BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the performance and feasibility of tuberculosis diagnosis by sputum microscopy after bleach sedimentation, compared with by conventional direct smear microscopy, in a setting of high prevalence of HIV. METHODS: In a community-based study in Kenya (a population in which 50% of individuals with tuberculosis are infected with HIV), individuals with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis submitted 3 sputum specimens during 2 consecutive days, which were examined by blind evaluation. Ziehl-Neelsen-stained smears were made of fresh specimens and of specimens that were processed with 3.5% household bleach followed by overnight sedimentation. Two different cutoffs for acid-fast bacilli (AFB) per 100 high-power fields (HPF) were used to define a positive smear: >10 AFB/100 HPF and 1 AFB/100 HPF. Four smear-positive case definitions, based on 1 or 2 positive smears with the 1 AFB or 10 AFB cutoff, were used. RESULTS: Of 1879 specimens from 644 patients, 363 (19.3%) and 460 (24.5%) were positive by bleach sedimentation microscopy, compared with 301 (16.0%) and 374 (19.9%) by direct smear microscopy, with use of the 10 AFB/100 HPF (P < .001) and 1 AFB/100 HPF (P < .001) cutoffs, respectively. Regardless of the case definition used, bleach sedimentation microscopy detected significantly more positive cases than did direct smear microscopy: 26.7% (172 of 644) versus 21.7% (140 of 644), respectively, with the case definition of 1 positive smear and the 1 AFB/100 HPF cutoff (P < .001), and 21.4% (138 of 644) versus 18.6% (120 of 644), respectively, with the case definition of 1 positive smear and the 10 AFB/100 HPF cutoff (P < .001). Inter- and intrareader reproducibility were favorable, with kappa coefficients of 0.83 and 0.91, respectively. Bleach sedimentation was relatively inexpensive and was not time consuming. CONCLUSIONS: Bleach sedimentation microscopy is an effective, simple method to improve the yield of smear microscopy in a setting of high prevalence of HIV. Further evaluation of this method, under operational conditions, is urgently needed to determine its potential as a tool for tuberculosis control.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the performance and feasibility of tuberculosis diagnosis by sputum microscopy after bleach sedimentation, compared with by conventional direct smear microscopy, in a setting of high prevalence of HIV. METHODS: In a community-based study in Kenya (a population in which 50% of individuals with tuberculosis are infected with HIV), individuals with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis submitted 3 sputum specimens during 2 consecutive days, which were examined by blind evaluation. Ziehl-Neelsen-stained smears were made of fresh specimens and of specimens that were processed with 3.5% household bleach followed by overnight sedimentation. Two different cutoffs for acid-fast bacilli (AFB) per 100 high-power fields (HPF) were used to define a positive smear: >10 AFB/100 HPF and 1 AFB/100 HPF. Four smear-positive case definitions, based on 1 or 2 positive smears with the 1 AFB or 10 AFB cutoff, were used. RESULTS: Of 1879 specimens from 644 patients, 363 (19.3%) and 460 (24.5%) were positive by bleach sedimentation microscopy, compared with 301 (16.0%) and 374 (19.9%) by direct smear microscopy, with use of the 10 AFB/100 HPF (P < .001) and 1 AFB/100 HPF (P < .001) cutoffs, respectively. Regardless of the case definition used, bleach sedimentation microscopy detected significantly more positive cases than did direct smear microscopy: 26.7% (172 of 644) versus 21.7% (140 of 644), respectively, with the case definition of 1 positive smear and the 1 AFB/100 HPF cutoff (P < .001), and 21.4% (138 of 644) versus 18.6% (120 of 644), respectively, with the case definition of 1 positive smear and the 10 AFB/100 HPF cutoff (P < .001). Inter- and intrareader reproducibility were favorable, with kappa coefficients of 0.83 and 0.91, respectively. Bleach sedimentation was relatively inexpensive and was not time consuming. CONCLUSIONS: Bleach sedimentation microscopy is an effective, simple method to improve the yield of smear microscopy in a setting of high prevalence of HIV. Further evaluation of this method, under operational conditions, is urgently needed to determine its potential as a tool for tuberculosis control.
Authors: Padmapriya P Banada; Satheesh K Sivasubramani; Robert Blakemore; Catharina Boehme; Mark D Perkins; Kevin Fennelly; David Alland Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2010-08-18 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: P H Vishnu; P Bhat; A Bansal; S Satyanarayana; U Alavadi; B S Ohri; M S Rao Shrinivas; P Desikan; J Jaju; V G Rao; P K Moonan Journal: Public Health Action Date: 2013-03-21
Authors: Asha Anandaiah; Keertan Dheda; Joseph Keane; Henry Koziel; David A J Moore; Naimish R Patel Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-12-22 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Yap Boum; Soyeon Kim; Patrick Orikiriza; Carlos Acuña-Villaorduña; Solange Vinhas; Maryline Bonnet; Dan Nyehangane; Juliet Mwanga-Amumpaire; Kevin P Fennelly; Edward C Jones-López Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Kelly M Pennington; Ann Vu; Douglas Challener; Christina G Rivera; F N U Shweta; John D Zeuli; Zelalem Temesgen Journal: J Clin Tuberc Other Mycobact Dis Date: 2021-05-08
Authors: Peter Daley; Joy Sarojini Michael; Kalaiselvan S; Asha Latha; Dilip Mathai; K R John; Madhukar Pai Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-05-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Adithya Cattamanchi; David W Dowdy; J Lucian Davis; William Worodria; Samuel Yoo; Moses Joloba; John Matovu; Philip C Hopewell; Laurence Huang Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2009-05-06 Impact factor: 3.090