A simple 15-minute test could change how we detect hidden tuberculosis — and it’s causing a stir in the medical world. But how reliable is it really, and could this fast new approach replace the long-standard lab test? Here’s what the latest research reveals.
A groundbreaking study from Karolinska Institutet, recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases, explores a new rapid point-of-care test that could make latent tuberculosis (TB) detection far more accessible for people in resource-limited areas. Latent TB — when someone carries the bacteria but has no symptoms — is a silent threat. It can develop into active tuberculosis, one of the world’s most deadly infectious diseases, capable of spreading quickly from person to person. Preventing this progression is key to reducing new infections worldwide.
Traditionally, healthcare providers have relied on laboratory-based assays like QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus. While accurate, this method requires multiple steps, specialized equipment, and skilled technicians, often taking one to two days for results. In low-resource settings where TB rates are high and healthcare infrastructure is limited, these requirements make timely diagnosis nearly impossible.
That’s why researchers from Sweden’s Karolinska Institutet teamed up with Vietnamese scientists to evaluate a faster, simpler alternative: the TB-Feron test. This point-of-care test can be performed on-site, delivers results within 15 minutes, and doesn’t need complex lab tools or extensive training. If proven consistently reliable, it could be a major breakthrough for TB prevention in rural and underserved regions.
The study examined 345 adults in Hanoi, Vietnam, divided into three groups: confirmed TB patients, individuals living with someone with infectious TB, and people without known exposure. Each participant took both the TB-Feron and the standard QuantiFERON-TB Gold Plus tests for comparison.
The findings were eye-catching. TB-Feron correctly identified 88% of patients expected to test positive — a sensitivity close to the 92% achieved by the QuantiFERON test. However, its specificity, or ability to rule out infection in healthy participants, was lower: 70% compared to QuantiFERON’s 96%. Among household contacts, the two tests showed strong agreement, with a 92% match for positive results.
“These results are promising,” said Han Thi Nguyen, pulmonologist and doctoral student at Karolinska Institutet. “The test worked remarkably well in a high-burden environment, is easy to handle, and offers same-day results — an enormous advantage for primary care clinics.”
The team also verified the test’s reproducibility by comparing results processed by two separate groups of lab technicians. No significant differences were found, suggesting TB-Feron provides stable, reliable outcomes across different users — a crucial factor for widespread use.
Last author and infectious disease researcher Lina Davies Forsman added, “This tool could help more people with latent TB get diagnosed and start preventive treatment earlier, particularly in rural or lower-income communities where access to traditional testing remains scarce.”
Still, the debate continues. The lower specificity raises questions: Would false positives lead to unnecessary treatment, or is rapid access worth the trade-off? This is where opinions diverge — should speed and accessibility outweigh pinpoint accuracy in global health screening?
The full study, “Diagnostic Accuracy of the STANDARD F TB-Feron FIA Assay for Tuberculosis Infection in Vietnam: A Cross-Sectional Study,” can be found in Clinical Infectious Diseases.
What’s your take — should healthcare systems in developing regions adopt faster, point-of-care TB tests like TB-Feron despite their imperfections, or should accuracy remain the top priority? Let’s discuss.
