Hubbry Logo
Heaf testHeaf testMain
Open search
Heaf test
Community hub
Heaf test
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Heaf test
Heaf test
Heaf test
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Heaf test
Purposetest tuberculosis in children (discontinued)

The Heaf test, a diagnostic skin test, was long performed to determine whether or not children had been exposed to tuberculosis infection. The test was named after F. R. G. Heaf. Also known as the Sterneedle test,[1] it was administered by a Heaf gun (trademarked "Sterneedle"),[2] a spring-loaded instrument with six needles arranged in a circular formation which was inserted in the wrist[3] or shoulder.

The Heaf test was discontinued in 2005 because the manufacturer deemed its production to be financially unsustainable after manufacturers could not be found for tuberculin or Heaf guns. Until 2005, the test was used in the United Kingdom to determine if the BCG vaccine was needed; the Mantoux test is now used instead.[4] The Heaf test was preferred in the UK, because it was thought to be easier to interpret, with less variability between observers, and less training was required to administer and read the test.

Patients who exhibited a negative reaction to the test were considered for BCG vaccination.

The Heaf test was used to test for tuberculosis in adolescents aged around 13–14.[5]

Procedure

[edit]

A Heaf gun was used to inject multiple samples of testing serum under the skin at once. The needle points were dipped in tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD) and pricked into the skin.[6] A Heaf gun with disposable single-use heads was recommended.

The gun injected PPD equivalent to 100,000 units per ml to the skin over the flexor surface of the left forearm in a circular pattern of six. The test was read between two and seven days later. The injection could not be into sites containing superficial veins.

The reading of the Heaf test was defined by a scale:[7]

  • Negative – no induration, maybe six minute puncture scars
  • Grade 1 – four to six papules (also considered negative)
  • Grade 2 – confluent papules form indurated ring (positive)
  • Grade 3 – central filling to form disc (positive)
  • Grade 4 – disc >10 mm with or without blistering (strongly positive)

Grades 1 and 2 could result from previous BCG or avian tuberculosis, rather than human TB infection.

Children who were found to have a grade 3 or 4 reaction were referred for X-ray and follow-up.

For interpretation of the test, see Tuberculosis diagnosis.

Other tests

[edit]

The equivalent Mantoux test positive levels done with 10 TU (0.1 mL 100 TU/mL, 1:1000) are

  • 0–4 mm induration (Heaf 0-1)
  • 5–14 mm induration (Heaf 2)
  • >15 mm induration (Heaf 3-4)

The Mantoux test is preferred in the United States for the diagnosis of tuberculosis; multiple puncture tests, such as the Heaf test and Tine test, are not recommended.

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Heaf test

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Heaf test is a diagnostic test designed to detect infection by eliciting a delayed-type reaction to purified protein derivative (PPD) of . Developed in 1949 by English physician Frederick Roland George Heaf, it employs a multiple-puncture method using a spring-loaded applicator with six radially arranged needles coated in PPD (typically 100,000 units/ml), which is pressed firmly into the cleansed of the volar to create uniform punctures up to 2 mm deep. The test's reaction is read 2 to 7 days post-administration (optimally at 48-72 hours), graded on a scale from 0 to 4 based on induration around the puncture sites: grade 0 (no induration, only scars) or grade 1 (4-6 discrete papules) are considered negative; grade 2 (confluent papules forming a ring); grade 3 (induration spreading beyond the ring but less than 2 cm); and grade 4 (disc of induration greater than 2 cm or vesiculation/ulceration) indicate positivity, with grades 2-4 typically warranting further evaluation such as chest or confirmatory Mantoux testing. Historically favored in the for mass screening of schoolchildren and at-risk populations due to its simplicity, speed, and lower cost compared to the intradermal , the Heaf method demonstrated high in early evaluations, reducing unnecessary X-rays in low-prevalence settings. However, concerns over variability in needle penetration, potential cross-infection from reusable devices, and higher rates of false positives led to its phased replacement; by 2005, UK policy shifted to the more standardized and interferon-gamma release assays, rendering the Heaf test obsolete in routine practice.

Overview and History

Definition and Purpose

The Heaf test is a multiple-puncture skin test that employs a spring-loaded device called the Heaf gun to simultaneously inject purified protein derivative (PPD) of through six needles into the skin of the , creating a circular pattern of punctures. Developed by British physician Frederick Heaf (1894–1973), it assesses the to antigens as a means of evaluating (TB) status. The primary purpose of the Heaf test is to identify prior exposure to by eliciting a delayed-type reaction in sensitized individuals, thereby detecting latent TB infection without signs of active disease. It was designed for screening purposes, particularly among children and at-risk populations, to determine the need for BCG vaccination in those showing no prior sensitization. In the , the Heaf test was first described in 1951 and became a standard component of national TB control efforts, routinely administered in schools from the mid-1950s to the early 2000s as part of immunization programs targeting adolescents. This widespread use helped prioritize BCG vaccination for tuberculin-negative individuals amid higher TB incidence rates at the time.

Development and Introduction

The Heaf test was devised in 1949 and first described in 1951 by Frederick Roland George Heaf, a British physician and of tuberculosis at the Welsh National School of Medicine in , as an advancement in tuberculin skin testing to detect tuberculosis exposure more efficiently than prior multiple-puncture techniques. Heaf's innovation addressed limitations in earlier methods, such as inconsistent puncture depth and variability in delivery, by introducing a standardized approach suitable for mass screening. The test was first detailed in a seminal article published in , marking its formal introduction to medical practice. Central to the test's design was the Heaf gun, a spring-loaded device known as the Sterneedle, featuring six needles arranged radially to ensure uniform intradermal delivery of purified protein derivative (PPD) . The device propelled the needles to a precise depth through a drop of undiluted PPD at a concentration of 100,000 tuberculin units per milliliter, applied to the , thereby minimizing operator error and enhancing compared to manual methods. This technological refinement allowed for quicker administration in clinical settings, making it particularly advantageous for large-scale testing amid rising concerns. Following its introduction, the Heaf test saw rapid adoption in the during the 1950s and , becoming a cornerstone of national tuberculosis control efforts integrated with BCG vaccination programs. It was routinely employed in school-based screening initiatives targeting adolescents, helping to identify individuals needing in response to the post-World War II resurgence of across , where incidence rates had spiked due to wartime disruptions in infrastructure. By the early , the test's ease of use and reliability had solidified its role in routine pediatric and community surveillance, influencing policy decisions on tuberculosis prevention.

Procedure

Administration

The administration of the Heaf test begins with preparation of the testing site on the volar surface of the , which is cleaned with an alcohol swab to ensure sterility and remove any surface contaminants. The Heaf gun, a multiple-puncture device, is loaded with a disposable head containing six short to minimize risk, as recommended in later protocols to replace reusable components sterilized by alcohol dipping and flaming. A small amount of purified protein derivative (PPD) is then applied to the cleansed area using a platinum loop or , forming a thin film over a circular region about 1 cm in diameter. The gun is positioned perpendicular to the skin surface, with the held taut to facilitate even penetration, and fired to drive the needles intradermally to a depth of 2 mm, creating six punctures within the PPD-coated circle. Care is taken during application to confirm the punctures are superficial, with no visible , indicating proper intradermal placement rather than deeper subcutaneous injection. Following administration, patients are instructed to avoid scratching, rubbing, or covering the site to prevent irritation or secondary , allowing the skin response to develop undisturbed. The test site is typically examined by trained healthcare personnel between 2 and 7 days post-application.

Reading and Grading

The Heaf test site on the flexor surface of the left is examined 2–7 days after administration to allow sufficient time for a delayed-type reaction to develop. The assessment should be conducted under good lighting conditions to facilitate clear visualization of the skin response. is essential, involving gentle feeling of the area around the six puncture marks to detect induration, which presents as a hardened, raised area indicative of to the . Visual inspection focuses on identifying papules (small raised bumps), (redness), induration, or blistering at or around the puncture sites, which form a standardized circular due to the Heaf gun's six-needle configuration arranged in a circle approximately 1 cm in . If the reaction is diffuse or extensive, the may be measured transversely using a or caliper for , though the emphasis remains on the characteristic circular distribution rather than precise size alone. The presence of small scars from the initial punctures is typically noted as a baseline finding, confirming the test's application. Any atypical reactions, such as (tissue death) at the site, should be recorded, as this may signal a particularly strong sensitivity to the . Such observations help in initial documentation before further interpretation, ensuring comprehensive evaluation of the local skin response.

Interpretation

Grade Levels

The Heaf test results are graded based on the appearance and extent of induration and formation at the multiple puncture sites on the , typically assessed by 2 to 5 days after administration. Grade 0 is characterized by no induration, only minute puncture scars, considered negative. Grade 1 is characterized by four or more discrete papules that are visible but do not coalesce, often regarded as negative or unremarkable in terms of indicating significant tuberculin sensitivity. Grade 2 involves papules that coalesce to form a palpable ring of induration, signifying a positive reaction consistent with prior sensitization to mycobacteria. Grade 3 features induration that forms a complete disc with central filling, representing a strongly positive response. Grade 4 consists of induration accompanied by blistering, ulceration, or , denoting a very strongly positive reaction. This grading system originated from the method described by F. R. G. Heaf in 1951, with emphasis placed on to detect induration rather than precise linear measurements.

Clinical Significance

Positive results on the Heaf test, specifically grades 2 through 4, indicate sensitization to , suggesting infection (LTBI) rather than active disease. In clinical practice, such findings prompt further evaluation, including a chest to rule out active and additional diagnostic tests like sputum analysis if symptoms are present. For confirmed LTBI, especially in children or high-risk individuals previously vaccinated with BCG, preventive therapy such as a 6- to 9-month course of isoniazid is often recommended to reduce the risk of progression to active disease. Negative results (grade 0 or 1) generally suggest no prior exposure to , allowing for BCG in eligible schoolchildren under historical protocols. However, in high-risk populations such as close contacts of active cases or those from endemic areas, repeat testing may be advised due to the potential for false negatives. False-negative reactions are particularly common in anergic patients, including those who are immunocompromised (e.g., with or on immunosuppressive therapy), where the is diminished and the test may fail to detect infection. The Heaf test played a key role in by facilitating ; positive cases among screened individuals, such as schoolchildren, triggered investigations of household and community contacts to identify and treat undiagnosed . Despite its utility, the Heaf test has limitations in , as it cannot differentiate between active , latent , prior BCG vaccination, or exposure to non-tuberculous mycobacteria.

Comparison to Other Tests

Mantoux Test

The serves as the primary alternative to the Heaf test for detecting (TB) infection, employing a single-injection method that provides a quantitative measure of skin reaction rather than the qualitative grading used in the Heaf test. The procedure involves administering a single of 0.1 ml of purified protein derivative (PPD) , containing 5 tuberculin units (TU), into the volar surface of the using a 27-gauge needle and 1-ml . The injection creates a pale wheal 6-10 mm in diameter, confirming proper intradermal placement, and the site is read 48-72 hours later by palpating and measuring the transverse diameter of induration in millimeters with a , ignoring or ecchymosis. This method requires trained healthcare personnel to ensure accuracy, distinguishing it from multi-puncture devices like the Heaf gun. Modern alternatives to skin tests like the Mantoux include interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs), which are blood tests that detect TB by measuring T-cell release of interferon-gamma in response to TB antigens. IGRAs offer higher specificity, particularly in individuals vaccinated with BCG, and are increasingly preferred over skin tests in many settings as of 2025. Interpretation of the Mantoux test is based on the size of induration, with positivity thresholds standardized by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and (WHO), varying by patient risk factors to account for false positives and negatives. An induration of ≥5 mm is positive for high-risk individuals, such as those with , recent TB contacts, organ transplant recipients, or immunosuppressed patients (e.g., on prolonged corticosteroids). For low-risk individuals with no known TB exposure, ≥10 mm is considered positive, while ≥15 mm indicates positivity in those without any risk factors; these cutoffs help prioritize clinical follow-up in diverse populations. In the , the became the standard for tuberculin skin testing in 2005 following the discontinuation of the Heaf test due to manufacturing issues and the need for a more precise, internationally aligned method. This shift emphasized the Mantoux's quantitative assessment capabilities, which allow for finer gradations of reaction size compared to the Heaf's discrete grades, though it demands greater technical skill.

Other Multiple Puncture Tests

The multiple puncture tuberculin test (MPTT) serves as a generic term encompassing various devices designed to administer via multiple skin punctures, including the Heaf test as a prominent example. Earlier versions of these tests, dating back to and including methods, involved abrading the skin and applying tuberculin, but they were highly prone to variability due to inconsistent depths of penetration, variable amounts of delivery, and subjective interpretation of reactions. These early approaches lacked standardization, leading to unreliable compared to methods. One notable alternative is the , also known as the Sterneedle variant, which employs a four-tined applicator coated with dried purified protein derivative (PPD) that is pressed into the skin to create simultaneous punctures. The is read 48 to 72 hours later by recording the diameter of the largest if discrete, or the largest area of induration if papules coalesce; vesiculation is noted separately and considered a positive . However, the Tine test was less standardized than single-injection alternatives, exhibiting higher variability in dosing and reader interpretation, which reduced its . , it was discontinued for routine use by the due to these limitations and inferior performance; authorities such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the (AAP) explicitly do not recommend multiple-puncture devices like the Tine test for diagnosing infection.

Advantages, Disadvantages, and Current Status

Benefits and Limitations

The Heaf test offers several practical advantages in tuberculosis screening, particularly in settings requiring efficient and accessible diagnostics. Its administration is rapid, typically taking less than one minute, as it employs a spring-loaded gun that simultaneously drives six needles coated with into the skin without the need for syringes or techniques. This method results in minimal pain compared to needle-based tests like the Mantoux, making it more acceptable for children and facilitating mass screening programs in schools or communities. Additionally, the test is low-cost, requiring no specialized laboratory equipment or , and its standardized six-point induration pattern reduces observer error by providing a clear, objective framework for grading reactions. Despite these strengths, the Heaf test has notable limitations that can affect its reliability. Variations in puncture depth due to operator technique or device pressure may lead to inconsistent delivery, potentially causing false-negative results, especially in individuals with lower reactivity. Like other tests, it exhibits with prior BCG or exposure to environmental mycobacteria, which can produce false-positive reactions and complicate interpretation in vaccinated populations. The requirement for specific disposable Heaf gun heads for each use introduces logistical challenges, including supply chain dependencies that may hinder availability in resource-limited areas. Furthermore, while the six-point pattern aids readability, observer variability persists in assessing borderline grades, and the test is less suitable for immunocompromised patients, where anergy can yield false negatives.

Discontinuation and Alternatives

The Heaf test was phased out by the UK's National Health Service in 2005 as part of changes to the BCG vaccination and tuberculosis screening programs. This discontinuation followed the cessation of production of tuberculin purified protein derivative (PPD) for both Heaf and Mantoux testing, rendering the test unsustainable. Routine use of the Heaf test in UK programs ended around 2004, with the Mantoux test adopted as the standard alternative tuberculin skin test method from mid-2005 onward. Key reasons for the phase-out included supply chain disruptions from manufacturers ceasing production of Heaf guns and compatible PPD kits, alongside policy-driven regulatory shifts prioritizing the for its perceived greater effectiveness in targeted screening. Concurrently, the emergence of interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs), such as QuantiFERON-TB Gold introduced around 2004, provided more advanced diagnostic options that addressed limitations of skin tests like variability in administration and interpretation. In modern tuberculosis screening, particularly in low-incidence countries like the , IGRAs such as QuantiFERON-TB Gold and T-SPOT.TB are preferred alternatives due to their higher specificity in BCG-vaccinated populations and the convenience of requiring only a single blood draw without a follow-up visit for result reading. These assays detect immune responses to -specific antigens, reducing false positives from . In contrast, the persists as a viable option in resource-limited settings where IGRAs' need for laboratory infrastructure may be impractical, offering a low-cost, equipment-minimal approach despite requiring two visits.

References

  1. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK369/
  2. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co148634/heaf-test-gun-oxford-england-1978
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1808851/
  4. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1787811/
  5. https://gpnotebook.com/pages/gynaecology/heaf-test
  6. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196005192622003
  7. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/499511
  8. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC558692/
  9. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/full/10.1164/ajrccm.163.4.ed0201c
  10. https://labtestsonline.org.uk/tests/tb-skin-test
  11. https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co8064497/tuberculin-tester-and-bcg-vaccinator-england-1980-1990
  12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1226231/
  13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(51)91399-2
  14. https://europepmc.org/articles/pmc2012170
  15. https://apps.medicines.org.au/files/csptubeh.pdf
  16. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350605001344
  17. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-1241.1989.tb08729.x
  18. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/testing/Tuberculin_Skin_Testing_Information_for_Health_Care_Providers.pdf
  19. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/rccm.200509-1516PP
  20. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK294304/bin/supplemental-et35.pdf
  21. https://primarycarenotebook.com/pages/gynaecology/heaf-test
  22. https://jaypeedigital.com/eReader/chapter/9788180617676/ch27
  23. https://gpnotebook.com/en-GB/pages/gynaecology/heaf-test
  24. https://www.bmj.com/content/313/7061/726
  25. https://thorax.bmj.com/content/60/10/800
  26. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/testing-diagnosis/tuberculin-skin-test.html
  27. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/education/mantoux/pdf/Mantoux_TB_Skin_Test.pdf
  28. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK556037/
  29. https://www.health.state.mn.us/diseases/tb/tst.html
  30. https://www.publications.scot.nhs.uk/files/cmo-2005-05.pdf
  31. https://www.bmj.com/content/331/7509/128.1
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0954611106001594
  33. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8934672/
  34. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5412a1.htm
  35. https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/114/Supplement_4/1175/28933/Targeted-Tuberculin-Skin-Testing-and-Treatment-of
  36. https://journals.co.za/doi/pdf/10.10520/AJA00089176_4348
  37. https://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/171054/1/WRAP-A-systematic-review-of-rapid-diagnostic-tests-for-the-detection-of-tuberculosis-infection-Waugh-2007.pdf
  38. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/40443694_Comparison_of_Mantoux_and_Tine_Tuberculin_Skin_Tests_in_BCG-Vaccinated_Children_Investigated_for_Tuberculosis
  39. https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1164/rccm.200509-1526OC
  40. https://www.publications.scot.nhs.uk/files/cmo-2005-06.pdf
  41. https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng33/chapter/recommendations
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3122723/
  43. https://www.cdc.gov/tb/hcp/testing-diagnosis/interferon-gamma-release-assay.html
  44. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1198743X14619741
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.