SETTING: Detection of smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) cases is vital for tuberculosis (TB) control. Methods to augment sputum collection are available, but their additional benefit is uncertain in resource-limited settings. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic yields using five methods to obtain sputum from adults diagnosed with smear-negative PTB in Malawi. DESIGN: Self-expectorated sputum was collected under supervision for microscopy and mycobacterial culture in the study laboratory. Confirmed smear-negative patients provided physiotherapy-assisted sputum and induced sputum, followed the next morning by gastric washing and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients diagnosed with smear-negative PTB by the hospital service were screened; 39 (26%) were smear-positive from supervised self-expectorated sputum examined in the study laboratory. The remaining 111 confirmed smear-negative patients were enrolled in the study; 89% were human immunodeficiency virus positive. Seven additional smear-positive cases were diagnosed using the augmented sputum collection techniques. No differences were observed in the numbers of cases detected using the different methods. Of the 46 smear-positive cases, 44 (95.6%) could be detected from self-expectorated and physiotherapy-assisted samples. CONCLUSIONS: For countries such as Malawi, the best use of limited resources to detect smear-positive PTB cases would be to improve the quality of self-expectorated sputum collection and microscopy. The additional diagnostic yield using BAL after induced sputum is limited.
SETTING: Detection of smear-positive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) cases is vital for tuberculosis (TB) control. Methods to augment sputum collection are available, but their additional benefit is uncertain in resource-limited settings. OBJECTIVE: To compare the diagnostic yields using five methods to obtain sputum from adults diagnosed with smear-negative PTB in Malawi. DESIGN: Self-expectorated sputum was collected under supervision for microscopy and mycobacterial culture in the study laboratory. Confirmed smear-negative patients provided physiotherapy-assisted sputum and induced sputum, followed the next morning by gastric washing and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) samples. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients diagnosed with smear-negative PTB by the hospital service were screened; 39 (26%) were smear-positive from supervised self-expectorated sputum examined in the study laboratory. The remaining 111 confirmed smear-negative patients were enrolled in the study; 89% were human immunodeficiency virus positive. Seven additional smear-positive cases were diagnosed using the augmented sputum collection techniques. No differences were observed in the numbers of cases detected using the different methods. Of the 46 smear-positive cases, 44 (95.6%) could be detected from self-expectorated and physiotherapy-assisted samples. CONCLUSIONS: For countries such as Malawi, the best use of limited resources to detect smear-positive PTB cases would be to improve the quality of self-expectorated sputum collection and microscopy. The additional diagnostic yield using BAL after induced sputum is limited.
Authors: Karen R Steingart; Vivienne Ng; Megan Henry; Philip C Hopewell; Andrew Ramsay; Jane Cunningham; Richard Urbanczik; Mark D Perkins; Mohamed Abdel Aziz; Madhukar Pai Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Michael Brown; Hansa Varia; Paul Bassett; Robert N Davidson; Robert Wall; Geoffrey Pasvol Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2007-04-20 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: B Alisjahbana; R van Crevel; H Danusantoso; T Gartinah; E S Soemantri; R H H Nelwan; J W M van der Meer Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2005-07 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: J Bruchfeld; G Aderaye; I B Palme; B Bjorvatn; G Källenius; L Lindquist Journal: Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg Date: 2000 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.184
Authors: Celine R Gounder; Nikolas I Wada; Caroline Kensler; Avy Violari; James McIntyre; Richard E Chaisson; Neil A Martinson Journal: J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Date: 2011-08-01 Impact factor: 3.731
Authors: Y Gonzalez-Angulo; C S Wiysonge; H Geldenhuys; W Hanekom; H Mahomed; G Hussey; M Hatherill Journal: Eur J Clin Microbiol Infect Dis Date: 2011-11-18 Impact factor: 3.267
Authors: Jonathan G Peter; Grant Theron; Anil Pooran; Johnson Thomas; Mellissa Pascoe; Keertan Dheda Journal: Lancet Respir Med Date: 2013-07-19 Impact factor: 30.700
Authors: Nasher Al-Aghbari; Najla Al-Sonboli; Mohammed A Yassin; John B S Coulter; Zayed Atef; Ali Al-Eryani; Luis E Cuevas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2009-04-09 Impact factor: 3.240