The interferon-γ assay has been used worldwide as an ancillary test for the diagnosis of bovine tuberculosis (bTB). This study aimed to describe, based on the bTB-free status in Switzerland, the difference of applying a more stringent cutoff point of 0.05 compared with 0.1 for bTB surveillance. Moreover, the effect of time between blood collection and stimulation, culture results, optical density values, and the influence of testing different breeds were evaluated. Blood samples from a total of 118 healthy cows older than 6 months were tested with three commercial interferon-gamma assays. To confirm the bTB-free status of the tested animals and to investigate potential cross-reactions with nontuberculous mycobacteria, pulmonary and abdominal lymph nodes in addition to ileal mucosa from each cattle were used for the detection of viable Mycobacteria spp. by specific culture. Significant differences regarding the proportion of false-positive results between the two Bovigam tests and between Bovigam 2G and ID Screen were found. Samples analyzed with Bovigam 2G were 2.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6–3.9] times more likely to yield a false-positive test result than samples analyzed with Bovigam TB. Similarly, the odds ratio (OR) for testing samples false-positive with ID Screen compared with Bovigam TB was 1.9 (95% CI 1.21–2.9). The OR for testing false-positive with ID Screen compared with Bovigam 2G was less to equally likely with an OR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.5–1.1). When using a cutoff of 0.05 instead of 0.1, the OR for a false-positive test result was 2.2 (95% CI 1.6–3.1). Samples tested after 6 h compared with a delayed stimulation time of 22–24 h were more likely to yield a false-positive test result with an OR of 3.9 (95% CI 2.7–5.6). In conclusion, applying a more stringent cutoff of 0.05 with the Bovigam 2G kit generates a questionable high number of false-positive results of one of three tested animals. Furthermore, specific breeds might show an increased risk to result false-positive in the Bovigam 2G and the ID Screen assays.
A Positive Attitude to Negate a False Positive Test Result: An Intern’s Experience with COVID-19
