Active TB

Test	Specimen Type	Pooled Sensitivity (95% CI)	Pooled Specificity (95% CI)
QFT-GIT	Blood	80% (75–84%)	79% (75–82%)
T-SPOT.TB	Blood	81% (78–84%)	59% (56–62%)
TST	Skin	Not directly pooled in this meta-analysis, but other studies suggest ~77% 34	75% (comparable to QFT-GIT in this analysis)
QFT-GIT	Extrasanguinous Fluid	48% (39–58%)	82% (70–91%)
T-SPOT.TB	Extrasanguinous Fluid	88% (82–92%)	82% (78–86%)
Data derived from the meta-analysis by Sester M, et al. Eur Respir J 2011.31

Subsection 5.3: Performance in High-Risk and Special Populations

The accuracy of immunodiagnostic tests can be compromised in individuals at the extremes of age or with altered immune function.

• Immunocompromised Patients (PLHIV): The performance of all cell-mediated immunity tests is a major concern in this population. Both TST and IGRAs exhibit reduced sensitivity in individuals with advanced HIV infection and low CD4 T-cell counts, as their immune systems may be unable to mount a detectable IFN-γ response.[5] Because the risk of progression from latent to active TB is so high in this group, maximizing diagnostic sensitivity is paramount. For this reason, some guidelines recommend a dual-testing strategy, using both a TST and an IGRA, and considering a positive result on either test as evidence of infection.[14]
• Pediatric Populations: Data on IGRA performance in children, particularly those under 5 years of age, are more limited and have been conflicting. Some studies suggest IGRAs may be less sensitive than the TST in this age group, possibly due to immune system immaturity.[32] Given the high risk of rapid progression to severe, disseminated TB disease in young children, a highly sensitive test is critical. This uncertainty is why the CDC continues to state a preference for the TST in children under 5, while acknowledging that IGRAs are used by some experts.[40]
• Challenges in Serial Testing (Healthcare Workers): One of the most significant practical challenges to emerge with IGRAs is their performance in serial testing programs, such as the annual screening of healthcare workers. Longitudinal studies have revealed unexpectedly high rates of test conversions (changing from negative to positive) and reversions (changing from positive back to negative) that do not appear to correlate with known TB exposures.[34] A large study of U.S. healthcare workers found that IGRA conversion rates were six to nine times higher than TST conversion rates, and that over 75% of these IGRA converters reverted to negative on a subsequent test 6 months later.[39] This phenomenon is particularly common for results that are just above the positive cutoff (low-level positives).[44] This instability creates a major clinical dilemma: how to interpret and manage a new positive IGRA result. Treating every converter would lead to a great deal of unnecessary therapy, yet ignoring a true conversion could miss an opportunity to prevent disease. This issue of variability and the lack of a validated definition for IGRA conversion are major limitations for their use in routine serial screening.[34]

Subsection 5.4: The Core Limitation: Inability to Distinguish Latent from Active TB or Predict Progression

It is imperative to understand the fundamental limitation shared by all current ESAT-6:CFP-10-based diagnostics (IGRAs and novel TBSTs), as well as the TST: they are tests for an immunological response, not for the presence of viable bacteria.[5] A positive result indicates that an individual has, at some point, been infected with

M. tuberculosis and has developed a memory T-cell response. It provides no information on the current state of that infection. It cannot distinguish between:

• Active TB Disease: Where bacteria are actively replicating and often causing symptoms and contagion.
• Latent TB Infection (LTBI): Where a small number of bacteria are contained by the immune system in a dormant state, causing no symptoms and posing no risk of transmission.
• Past, Cleared TB: Where the infection has been completely resolved by the immune system, but an immunological memory persists.

Because of this limitation, a positive IGRA or skin test result must always be followed by a comprehensive clinical evaluation—including a medical history, physical examination, and a chest radiograph—to rule out active TB disease. Only after active disease has been excluded can a diagnosis of LTBI be made and preventive therapy be considered.[26]

This inability to distinguish latent from active infection, and more importantly, the inability to predict which of the 2 billion people with LTBI will progress to active disease, represents the "glass ceiling" of current TB immunodiagnostics. It forces a reactive public health strategy of treating vast numbers of people with LTBI—the majority of whom would never have developed disease—to prevent a small number of active cases.[5] Breaking through this ceiling to develop a test that can accurately predict the risk of progression is the single most important goal of future TB diagnostic research.[38]

Section 6: Regulatory Status and Global Public Health Guidelines

The adoption of ESAT-6:CFP-10-based tests into clinical practice is governed by approvals from national regulatory bodies and recommendations from influential public health organizations.

Subsection 6.1: Regulatory Approvals in Key Markets

In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is the primary regulatory body for medical devices, including diagnostic tests.

• QuantiFERON-TB Gold (QFT): The QFT platform has a long history of FDA approval. The QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) test, which utilizes the ESAT-6, CFP-10, and TB7.7 antigens, received its Premarket Approval (PMA) on October 10, 2007 (PMA No. P010033, Supplement).[17] The most recent iteration, QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus), which incorporates both CD4+ and CD8+ T-cell stimulating peptides, is also FDA-approved and has largely replaced the older version in clinical use.[18]
• T-SPOT.TB: The T-SPOT.TB test received its FDA PMA on July 30, 2008 (PMA No. P070006). The approval explicitly states its indication for use with antigens ESAT-6 and CFP-10 as an aid in the diagnosis of M. tuberculosis infection.[25]
• Automation Platforms: Recognizing the need for higher throughput in clinical laboratories, the FDA has also granted approval for automated systems that streamline the processing of these tests. This includes the DiaSorin LIAISON platforms for use with the QFT-Plus assay [48] and the Revvity Auto-Pure 2400 platform for use with the T-SPOT.TB test.[27] These approvals facilitate the scalability of TB testing in high-volume settings like hospitals and public health laboratories.

Subsection 6.2: Recommendations for Use

Global and national public health bodies provide guidance on how these approved tests should be integrated into clinical practice.

• World Health Organization (WHO) Global Guidelines: The WHO provides recommendations with a global perspective, balancing scientific evidence with feasibility in diverse resource settings.
• The WHO states that either a TST or an IGRA can be used to test for TB infection. This is a strong recommendation, reflecting the established utility of both test types, but it is based on evidence considered to be of very low certainty, highlighting the ongoing challenges in the field.[30]
• In 2022, the WHO updated its guidance to include the newer M. tuberculosis antigen-based skin tests (TBSTs), such as the EC skin test, as acceptable alternatives to both TST and IGRAs, recognizing their potential as a low-cost, high-specificity option.[28]
• A critical and unequivocal recommendation from the WHO is that IGRAs and the TST should not be used for the diagnosis of active TB in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). They are tests for infection, and their use to diagnose active disease can lead to misclassification and inappropriate management. Microbiological confirmation (e.g., sputum culture) remains the gold standard for diagnosing active TB.[30]
• U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Recommendations: The CDC provides more prescriptive guidance for the U.S. context, which is a low-TB-incidence, high-resource setting.
• The CDC recommends a strategy of targeted testing for individuals with specific risk factors for TB infection or progression to disease, discouraging testing of low-risk individuals.[40]
• For most situations in persons aged 5 and older, IGRAs are the preferred method of testing. This preference is particularly strong for individuals who have received the BCG vaccine (to avoid false-positive TST results) and for populations that may have difficulty returning for a TST reading (e.g., people experiencing homelessness).[15]
• The TST is considered an acceptable alternative when IGRAs are not available or are too burdensome. The TST remains the preferred test for children under the age of 5, due to more extensive data on its performance and the critical importance of diagnosis in this high-risk group.[35]
• In certain high-risk situations, such as for profoundly immunocompromised persons, the CDC acknowledges that some experts may consider using both a TST and an IGRA to maximize the chance of detecting an infection.[15]

The differences between the WHO and CDC guidelines do not represent a contradiction, but rather a pragmatic adaptation of evidence to different public health contexts. Both organizations agree on the fundamental scientific principle: the high specificity of ESAT-6:CFP-10-based tests makes them analytically superior to the TST, especially in BCG-vaccinated populations. The CDC's guidelines reflect what is considered best practice in a well-resourced healthcare system where the higher cost of IGRAs is less of a barrier. The WHO's more flexible "either/or" recommendation provides a globally applicable framework that acknowledges the reality that the TST, despite its flaws, remains a necessary and viable tool in many parts of the world where IGRAs are not yet feasible. The WHO's endorsement of new, cheaper, specific TBSTs is a clear strategic move to bridge this resource gap.

Table 3: Summary of WHO and CDC Recommendations for TB Testing

Population / Scenario	CDC Recommendation	WHO Recommendation
General Testing	IGRAs are preferred for most persons ≥5 years old. 43	Either TST or an IGRA can be used. 30
BCG-Vaccinated Individuals	IGRA is the preferred test. 40	Either TST or an IGRA can be used; IGRAs avoid false positives. 7
Children < 5 years	TST is the preferred test. 41	Either TST or an IGRA can be used; evidence suggests TBSTs may be more reliable. 30
Immunocompromised (e.g., PLHIV)	Consider using both TST and IGRA to maximize sensitivity. 15	Either TST or an IGRA can be used. 30
Contact Tracing	Either IGRA or TST is acceptable without preference. 35	Either TST or an IGRA can be used. 30
Diagnosis of Active TB	Not recommended as a standalone test; must be part of a full medical evaluation. 40	Strongly recommended NOT to be used for diagnosing active TB in LMICs. 30

Section 7: Future Directions: The Next Generation of TB Diagnostics

While ESAT-6:CFP-10-based tests have revolutionized TB diagnostics, they are not the final word. The field is in a dynamic state of evolution, driven by the need to overcome the limitations of current tests and to prepare for the challenges of the future, particularly the introduction of new TB vaccines.

Addressing the Unmet Needs

Research and development are focused on creating tests that can address the key unmet needs that current IGRAs and skin tests cannot fulfill:

• Predicting Progression: The foremost goal is to develop a test that can reliably identify which individuals with LTBI are at the highest risk of progressing to active disease. Such a test would allow for highly targeted preventive therapy, making TB control efforts vastly more efficient and cost-effective.[34]
• Distinguishing Active from Latent Infection: A test that could differentiate active, replicating bacteria from dormant, latent infection would be a major breakthrough, simplifying the diagnostic algorithm and reducing the reliance on slower microbiological methods.[32]
• Improving Sensitivity: There is a critical need for tests with higher sensitivity, especially for diagnosing infection in the most vulnerable populations, including young children and individuals with compromised immune systems.[57]
• Improving Serial Test Performance: A test with greater reproducibility and less spontaneous variability is needed to make serial screening of at-risk groups like healthcare workers more reliable and clinically interpretable.[37]

Beyond ESAT-6 and CFP-10: The Role of Novel Antigens

One of the most promising avenues for improving test performance is the inclusion of additional, novel M. tuberculosis-specific antigens. The most significant candidate to emerge from this research is Rv3615c, also known as EspC.[57]

• Properties of Rv3615c (EspC): Like ESAT-6 and CFP-10, EspC is secreted by the ESX-1 system and is a highly immunogenic target for T-cells in infected individuals. Crucially, although the gene for EspC is present in the BCG genome, the protein is not effectively secreted by the vaccine strain. Therefore, BCG vaccination does not induce a T-cell response to EspC, making it functionally specific to M. tuberculosis infection.[57]
• Impact on "Second-Generation" IGRAs: The inclusion of EspC alongside ESAT-6 and CFP-10 has been shown to significantly increase the diagnostic sensitivity of IGRAs without reducing their high specificity. A large prospective study of a "second-generation" ELISpot-based IGRA incorporating these three antigens demonstrated a sensitivity of 94% for culture-confirmed TB, which was significantly better than existing commercial IGRAs.[57] Other antigens, such as Rv2645 and RV3879c, have also shown promise in boosting sensitivity when added to the ESAT-6/CFP-10 backbone.[5]

The Development of "ESAT-6-Free" IGRAs for a Post-Vaccine Era

A major driver of diagnostic innovation is the progress in TB vaccine development. Several leading vaccine candidates currently in late-stage clinical trials are protein subunit or viral-vectored vaccines that contain the ESAT-6 antigen. If these vaccines are licensed and widely deployed, they will induce an immune response to ESAT-6 in vaccinated individuals. This would cause a positive result on all current-generation IGRAs, rendering them unable to distinguish vaccine-induced immunity from natural infection—the very same problem that BCG vaccination causes for the TST.[57]

To preempt this major diagnostic challenge, researchers are proactively developing "ESAT-6-free" IGRAs. A proof-of-concept study for such a test, using the QFT platform, has been reported. It uses a cocktail of antigens that includes CFP-10, EspC (Rv3615c), EspF, and Rv2348, but deliberately omits ESAT-6. This novel assay was shown to have a sensitivity and specificity for TB infection that was roughly equivalent to the standard QFT test.[57] The development of such a test is critical to ensure that effective diagnostic tools are available to monitor for breakthrough infections in populations that receive a next-generation, ESAT-6-containing TB vaccine.

The Outlook for More Sensitive, Specific, and Predictive Assays

The future of TB immunodiagnostics likely lies in moving beyond a simple positive or negative result based on a single cytokine. More sophisticated and quantitative approaches are being explored:

• Multi-Cytokine Profiling: There is promising evidence that simultaneously measuring the secretion of multiple cytokines, such as both IFN-γ and Interleukin-2 (IL-2), at a single-cell level may provide a more nuanced picture of the immune response. The ratio or profile of these cytokines could potentially correlate with the stage of infection or response to therapy.[5]
• Dynamic Measurement: IGRAs may offer the potential for more quantitative and dynamic measurement of the cellular immune response over time compared to the more static TST.[45] Changes in the quantitative IGRA value (e.g., the concentration of IFN-γ or the number of spot-forming cells) could potentially be used to monitor treatment efficacy or assess the risk of progression, although this is still an area of active research.

Ultimately, the development of a diagnostic test that can provide a reliable biomarker of risk—an immunological signature that accurately predicts progression to active disease—remains the holy grail of TB diagnostics. Achieving this goal will be essential for moving from a strategy of broad-based treatment of latent infection to one of highly targeted precision prevention, a necessary step to finally achieve the global elimination of tuberculosis.

Section 8: Conclusion and Expert Recommendations

The ESAT-6:CFP-10 antigen complex represents a landmark achievement in the field of infectious disease diagnostics. Its journey from a fundamental component of the M. tuberculosis pathogenic machinery to the core reagent in a generation of highly specific diagnostic tests is a testament to the power of translational science. By exploiting a key virulence factor as an immunological target, researchers developed tools that have overcome the century-old limitation of the TST—its confounding by BCG vaccination—thereby enabling a far more accurate identification of individuals truly infected with M. tuberculosis.

This has led to a diversification of the diagnostic landscape, with high-specificity tests now available in multiple formats to suit different healthcare settings. Laboratory-based IGRAs like QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus and T-SPOT.TB offer objectivity and single-visit convenience for well-resourced systems, while a new generation of antigen-based skin tests like the EC test promises to bring this specificity to field-based, resource-limited settings.

Despite this progress, significant challenges remain. No current test can reliably distinguish latent infection from active disease, nor can they accurately predict which individuals with LTBI will progress to clinical illness. This limitation curtails the ultimate impact of these tests on public health, forcing a strategy of treating many to prevent disease in a few. Furthermore, practical issues such as cost, complexity, and variability in serial testing continue to complicate their widespread implementation.

Current Best Practices for Test Selection and Interpretation

Based on the comprehensive evidence reviewed, the following best practices are recommended for the use of ESAT-6:CFP-10-based tests:

1. Tailor Test Selection to the Clinical Context: There is no single "best test" for all situations. The choice between TST, QFT, T-SPOT.TB, and novel TBSTs must be guided by the specific clinical scenario.

• For BCG-vaccinated individuals (≥5 years old) in well-resourced settings, an IGRA is the clear test of choice due to its superior specificity.
• For children under 5 years of age, the TST remains the preferred test according to CDC guidelines, owing to more extensive performance data in this high-risk group.
• For severely immunocompromised individuals, where test sensitivity is a major concern, a dual-testing strategy using both an IGRA and a TST should be considered to maximize the probability of detection.
• For serial screening of low-risk healthcare workers, the high rate of IGRA conversions and reversions warrants caution. A baseline two-step TST may still be a reasonable approach, or a confirmatory retest should be performed after an initial positive IGRA result before making clinical decisions.
• In resource-limited, high-burden settings, the choice will be dictated by availability and cost. The TST remains a viable option, but the adoption of newer, specific, and affordable antigen-based skin tests should be a priority as they become more widely available.

2. Recognize the Test's Purpose and Limitations: It is critical to remember that these are tests for infection, not for disease. A positive result from any of these tests is not a diagnosis of active TB.

• Every positive IGRA or skin test result must be followed by a prompt and thorough clinical evaluation, including symptom assessment and a chest radiograph, to rule out active TB disease.
• A diagnosis of LTBI should only be made after active TB has been excluded.

3. Use as Part of a Comprehensive Risk Assessment: TB testing should not be performed in isolation. It should be part of a targeted strategy focused on individuals with known risk factors for exposure or progression. Testing low-risk individuals is discouraged as it increases the likelihood of false-positive results and diverts resources.

Concluding Remarks on the Future Trajectory of TB Infection Diagnosis

The field of TB diagnostics is at a crucial inflection point. The success of ESAT-6 and CFP-10 has laid the groundwork for the next wave of innovation. Research is now intensely focused on moving beyond simply identifying infection. The development of second-generation tests incorporating novel antigens like Rv3615c (EspC) promises to enhance sensitivity, while the creation of "ESAT-6-free" assays demonstrates a proactive strategy to maintain diagnostic capability in an era of new TB vaccines. The ultimate objective remains the discovery of a biomarker that can accurately predict the risk of disease progression. Achieving this will transform TB control, enabling a future where preventive therapy can be precisely targeted to those who need it most, bringing the world one step closer to the goal of global TB elimination.

Works cited

1. Cracking the antigenic code of mycobacteria: CFP-10/ESAT-6 tuberculosis skin test and misleading results - PMC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11140781/
2. Comparison of the Tuberculin Skin Test and Interferon Gamma Release Assay for the Screening of Tuberculosis in Adolescents in Close Contact with Tuberculosis TB Patients | PLOS One - Research journals, accessed August 11, 2025, https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0100267
3. Interferon Test - StatPearls - NCBI Bookshelf, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560585/
4. Interferon gamma release assay - Wikipedia, accessed August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interferon_gamma_release_assay
5. Interferon gamma release assays: principles and practice | Enfermedades Infecciosas y Microbiología Clínica - Elsevier, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.elsevier.es/es-revista-enfermedades-infecciosas-microbiologia-clinica-28-articulo-interferon-gamma-release-assays-principles-S0213005X09003905
6. Avoiding the effect of BCG vaccination in detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection with a blood test - ERS Publications, accessed August 11, 2025, https://publications.ersnet.org/content/erj/28/1/16
7. Recommendations for diagnosis of TB infection - WHO consolidated guidelines on tuberculosis - NCBI Bookshelf, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK614633/
8. ESAT-6 from Mycobacterium tuberculosis Dissociates from Its Putative Chaperone CFP-10 under Acidic Conditions and Exhibits Membrane-Lysing Activity, accessed August 11, 2025, https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/jb.00469-07
9. What is the relationship between the BCG (Bacillus Calmette-Guérin) vaccine and the results of a Tuberculin Skin Test (TST) or QuantiFERON (QFT) test? - Dr.Oracle, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.droracle.ai/articles/97304/bcg-vaccine-tb-skin-test-quantifferin
10. CFP-10 from Mycobacterium tuberculosis Selectively Activates ..., accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4288871/
11. Structure and function of the complex formed by the tuberculosis virulence factors CFP‐10 and ESAT‐6 | The EMBO Journal, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.embopress.org/doi/10.1038/sj.emboj.7600732
12. What is QuantiFERON-TB Gold?, accessed August 11, 2025, https://quantiferon.com/jp/cd/patient-resources/quantiferon-tb-gold-2/
13. Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) Vaccine for Tuberculosis - CDC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/vaccines/index.html
14. QuantiFERON-TB Gold+ for the Diagnosis of Mycobacterium ... - AAFP, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/2021/0201/p177.html
15. Interferon Gamma Release Assay (IGRA): Frequently Asked Questions - LA County Department of Public Health, accessed August 11, 2025, http://publichealth.lacounty.gov/tb/docs/IGRA-FAQ.pdf
16. Why is Interferon-Gamma Release Assay (IGRA) preferred over Tuberculin Skin Test (TST) in individuals exposed to tuberculosis (TB)? - Dr.Oracle AI, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.droracle.ai/articles/156029/why-igra-is-better-than-tst-in-exposed-people
17. Premarket Approval (PMA) - FDA, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm?ID=335144
18. Fourth-Generation QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus: What Is the Evidence? - PMC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7448650/
19. Evaluation of Diagnostic Value of Quantiferon -TB Gold Test in Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis SUBJECTS & METHODS, accessed August 11, 2025, https://applications.emro.who.int/imemrf/Egypt_J_Med_Microbiol/Egypt_J_Med_Microbiol_2010_19_4_1_8.pdf
20. T-SPOT®.TB | Quest Diagnostics, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.questdiagnostics.com/healthcare-professionals/clinical-education-center/faq/faq215
21. T-SPOT®.TB | Test Detail | Quest Diagnostics, accessed August 11, 2025, https://testdirectory.questdiagnostics.com/test/test-detail/37737/t-spottb?cc=MASTER
22. T SPOT TB Test (Sendout) - UW Medicine Laboratory Test Guide, accessed August 11, 2025, https://testguide.labmed.uw.edu/view/RTBTSP
23. T-SPOT.TB - Wikipedia, accessed August 11, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-SPOT.TB
24. T-SPOT.TB Test - Deactivated Laboratory Services Directory, accessed August 11, 2025, https://kuhlab.testcatalog.org/show/TSPOT
25. Premarket Approval (PMA) - FDA, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfPMA/pma.cfm?ID=320334
26. TB Control Testing & Reporting - Iowa Department of Health and Human Services, accessed August 11, 2025, https://hhs.iowa.gov/health-prevention/tuberculosis/tb-control-testing-reporting
27. Revvity Secures FDA Approval for Improved Automated Latent Tuberculosis Test, accessed August 11, 2025, https://news.revvity.com/press-announcements/press-releases/press-release-details/2025/Revvity-Secures-FDA-Approval-for-Improved-Automated-Latent-Tuberculosis-Test/default.aspx
28. Evaluation of ESAT6-CFP10 Skin Test for Mycobacterium ..., accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10117090/
29. Diagnostic performance of a novel ESAT6-CFP10 skin test for tuberculosis infection in school tuberculosis outbreak in China - Frontiers, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/public-health/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1259106/full
30. Executive summary - WHO consolidated guidelines on tuberculosis ..., accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK586665/
31. Interferon-γ release assays for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis: a ..., accessed August 11, 2025, https://publications.ersnet.org/content/erj/37/1/100
32. Interferon-γ release assays for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis: sensible or silly?, accessed August 11, 2025, https://publications.ersnet.org/content/erj/33/6/1250
33. Correlation between the tuberculin skin test and T‑SPOT.TB in patients with suspected tuberculosis infection: A pilot study - Spandidos Publications, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.spandidos-publications.com/10.3892/etm.2019.7791
34. Interferon-Gamma Release Assays versus Tuberculin Skin Testing ..., accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3582085/
35. Interferon Gamma Release Assays Clinical Guidelines in California, accessed August 11, 2025, https://ctca.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/IGRAfinalchangessavedv5_1.pdf
36. Comparison of Tuberculin Skin Testing and Interferon-γ Release Assays in Predicting Tuberculosis Disease - PMC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10993073/
37. Position statement on interferon-γ release assays for the detection of latent tuberculosis infection - Department of Health, Disability and Ageing, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www1.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/cdi4104-c
38. Predicting Tuberculosis | Does the IGRA Tell the Tale? | American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.200802-251ed
39. Interferon-γ Release Assays and Tuberculin Skin Testing for Diagnosis of Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Healthcare Workers in the United States | American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/rccm.201302-0365OC
40. Clinical Testing and Diagnosis for Tuberculosis | Tuberculosis (TB ..., accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/testing-diagnosis/index.html
41. Clinical and Laboratory Diagnosis for Tuberculosis - CDC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/testing-diagnosis/clinical-and-laboratory-diagnosis.html
42. Clinical Testing Guidance for Tuberculosis: Tuberculin Skin Test - CDC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/testing-diagnosis/tuberculin-skin-test.html
43. Updated Guidelines for Using Interferon Gamma Release Assays to Detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infection --- United States, 2010 - CDC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5905a1.htm
44. Tuberculosis Blood Test: Interferon Gamma Release Assay (IGRA) - Wisconsin Department of Health Services, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.dhs.wisconsin.gov/publications/p01182.pdf
45. The New IGRA and the Old TST | Making Good Use of Disagreement | American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/rccm.200701-024ED
46. P010033 - Premarket Approval (PMA) - FDA, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpma/pma.cfm?id=P010033
47. Fourth-Generation QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus: What Is the Evidence? - PubMed, accessed August 11, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32493779/
48. LIAISON QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus - Automated TB testing solution, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.qiagen.com/us/tb-testing/what-is-quantiferon/liaison-qft-plus
49. FDA Approves Wider Access to Automated Blood Test for Latent Tuberculosis, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/fda-approves-wider-access-to-automated-blood-test-for-latent-tuberculosis
50. US FDA approves Qiagen TB assay for use on Liaison XS platform, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.medicaldevice-network.com/news/fda-qiagen-tb-assay-liaison-xs/
51. FDA approves rapid tuberculosis diagnostic platform | American Dental Association, accessed August 11, 2025, https://adanews.ada.org/huddles/fda-approves-rapid-tuberculosis-diagnostic-platform/
52. FDA Approves Auto-Pure 2400 for Faster, More Accurate Tuberculosis Diagnosis, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/fda-approves-auto-pure-2400-for-faster-more-accurate-tuberculous-diagnosis
53. Revvity gets FDA approval for automated TB test - CAP TODAY, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.captodayonline.com/revvity-gets-fda-approval-for-automated-tb-test/
54. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov, accessed August 11, 2025, [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK586665/#:~:text=Interferon%2Dgamma%20release%20assays%20(IGRAs)%20(and%20the%20tuberculin,active%20TB%20in%20these%20settings.](https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK586665/%23:~:text%3DInterferon%252Dgamma%2520release%2520assays%2520(IGRAs)%2520(and%2520the%2520tuberculin,active%2520TB%2520in%2520these%2520settings.&sa=D&source=editors&ust=1754910606384299&usg=AOvVaw3nF2LaRny0jJ5zR06wvDjA)
55. Testing for Tuberculosis - CDC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/tb/testing/index.html
56. Testing for Tuberculosis: Blood Test - CDC, accessed August 11, 2025, https://www.cdc.gov/tb/testing/blood-test.html
57. Progress in interferon-gamma release assay development and ..., accessed August 11, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6685846/