Skip to content

Advertisement

BMC Pulmonary Medicine

Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Diagnostic value of interleukins for tuberculous pleural effusion: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Pulmonary MedicineBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201717:180

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12890-017-0530-3

Received: 26 June 2017

Accepted: 24 November 2017

Published: 8 December 2017

Abstract

Background

The ability of interleukins (ILs) to differentiate tuberculous pleural effusion from other types of effusion is controversial. The aim of our study was to summarize the evidence for its use of ruling out or in tuberculous pleural effusion.

Methods

Two investigators independently searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, CNKI, WANFANG, and WEIPU databases to identify studies assessing diagnostic role of ILs for tuberculous pleural effusion published up to January, 2017. Study quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. The pooled diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of ILs were calculated by using Review Manager 5.3. Area under the summary receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was used to summarize the overall diagnostic performance of individual markers.

Results

Thirty-eight studies met our inclusion criteria. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC for chosen ILs were as follows: IL-2, 0.67,0.76 and 0.86; IL-6, 0.86, 0.84 and 0.90; IL-12, 0.78, 0.83 and 0.86; IL-12p40, 0.82,0.65 and 0.76; IL-18, 0.87, 0.92 and 0.95; IL-27, 0.93, 0.95 and 0.95; and IL-33, 0.84, 0.80 and 0.88.

Conclusions

Some of these ILs may assist in diagnosing tuberculous pleural effusion, though no single IL is likely to show adequate sensitivity or specificity on its own. Further studies on a large scale with better study design should be performed to assess the diagnostic potential of ILs.

Keywords

InterleukinTuberculous pleural effusionDiagnosisMeta-analysis

Background

Tuberculosis remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality, especially in Asia and Africa with high tuberculosis burden. In China, the prevalence of active pulmonary tuberculosis in 2010 among those older than 15 years was 459/100,000, and the prevalence of smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis was 66/100,000. [1] Up to 30% of patients with tuberculosis have tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE), in which extrapulmonary involvement causes pleural effusions [2]. Properly treating pleural effusions requires determining whether the effusions are TPEs or another type of effusion.

The gold standard for diagnosing TPE is the isolation of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M. tuberculosis) from samples of either pleural effusion or pleural biopsy. This culturing offers 100% diagnostic specificity, but it usually takes several weeks, delaying diagnosis and increasing the risk that patients are lost to follow-up. In addition, pleural biopsy is invasive and technically difficult to some extent, particularly in children, such that success can depend strongly on the individual performing the biopsy. [3] Detecting granulomas in pleural biopsies can diagnose TPE with approximately 95% specificity, [24] but the sensitivity of culture- or granuloma-based methods is limited. [5] Although image-guided biopsies and local anesthetic thoracoscopic (LAT) biopsies can highly evaluated the sensitivity compared to blind pleural biopsy, both those techniques are not recommended as the first procedure for patients presenting with pleural effusions. Thus, this highlights the need for alternative less invasive diagnostic strategies.

TPE is largely the result of pathological immune reactions associated with an increase in cytokines, including interleukins (ILs). [6] ILs are secreted proteins that bind to specific receptors and help mediate communication among leukocytes. For example, IL-12 is essential for initially activating inrerferon(INF)-γ-mediated T cell responses to primary M. tuberculosis infection. [7, 8] ILs can promote various types of inflammatory responses, playing a role in activation-induced death of skin keratinocytes, mucosal epithelial cells, and T cells. [9] Evidence that pleural levels of some ILs are elevated in patients with TPE has led investigators to explore their potential for differentiating TPE from other types of pleural effusion. Most studies have looked at only one or a few ILs, and some studies looking at the same ILs have arrived at different conclusions. This led us to systematically review the literature and meta-analyze available data to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the potential of ILs for diagnosing TPE.

Methods

Search strategy and study selection

The systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guidelines. [10] Two investigators independently searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Knowledge, CNKI, WANFANG, and WEIPU databases to identify studies assessing the role of ILs in diagnosing TPE published up to January, 2017. Before the full search, we performed a preliminary search to decide on the ILs to include in the review. The following search terms were used: “interleukins or IL” and “IL-2 or IL-6 or IL-12 or IL-12p40 or IL-18 or IL-27 or IL-33” and “tuberculosis” and “pleural effusion/pleural fluid” and “sensitivity or specificity or accuracy”. Reference lists in retrieved studies and review articles were examined manually to identify additional studies.

Two authors (NZ and CW) independently assessed each study for eligibility; disagreements were resolved by consensus. Studies were included if they fulfilled all the following criteria: (1) the work was an original research article published in English or Chinese, (2) human samples were analyzed, (3) standard methods were used to definitively diagnose the type of effusion as TPE or other type, and (4) data sufficient for calculating specificity and sensitivity were reported. Conference proceedings, letters to the editor, and studies including fewer than 10 patients with TPE were excluded.

Quality assessment and data extraction

The same two authors (NZ and CW) assessed the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool (QUADAS-2). [11] For each criterion, a response of “yes” was assigned if it was fulfilled; “unclear”, if doubt existed whether it was fulfilled; or “no” if it was not fulfilled. The following data were retrieved from each study: authors, country, publication year, population characteristics, testing methods, cut-off value, methodological quality, and 2-by-2 tables showing rates of true positives (TPs), true negatives (TNs), false positives (FPs) and false negative (FNs).

Statistical analysis

Data were compiled in Excel, then transferred to Review Manager 5.3 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark) and STATA Version 12.0 (Stata Corp., College Station, TX) for statistical analysis. For each study, sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) were calculated, together with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A summary ROC (SROC) curve was generated for each IL in each study, [12] from which a single test threshold value was determined and used to calculate sensitivity and specificity. [13] Overall diagnostic performance for that IL was assessed as the area under the SROC curve (AUC).

The Q test and inconsistency index (I2) were used to detect potential heterogeneity in the natural logarithm of DOR (lnDOR) meta-analyzed across studies. [14] Presence of implicit cut-off point effects and correlation between sensitivity and specificity were assessed for each IL by calculating the Spearman rank correlation coefficient for each IL. Deeks’ funnel plot and Egger’s test were used to detect publication bias [15]. All statistical tests were two-sided, with P < 0.05 taken as the threshold of significance.

Results

Our systematic review included 38 studies examining the ability of pleural concentrations of IL-2, IL-6, IL-12, IL-12p40, IL-18, IL-27, and IL-33 to diagnose TPE. [1653] Other ILs in the Table 1 were excluded for meta-analysis because relevant data were available from fewer than 3 studies [5458] (Fig. 1). Two authors (NZ and CW) assessed studies for possible overlap in the populations analyzed. Data were pooled from overlapping populations as long as the different studies reported on different ILs or IL combinations. Otherwise, if studies with overlapping populations reported on the same IL or IL combination, only the data from the largest study were used.
Table 1

Clinical summary of all studies

Interleukins

Author

Country(incidence)

Year

Cut-off (pg/ml)

Index test

Design

IL-27

Wu et al. [16]

China (high)

2013

900.8

ELISA

P

Liu et al. [42]

China (high)

2015

1012

ELISA

R

Luo et al. [27]

China (high)

2015

353.47

ELISA

R

Skouras et al. [46]

Greece (low)

2015

391

ELISA

NA

Sun et al. [29]

China (high)

2014

838

ELISA

R

Valdes et al. [31]

Spain (low)

2014

550

ELISA

P

Yang et al. [50]

China (high)

2012

1007

ELISA

P

Niu et al. [38]

China (high)

2012

846

ELISA

R

IL-18

Chen et al. [17]

China (high)

2011

843.7

ELISA

R

Dai et al. [18]

China (high)

2015

503.58

ELISA

R

Ding et al. [19]

China (high)

2008

640

ELISA

R

Hu et al. [21]

China (high)

2009

365

ELISA

R

Jiang et al. [22]

China (high)

2009

503.88

ELISA

R

Klimiuk et al. [39]

Poland (low)

2014

327.7

ELISA

P

Liu et al. [43]

China (high)

2015

438.86

ELISA

R

Okamoto et al. [44]

Japan (low)

2005

992.7

ELISA

NA

Wang et al. [47]

China (high)

2008

358

ELISA

R

Wu et al. [33]

China (high)

2006

150

ELISA

R

Xiong et al. [34]

China (high)

2007

358

ELISA

R

Yu et al. [51]

China (high)

2003

150

ELISA

NA

IL-6

Kiropoulos et al. [24]

Greece (low)

2007

17,215

ELISA

P

Wang et al. [32]

China (high)

2005

1950

ELISA

R

Wong et al. [48]

China (high)

2003

4000

ELISA

P

Wu et al. [49]

China (high)

2005

550

ELISA

R

Zan et al. [35]

China (high)

2014

277

RIA

NA

Yang et al. [37]

China (high)

2006

220

RIA

R

IL-33

Lee et al. [26]

Korea (low)

2013

10

ELISA

R

Li et al. [40]

China (high)

2015

68.3

ELISA

R

Liu et al. [42]

China (high)

2015

19.31

ELISA

R

Xuan et al. [36]

China (high)

2014

19.86

ELISA

R

IL-12

Chen et al. [17]

China (high)

2011

785.6

ELISA

R

Gu et al. [20]

China (high)

2002

300

ELISA

NA

Jiang et al. [23]

China (high)

2010

87.41

ELISA

R

Okamoto et al. [44]

Japan (low)

2005

129

ELISA

NA

Tian et al. [28]

China (high)

2004

73.5

ELISA

R

Zhou et al. [53]

China (high)

2012

90

ELISA

R

IL-2

Liu et al. [43]

China (high)

2015

67.17

ELISA

R

Liu et al. [42]

China (high)

2015

99.08

ELISA

R

Ren et al. [25]

China (high)

2014

41.91

ELISA

R

Wu et al. [49]

China (high)

2005

250

ELISA

R

Zhang et al. [52]

China (high)

1998

400

RIA

R

IL-12p40

Fernández et al. [41]

Venezuela (low)

2011

89

ELISA

NA

Klimiuk et al. [39]

Poland (low)

2014

296

ELISA

P

Tural Önür et al. [45]

Turkey (low)

2015

210

ELISA

NA

Valdes et al. [30]

Spain (low)

2009

550

ELISA

P

IL-8

Yamada et al. [57]

Japan (low)

2001

228

ELISA

R

Yang et al. [56]

China (high)

2001

1000

ELISA

R

IL-10

Wu et al. [49]

China (high)

2005

50

ELISA

R

IL-22

Jin et al. [58]

China (high)

2011

49

ELISA

R

Yuan et al. [55]

China (high)

2014

186.6

ELISA

R

IL-23

Klimiuk et al. [39]

Poland (low)

2014

0.7

ELISA

P

IL-31

Gao et al. [54]

China (high)

2015

67.5

ELISA

R

Abbreviations: IL interleukin, ELISA enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay, RIA radioimmunoassay, NA not available, P prospective, R retrospective

Fig. 1

Flow diagram of study selection. QUADAS: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

Study characteristics

Table 1 summarizes clinical characteristics of patients in the 38 studies that used for quantitative meta-analysis [1653]. Average sample size was 98 (range, 43 to 431) for each IL (Table 2). 23 studies stated that the pleural effusion samples were collected before any drug treatment [1638], while the rest 15 studies didn’t report such information [3953]. Diagnosis of TPE or other type of pleural effusion was based only on clinical course in 5 studies, [22, 23, 28, 35, 41] i.e. on clinical presentation, pleural fluid analysis, radiology and responsiveness to anti-tuberculosis chemotherapy. Diagnosis was based on bacteriology, histology or both (gold standard) in 11 studies. In the remaining 21 studies, some patients were diagnosed with TPE based on clinical course and others based on the gold standard. One study [51] did not report the diagnostic standard for TPE. All but 3 studies [35, 37, 52] measured IL levels using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays (ELISA), with the remaining 3 studies using radioimmunoassays.
Table 2

Diagnostic performance of interleukins from individual studies

Interleukins

Author

Subjects

TP

FP

FN

TN

IL-27

Wu et al. [16]

81

38

1

2

40

Liu et al. [42]

147

88

3

7

49

Luo et al. [27]

62

32

1

2

27

Skouras et al. [46]

121

8

10

2

101

Sun et al. [29]

76

38

1

2

35

Valdes et al. [31]

431

64

54

6

307

Yang et al. [50]

174

63

1

5

105

Niu et al. [38]

44

23

1

0

20

IL-18

Chen et al. [17]

64

28

4

6

26

Dai et al. [18]

52

21

2

2

27

Ding et al. [19]

72

33

2

1

36

Hu et al. [21]

102

48

3

4

47

Jiang et al. [22]

60

26

2

4

28

Klimiuk et al. [39]

203

27

20

17

139

Liu et al. [43]

80

36

3

4

37

Okamoto et al. [44]

43

4

1

7

31

Wang et al. [47]

44

17

2

2

23

Wu et al. [33]

48

20

2

4

22

Xiong et al. [34]

86

41

3

5

37

Yu et al. [51]

52

30

0

2

20

IL-6

Kiropoulos et al. [24]

97

22

17

3

55

Wang et al. [32]

71

33

2

1

35

Wong et al. [48]

66

29

8

3

26

Wu et al. [49]

109

31

9

25

44

Zan et al. [35]

56

30

5

12

9

Yang et al. [37]

54

20

2

2

30

IL-33

Lee et al. [26]

220

47

56

13

104

Li et al. [40]

87

27

16

5

39

Liu et al. [42]

147

82

5

13

47

Xuan et al. [36]

44

20

2

3

19

IL-12

Chen et al. [17]

64

30

5

4

25

Gu et al. [20]

52

27

5

5

25

Jiang et al. [23]

60

22

3

8

27

Okamoto et al. [44]

43

6

1

5

31

Tian et al. [28]

190

120

17

21

32

Zhou et al. [53]

73

31

8

14

20

IL-2

Liu et al. [43]

80

25

6

15

34

Liu et al. [42]

147

53

18

42

34

Ren et al. [25]

88

39

4

3

42

Wu et al. [49]

109

34

21

22

32

Zhang et al. [52]

69

23

6

4

36

IL-12p40

Fernández et al. [41]

60

11

20

9

20

Klimiuk et al. [39]

203

38

44

6

115

Tural Önür et al. [45]

120

42

27

10

41

Valdes et al. [30]

96

36

17

3

40

IL-8

Yamada et al. [57]

70

17

14

4

35

Yang et al. [56]

64

38

4

2

20

IL-10

Wu et al. [49]

109

46

7

20

36

IL-22

Jin et al. [58]

56

23

1

5

27

Yuan et al. [55]

87

47

7

5

28

IL-23

Klimiuk et al. [39]

203

13

66

31

93

IL-31

Gao et al. [54]

71

33

0

7

31

Abbreviations: IL interleukin, TP true-positive, FP false-positive, FN false-negative, TN true-negative

Determination of statistical pooling model

Diagnostic studies are typically meta-analyzed using an SROC-based fixed-effects model, [59] a random-effects model using a bivariate normal approximation, [60] or a hierarchical SROC (HSROC)-based full Bayesian [61] or empirical Bayes method [62]. In our study, lnDOR heterogeneity was statistically significant and associated with high I2 values for most ILs (Table 3). These indications of substantial heterogeneity in lnDOR made the use of a SROC-based fixed-effects model inappropriate [63].
Table 3

Statistical measures of heterogeneity, cut-off effect, and publication bias for each interleukin

interleukins

I2 for heterogeneity in InDOR(%)

Spearman’s coefficient

Egger test P value

Deeks test P value

IL-27

53.5

−0.467

0.101

0.57

IL-18

61.7

−0.511

0.5

0.73

IL-6

77.8

−0.657

0.532

0.66

IL-33

77.7

−1.00

0.359

0.54

IL-12

34.3

0.493

0.029

0.23

IL-2

88.4

−0.900

0.17

0.18

IL-12p40

83.2

−0.800

0.9

0.34

The possible presence of implicit cut-off point effects was examined for each included IL, using the Spearman rank correlation between sensitivity and specificity (Table 3). A negative correlation was found for most ILs, indicating no detectable implicit cut-point effect. Therefore, we used a random-effects model to estimate the mean sensitivity and specificity and associated CIs.

Diagnostic accuracy

These data were meta-analyzed using a random-effects model (Table 3). Fig. 2 summarizes the sensitivities and specificities for IL-27 and IL-18 reported by each study. (Results for the other ILs are reported in Additional file 1: Figure S1.) Sensitivity of IL-27 ranged from 0.80 to 1.00, and the pooled value was 0.93 (95%CI 0.90–0.95). Sensitivity of IL-18 ranged from 0.44 to 0.97, and the pooled value was 0.87 (95%CI 0.79–0.92). Specificity of IL-27 varied from 0.85 to 0.99, and the pooled value was 0.95 (95%CI 0.90–0.98). Specificity of IL-18 varied from 0.82 to 1.00, and the pooled value was 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.95). The pooled parameters for all included ILs are shown in Table 4.
Fig. 2

Forest plot of the sensitivities and specificities. a. interleukin-27, b. interleukin-18. The calculated pooled mean with corresponding confidence interval is also reported

Table 4

Pooled means of sensitivity and specificity, diagnostic odds ratio(DOR), area under the curve(AUC), and calculated likelihood ratios for each interleukin

Interleukins

sensitivity(95%CI)

specificity(95%CI)

DOR

AUC

PLR

NLR

IL-27

0.93(0.90–0.95)

0.95(0.90–0.98)

264

0.95

19.5(9.4–40.5)

0.07(0.05–0.11)

IL-18

0.87(0.79–0.92)

0.92 (0.88–0.95)

76

0.95

10.8 (7.2–16.3)

0.14(0.09–0.23)

IL-6

0.86(0.70–0.94)

0.84(0.74–0.90)

30

0.90

5.2(3.0–9.1)

0.17(0.07–0.41)

IL-33

0.84(0.77–0.89)

0.80(0.65–0.89)

20

0.88

4.2(2.21–7.9)

0.20(0.13–0.32)

IL-12

0.78(0.69–0.84)

0.83(0.72–0.91)

17

0.86

4.6(2.8–7.8)

0.27(0.20–0.37)

IL-2

0.67(0.61–0.73)

0.76(0.70–0.82)

11

0.86

3.4(1.7–6.8)

0.36(0.20–0.66)

IL-12p40

0.82(0.66–0.91)

0.65(0.54–0.74)

8

0.76

2.3(1.6–3.4)

0.28(0.13–0.61)

Abbreviations: IL interleukin, DOR diagnostic odds ratio, AUC area under the curve, PLR positive likelihood ratio, NLR negative likelihood ratio

Unlike a traditional ROC plot, each data point on an SROC curve represents a separate study, allowing the curve to provide an overall assessment of diagnostic performance. Plotting the rate of TP against the rate of FP gave curves showing AUCs of 0.95 for IL-18 and IL-27 (Fig. 3). Among all ILs, IL-27 showed the highest overall accuracy, with a sensitivity of 93% and specificity of 95%.
Fig. 3

Summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve for all the interleukins included

Study quality and publication bias

QUADAS-2 assessment of included studies showed that most studies had low risk of bias (Fig. 4). Both Egger’s and Deeks’ tests suggest no evidence of bias among the studies for any ILs meta-analyzed (Table 3). Funnel plots indicate low risk of publication bias (Additional file 1: Figure S2).
Fig. 4

Summary of QUADAS-2 assessments of included studies. QUADAS-2: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Patient Selection: Describe methods of patient selection; Index Text: Describe the index test and how it was conducted and interpreted; Reference Standard: Describe the reference standard and how it was conducted and interpreted; Flow and Timing: Describe any patients who did not receive the index tests or reference standard or who were excluded from the 2 × 2 table, and describe the interval and any interventions between index tests and the reference standard

Discussion

Assaying pleural levels of ILs may be a cost-effective and minimally invasive alternative to traditional tests for differentiating TPE from other types of pleural effusion. Our meta-analysis of the available evidence suggests that IL-27 and IL-18 show relatively high diagnostic accuracy for TPE, while five other well-studied ILs do not (IL-2, IL-12, IL-27, IL-33 and IL-12p40). Even IL-27 and IL-18 do not appear to have adequate diagnostic potential on their own, so they would need to be used in conjunction with other methods or conventional markers.

Our meta-analysis showed that IL-2, despite being centrally involved in the regulation of immune tolerance and activation, [64] is associated with quite low sensitivity and specificity. This may reflect the fact that IL-2 data were available from only 5 studies, all of which were conducted in China. Future work, preferably in Caucasians and other groups of Asians, should investigate the diagnostic potential of this IL.

DOR combines sensitivity and specificity into a single indicator of test performance. [65] Higher DOR indicates better discriminatory test performance. Mean DOR was 64.12 for IL-18 and 227.9 for IL-27, indicating high overall accuracy. Potentially more clinically meaningful than DOR are likelihood ratios. [66] A likelihood ratio > 10 or <0.1 suggests a 10-fold difference between the pre- and post-test probability that a condition is present. Of the ILs meta-analyzed here, only IL-18 and IL-27 had PLRs >10, suggesting that a positive test result for these ILs indicates a relatively high probability of TPE. In addition, IL-27 was associated with an NLR of 0.08, indicating an 8% probability that a negative IL-27 test result is a false negative for TPE. This may be sufficient for ruling out TPE in the clinic.

Pleural levels of a number of biomarkers have been proposed as aids in the diagnosis of TPE, including adenosine deaminase (ADA) and interferon-γ(INF-γ), both of which are present in patients with TPE at significantly higher concentrations than in patients with other types of pleural effusion. The diagnostic performance determined here for IL-18 and IL-27 compares favorably with that of ADA and INF-γ. Meta-analyses [67, 68] indicate that these latter two assays on their own are associated with the following diagnostic indices: sensitivity, 0.89 (95%CI 0.87–0.91) and 0.92 (95%CI 0.90–0.93); specificity, 0.97 (95%CI 0.96–0.98) and 0.90 (95%CI 0.89–0.91); PLR, 23.45 (95%CI 17.31–31.78) and 9.03 (95%CI 7.19–11.35); NLR, 0.11 (95%CI 0.07–0.16) and 0.10 (95%CI 0.07–0.14); and DOR, 272.7 (147.5–504.2) and 110.08 (95%CI 69.96–173.20). Although the available evidence suggests that IL-18 and IL-27 seem to have higher accuracy than ADA, the higher-cost and more complicated determination of IL-27 and IL-18 may limit their practical applicability. [69, 70] In addition, it has been reported that the combination of positive IL-27 with positive ADA values [16, 31, 46], can reach a sensitivity of 100% for the identification of TBP, Our meta-analysis, combined with previous ones, suggests that combining IL-18 and IL-27 with INF-γ and ADA may strengthen TPE diagnosis. We also suggest further studies should be carried out to determine the diagnostic accuracy of IL-27 and IL-18 combination or their combination with ADA or INF-γ.

Our meta-analysis suggests an association between elevated levels of at least certain pleural ILs and TPE. TPE has been characterized as a hypersensitive T cell reaction to mycobacteria or antigens in the pleural space, leading to the accumulation of protein-rich fluid. [6] ILs are divided into different families based on sequence homology, receptor chains or functional properties. IL-18 and IL-33 belong to the IL-1 family, [71] which contains inflammatory mediators playing a major role in early innate immune responses. IL-6, which belongs to a cytokine family of the same name, is a multifunctional, pleiotropic regulator of immune responses, acute-phase responses, hematopoiesis, and inflammation. [72] IL-2, a member of the γ-chain cytokine family, is produced mainly by CD4+ and CD8+ T cells and is essential for Treg cell development. [73] Although both blood and pleural fluid samples can be processed for all ILs, these assays are limited by their inability to differentiate drug resistant TB, consequently, cannot replace appropriate microbiological and molecular investigations. Future work is needed to examine how ILs may affect onset and/or progression of TPE and the probable association between ILs and drug sensitivity of TB.

To ensure reliable results, we meta-analyzed only ILs for which sensitivity and specificity data were available from at least 3 studies. As a result, we did not analyze several ILs for which levels appear to be elevated in tuberculosis [74], including IL-8 [57] and IL-22 [58]. Further work should examine the diagnostic potential of these ILs. In addition, more work should also examine the diagnostic performance of these and other ILs in combination, which we could not do for lack of studies including such combinations.

Our meta-analysis has additional limitations. First, exclusion of conference abstracts, letters to journal editors and unpublished data may have given rise to publication bias, such that our results overestimate actual diagnostic performance. Second, patients were diagnosed with TPE based on both bacteriological and histological assessment in only a few studies; in most studies, patients were diagnosed on the basis of one or the other, alone or in combination with clinical course, and they were diagnosed based solely on clinical course in a few studies. This increases risk of misclassification bias. Third, description of methodology was incomplete in many studies, leading to a QUADAS-2 assessment of “unclear”. In addition, we did not perform meta-regression analysis to determine the source of heterogeneity, because of the limited numbers of the studies included. Our results highlight the need for more rigorous studies of ILs in the diagnosis of TPE. Future work should also examine the diagnostic potential of IL levels in serum, since most studies have focused on pleural levels.

Conclusion

The available evidence suggests that assaying pleural levels of certain ILs may aid in the diagnosis of TPE when used in combination with other biomarkers and approaches. By confirming such diagnosis, ILs may help avoid the need for more invasive diagnostic procedures.

Notes

Abbreviations

ADA: 

Adenosine deaminase

INF-γ

Interferon-γ

AUC: 

The area under the SROC curve

DOR: 

Diagnostic odds ratio

FN: 

False negative

FP: 

False positive

IL: 

Interleukins

NLR: 

Negative likelihood ratio

PLR: 

Positive likelihood ratio

QUADAS-2: 

Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2

SROC: 

Summary ROC

TN: 

True negative

TP: 

True positive

TPE: 

Tuberculous pleural effusion

Declarations

Acknowledgments

Not applicable

Funding

This work was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (81300032) and Science Foundation for Young Scholars of Sichuan University (2015SCU11999–10). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article.

Authors’ contributions

NZ and CW: conceived the article and contributed the systematic review, meta-analysis, and manuscript writing. JQ, YQW, TY, and FQW: contributed to the systematic review and manuscript writing. YCS and LC: contributed to the conception and design and been involved in the revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and Division of Pulmonary Diseases, State Key Laboratory of Biotherapy of China, Chengdu, China

References

  1. Technical guidance group of the fifth national TB epidemiological survey. The fifth national tuberculosis epidemiological survey in 2010 [in Chinese]. Chin J Antituberc. 2012;34(08):485–508.Google Scholar
  2. Qiu L, Teeter LD, Liu Z, Ma X, Musser JM, Ea G. Diagnostic associations between pleural and pulmonary tuberculosis. J Inf Secur. 2006;53(6):377–86.Google Scholar
  3. Trajman A, Pai M, Dheda K, Smit R, Zyl V, Zwerling AA, Joshi R, Kalantri S, Daley P, Menzies D. Novel tests for diagnosing tuberculous pleural effusion: what works and what does not? Eur Respir J. 2008;31(5):1098–106.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Light RW. Update on tuberculous pleural effusion. Respirology. 2010;15(3):451–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Mcgrath EE, Anderson PB. Diagnostic tests for tuberculous pleural effusion. Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis. 2010;29(10):1187–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Sharma SK, Mitra DK, Balamurugan A, Pandey RM, Mehra NK. Cytokine polarization in Miliary and pleural tuberculosis. J Clin Immunol. 2002;22(6):345–52.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cooper AM. Cell-mediated immune responses in tuberculosis. Annu Rev Immunol. 2009;27(1):393–422.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Reddy VM, Andersen BR. Immunology of tuberculosis. Annu Rev Immunol. 2001;19(4):70–4.Google Scholar
  9. Burgler S, Ouaked N, Bassin C, Basinski TM, Mantel PY, Siegmund K, Meyer N, Akdis CA, Schmidt-Weber CB. Differentiation and functional analysis of human T(H)17 cells. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2009;123(3):1–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM, Group Q. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155(8):529–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med. 1993;12(14):1293–316.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Balk EM, Milch C, Terrin N, Chew PW, Salem D. Diagnosing acute cardiac ischemia in the emergency department: a systematic review of the accuracy and clinical effect of current technologies. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37(5):453–60.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fleiss JL. The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 1993;2(2):121–45.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Deeks JJ, Macaskill P, Irwig L. The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(9):882–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Wu YB, Ye ZJ, Qin SM, Wu C, Chen YQ, Shi HZ. Combined detections of interleukin27, interferon-γ, and adenosine deaminase in pleural effusion for diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy. Chin Med J. 2013;126(17):3215–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Chen L, Jiang H, Lin C. Detections of interferon-γ, IL18, IL12 and sIL2R for diagnosis of tuberculosis pleural effusion and malignant pleural effusions [in Chinese]. Chin J Clinicians (Electrionc Edition). 2011;05(12):3602–4.Google Scholar
  18. Dai B, Xu X. Diagnostic value of interleukin-18 on tuberculous and malignant pleural effusion [in Chinese]. J Clin Pulm Med. 2015;20(2):228–30.Google Scholar
  19. Ding YM. Combined detections of interleukin 18, interferon-γ, and adenosine deaminase in pleural effusion for diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy and malignant pleurisy [in Chinese]. China: Zhejiang University; 2008.Google Scholar
  20. Gu XY, Li DY, Wang SY, Zhao WG, Li RY, Li XH. Diagnostic significance of Interleukin-12 in tuberculous pleurisy [in Chinese]. Chin J Antitubercul. 2002;24(4):240.Google Scholar
  21. Hu J, Wang Y, Chen J, Yang M, Jiang L. Significance of interleukin-18 (IL-18) and vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) in differentiating tuberculous pleural effusion from malignant pleural effusions (in Chinese). Clinical Misdiagnosis&Mistherapy. 2009;22(3):1–3.Google Scholar
  22. Jiang ZD, Wang WR, Liu X. Diagnostic significance of interleukin-18 in tuberculous and malignant pleurisy [in Chinese]. Chin Prac Med. 2009;4(35):83–4.Google Scholar
  23. Jiang ZD, Wang WR, Liu X. Diagnostic value of interleukin-12 in tuberculous pleurisy [in Chinese]. Chin Prac Med. 2010;5(1):50–1.Google Scholar
  24. Kiropoulos TS, Kostikas K, Oikonomidi S, Tsilioni I, Nikoulis D, Germenis A, Gourgoulianis KI. Acute phase markers for the differentiation of infectious and malignant pleural effusions. Respir Med. 2007;101(5):910–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Ren ZQ, Xing WC, Sun Y, Liu F, Lin CZ. The differential diagnostic value of interferon-γ, interleukin-2, tumor necrosis factor α and adenosine deaminase in tuberculous and malignant pleural effusion. Prog Modern Biomed. 2014;14(23):4471–4.Google Scholar
  26. Lee KS, Kim HR, Kwak S, Choi KH, Cho JH, Lee YJ, Lee MK, Lee JH, Park SD, Park DS. Association between elevated pleural interleukin-33 levels and tuberculous pleurisy. Ann Lab Med. 2013;33(1):45–51.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Luo JH, Wu N. Diagnostic value of IL-27, ADA and INF-γ in Tuberculous pleural effusion and malignant pleural effusion [in Chinese]. Hebei Med J. 2015;37(4):512–4.Google Scholar
  28. Tian RX. Clinical investigation of the diagnostic value of interferon-γ, interlukin-12 and adenosine deaminase isoenzyme in tuberculous pleurisy. Chin J Tubere Respir Dis. 2004;27(7):435–8.Google Scholar
  29. Sun M, Yan D, Jiang S, Gu X, Ma W. Diagnostic value of interleukin-27 in tuberculous pleural effusion [in Chinese]. Natl Med J China. 2014;94(34):2641–4.Google Scholar
  30. Valdes L, San-Jose ED, Jm AD, Golpe A, Valle J, Penela P, Gonzalez-Barcala F. Diagnostic value of interleukin-12 p40 in tuberculous pleural effusions. Eur Respir J. 2009;33(33):816–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Valdés L, San JE, Ferreiro L, Golpe A, Gude F, Á-D JM, Pereyra MF, Toubes ME, González-Barcala FJ. Interleukin 27 could be useful in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusions. Respir Care. 2014;59(3):399–405.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang A. Diagnostic significance of adenosine deaminase activity, interferon-γ andiInterleukin-6 in tuberculous pleural effusions [in Chinese]. J Hubei Med Univ. 2005;26(1):117–20.Google Scholar
  33. Wu XM. Level of interlukin 18 and its significance in tuberculous pleural effusion and malignant pleural effusion [in Chinese]. Chin J Mod Med. 2006;16(15):2356–60.Google Scholar
  34. Xiong DS, Xu GP, Xiong WN, Gao YP, Ni W, Chen SX. Combined detections of interleukin 18 and adenosine deaminase for diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion and malignant pleural effusion [in Chinese]. Zhonghua Jie He He Hu Xi Za Zhi. 2007;30(10):779–80.Google Scholar
  35. Zan H, Xie W, Tao S. Diagnostic significance of adenosine deaminase activity and interleukin-6 in tuberculous pleural effusions [in Chinese]. Sichuan Med J. 2014;35(5):588–91.Google Scholar
  36. Xuan WX, Zhang JC, Zhou Q, Yang WB, Li-Jun MA. IL-33 levels differentiate tuberculous pleurisy from malignant pleural effusions. Oncol Lett. 2014;8(1):449–53.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Yang C. Level of IL-6, IL-8 and its significance in tuberculous pleural effusion and malignant pleural effusion [in Chinese]. China: Dalian Medical University; 2006.Google Scholar
  38. Niu CM. Interlukin-27 in tuberculous and malignant pleural effusion [in Chinese]. China: Huazhong University of Science and Technology; 2012.Google Scholar
  39. Klimiuk J, Krenke R, Safianowska A, Korczynski P, Chazan R. Diagnostic performance of different pleural fluid biomarkers in tuberculous pleurisy. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2014;852:21–30.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  40. Li D, Shen Y, Fu X, Li M, Wang T, Wen F. Combined detections of interleukin-33 and adenosine deaminase for diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion. Int J Clin Exp Pathol. 2015;8(1):888–93.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Fernández dLC, Duplat A, Giampietro F, de Waard JH, Luna J, Singh M, Araujo Z. Diagnostic accuracy of immunological methods in patients with tuberculous pleural effusion from Venezuela. Investig Clin. 2011;52(1):23–34.Google Scholar
  42. Liu J, Zhang L, Feng S, Zhang L, Sun H, Liu G, Xiao H, Wu M, Du Y, Liu S. Evaluating the value of detecting cytokines for diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion by liquid array technology [in Chinese]. Chin J Lab Med. 2015;38(8):562–6.Google Scholar
  43. Liu D, Xu XL. Diagnostic value of CD1c, IL-2, IL-18 in tuberculous pleural effusion and malignant pleural effusion [in Chinese]. World Latest Medicine Information. 2015;15(54):159–60.Google Scholar
  44. Okamoto M, Kawabe T, Iwasaki Y, Hara T, Hashimoto N, Imaizumi K, Hasegawa Y, Shimokata K. Evaluation of interferon-γ, interferon-γ-inducing cytokines, and interferon-γ–inducible chemokines in tuberculous pleural effusions. J Lab Clin Med. 2005;145(2):88–93.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Önür ST, Sökücü SN, Dalar L, Seyh EC, Akbaş A, Alti S. Are soluble IL-2 receptor and IL-12p40 levels useful markers for diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy? Infect Dis (Lond). 2015;47(3):1–6.Google Scholar
  46. Skouras VS, Magkouta SF, Psallidas I, Tsilioni I, Maragozidis P, Gourgoulianis KI, Kalomenidis I. Interleukin-27 improves the ability of adenosine deaminase to rule out tuberculous pleural effusion regardless of pleural tuberculosis prevalence. Infect Dis (Lond). 2015;47(7):1–7.Google Scholar
  47. Wang XY, Han L, Yang ZH. Combined detections of interleukin 18 and adenosine deaminase in pleural effusion for diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion and malignant pleural effusion [in Chinese]. Chin J Gerontol. 2008;28(21):2125–7.Google Scholar
  48. Wong C, Yew W, Leung S, Chan C. Assay of pleural fluid interleukin-6, tumour necrosis factor-alpha and interferon-gamma in the diagnosis and outcome correlation of tuberculous effusion. Respir Med. 2003;97(12):1289–95.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Wu J, Li Y, Jiang S. Diagnostic value of combined determination of serum and chest fluid adenosine deaminase(ADA), IL-2, IL-6, IL-10 contents for differentiation of tuberculous from malignant pleural effusion. J of Radioimmunology. 2005;18(2):97–9.Google Scholar
  50. Yang WB, Liang QL, Ye ZJ, Niu CM, Ma WL, Xiong XZ, Du RH, Zhou Q, Zhang JC, Shi HZ. Cell origins and diagnostic accuracy of interleukin 27 in pleural effusions. PLoS One. 2012;7(7):e40450.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Yu L, Wang M, Ma X, Zhang Y, Zuo L. Diagnostic value of IL-18 and INF-gama levels in tuberculous and malignant pleural effusions [in Chinese]. Shanghai J of Med Lab Sci. 2003;18(1):39.Google Scholar
  52. Zhang XQ, Hua ZX, Lu DM, Liu HS, Lv XY, Chen LH. The differential diagnostic value of interleukin-2 in tuberculous pleural or ascitic effusion [in Chinese]. J Chengde Med Coll. 1998;15(2):108–9.Google Scholar
  53. Zhou SX, Tan J, Xiao XP. Comparison of clinical values of adenosine deaminase,tumor necrosis factor-α and interleukin-12 in diagnosing tuberculous pleural effusion [in Chinese]. Lab Med Clin. 2012;9(12):1436–7.Google Scholar
  54. Gao Y, Ou Q, Wu J, Zhang B, Wen X, Zhang W, Shao L. Expressions and diagnostic value of interleukin-31 in tuberculous pleural effusion [in Chinese]. Chin J Infect Dis. 2015;33(6):323–6.Google Scholar
  55. Yuan YM, Wang ZY, Wang XJ, Cheng XX, Hui-Ru AN, Zhai SH, Zhang LL, Shuang-Mei L. The application of Mtb-antigen-specific Interleukin-22 in the differential diagnosis of Tuberculous pleurisy [in Chinese]. Modern Instruments & Medical Treatment. 2014;20(3):1–3.Google Scholar
  56. Yang J, Liu W. Role of combination of CA50、TSA、CEA、SF and IL-8 assays in differentiation of benign from malignant pleural effusion [in Chinese]. Chin Med J Metall Industry. 2001;18(5):264–6.Google Scholar
  57. Yamada Y, Nakamura A, Hosoda M, Kato T, Asano T, Tonegawa K, Itoh M. Cytokines in pleural liquid for diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy. Respir Med. 2001;95(7):577–81.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Jin D, Chen Y, Wang Z, Wang S, Bunjhoo H, Zhu J, Cao Y, Xiong W, Xiong S, Xu Y. Diagnostic value of interleukin 22 and carcinoembryonic antigen in tuberculous and malignant pleural effusions. Exp Ther Med. 2011;2(6):1205–9.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  59. Littenberg B, Moses LE. Estimating diagnostic accuracy from multiple conflicting reports a new meta-analytic method. Med Decis Mak. 1993;13(13):313–21.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Reitsma JB, Glas AS, Rutjes AWS, Scholten RJPM, Bossuyt PM, Zwinderman AH. Bivariate analysis of sensitivity and specificity produces informative summary measures in diagnostic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(10):982–90.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Rutter CM, Gatsonis CA. A hierarchical regression approach to meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy evaluations. Stat Med. 2001;20(19):2865–84.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Macaskill P. Empirical Bayes estimates generated in a hierarchical summary ROC analysis agreed closely with those of a full Bayesian analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2004;57(9):925–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Chappell FM, Raab GM, Wardlaw JM. When are summary ROC curves appropriate for diagnostic meta-analyses? Stat Med. 2009;28(21):2653–68.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Boyman O, Kolios AG, Raeber ME. Modulation of T cell responses by IL-2 and IL-2 complexes. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2015;33(4):S54–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PMM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(11):1129–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001;323(7322):1188.Google Scholar
  67. Jiang J, Shi HZ, Liang QL, Qin SM, Qin XJ. Diagnostic value of interferon-γ in tuberculous pleurisy : a meta-analysis. Chest. 2007;131(4):1133–41.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Liang QL, Shi HZ, Ke W, Qin SM, Qin XJ. Diagnostic accuracy of adenosine deaminase in tuberculous pleurisy: a meta-analysis. Respir Med. 2008;102(5):744–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Wallis RS, Kim P, Cole S, Hanna D, Andrade BB, Maeurer M, Schito M, Zumla A. Tuberculosis biomarkers discovery: developments, needs, and challenges. Lancet Infect Dis. 2013;13(4):362–72.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Porcel JM. Advances in the diagnosis of tuberculous pleuritis. Ann Transl Med. 2016;4(15):282.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  71. Palomo J, Dietrich D, Martin P, Palmer G, Gabay C. The interleukin (IL)-1 cytokine family--balance between agonists and antagonists in inflammatory diseases. Cytokine. 2015;76(1):25–37.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Hurst SM, Wilkinson TS, Mcloughlin RM, Jones S, Horiuchi S, Yamamoto N, Rose-John S, Fuller GM, Topley N, Jones SA. IL-6 and its soluble receptor orchestrate a temporal switch in the pattern of leukocyte recruitment seen during acute inflammation. Immunity. 2001;14(14):705–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. Malek TR. The biology of interleukin-2. Annu Rev Immunol. 2008;26(1):453–79.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. Chomej P, Bauer K, Bitterlich N, Hui DSC, Chan KS, Gosse H, Schauer J, Hoheisel G, Sack U. Differential diagnosis of pleural effusions by fuzzy-logic-based analysis of cytokines. Respir Med. 2004;98(4):308–17.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2017

Advertisement