| Literature DB >> 22529869 |
Gladys Guadalupe López Ávalos1, Ernesto Prado Montes de Oca.
Abstract
Tuberculosis in childhood differs from the adult clinical form and even has been suggested that it is a different disease due to its differential signs. However, prevention, diagnostics, and therapeutic efforts have been biased toward adult clinical care. Sensibility and specificity of new diagnostic approaches as GeneXpert, electronic nose (E-nose), infrared spectroscopy, accelerated mycobacterial growth induced by magnetism, and flow lateral devices in children populations are needed. Adequate and timely assessment of tuberculosis infection in childhood could diminish epidemiological burden because underdiagnosed pediatric patients can evolve to an active state and have the potential to disseminate the etiological agent Mycobacterium tuberculosis, notably increasing this worldwide public health problem.Entities:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22529869 PMCID: PMC3317187 DOI: 10.1155/2012/818219
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Trop Med ISSN: 1687-9686
Clinical similarities and differences between adult and childhood TB with relevancy to successful diagnosis.
| Feature | Adults | Children |
|---|---|---|
| Typical signs | Radiological features and a positive sputum smear | TB can mimic many common childhood diseases. The clinical symptoms in older children are cough, fever, wheezing, fatigue, and failure to gain weight, and in pediatric children are pulmonary parenchymal disease and intrathoracic adenopathy, lymphadenopathy, and central nervous system involvement |
|
| ||
| X-rays findings | Classical cavitation in lungs | Enlargement of hilar, mediastinal, or subcarinal lymph nodes and lung parenchymal changes, hilar lymphadenopathy with or without a focal parenchymal lesion |
|
| ||
| TST | Cross-reaction with BCG vaccination and exposition with other mycobacteria | |
|
| ||
| Sampling | Easy sputum and blood sampling | Difficulty to expectorate, blood sampling usually painful in pediatric children |
|
| ||
| Bacillary load | High bacillary load, easy to find the bacillus when technician is skillful | Lower bacillary load and is usually smear negative even with fluorescent dyes |
|
| ||
| Bacillus growth in culture | High yields of 90–100% | Confirmation by culture rarely exceeds 30–40% |
|
| ||
| Tropism of | Commonly localized infection in the lungs | Commonly extrapulmonary, disseminated |
Pros and cons of most common diagnostic tests for childhood TB.
| Methodology | Pros | Cons |
|---|---|---|
| Symptoms | No need for lab infrastructure, diagnostic value if appropriate risk stratification is applied | This criterion has been approved only in conjunction with the TST and suggestive chest radiography |
|
| ||
| Traditional chest radiograph | The basic equipment is very common in hospitals and some research centers. | The images are not always clear and the lesions in children are often subjective |
|
| ||
| Thorax CT scan | Enhanced visualization of small lesions not seen on chest radiograph. X-ray high-resolution computed tomography, it is the most sensitive tool currently available to detect hilar adenopathy and/or early cavitation can be used for follow-up | Costly; requires scanner which is not readily available in many settings |
|
| ||
| Algorithms | They are very helpful and easy to use in countries with restricted technology | Is not commonly used due to lack of validation, it is based on responses of patients to which scores are given which are thought to be very subjective |
|
| ||
|
| Gold standard for definitive diagnosis of adult TB | Culture usually takes weeks (or four days in accelerated culture), low sensitivity ( |
|
| ||
|
| Rapid | Very low sensitivity ( |
|
| ||
| Tuberculin skin test (TST) | Very common and cheap reagent, easy to use and to interpret the results | Inespecific, only indicates infection with a mycobacteria or prior BCG vaccination |
|
| ||
| Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) | This is a rapid, sensitive, specific and affordable method | These tests are not performed correctly in all clinical laboratories. The cost involved, the need for thermocycler (or boiling pots at specific temperature), and scrupulous technique to avoid cross-contamination of specimens preclude the use of PCR techniques in many developing countries |
|
| ||
| In-house nucleic acid amplification assays | Mean sensitivity of 60%, with a proper technique could be done efficiently | These assays are dependent of operator's skill |
|
| ||
| Adenosin deaminase | This method does not require sputum, only blood. Very high sensitivity and specificity | The report presents unclear case definition, exclusion of nontuberculous patients, and a relatively small TB patient population (20 with active TB) |
|
| ||
| Serology and antigen detection | In this method, the sample is blood which is easier to obtain than sputum (in PTB). It is very rapid and does not require specimen from the site of disease | Sensitivity and specificity depend on the antigen used |
|
| ||
|
| These methods can replace TST for detection of latent TB infection. Rapid test versions are inexpensive, and dozens of commercial kits are on the market; high specificity (98–100%) | The test may have impaired sensitivity for very young children, for whom it should not be used to exclude the presence of |
|
| ||
| GeneXpert MTB/RIF system | This requires minimal manipulation of sample and operator training. It utilizes real-time PCR technology to both diagnose TB and detect rifampicin resistance. Results in ~105 min. | Only one report in a children population from South Africa. There is a need to validate in other populations |
|
| ||
| Gas sensor array electronic nose (E-Nose) | High specificity | Without data in children populations |
Sensitivity and specificity of commercial and in-house methods for TB diagnostics.
| Methodology | Sensitivity | Specificity |
|---|---|---|
| Commercial tests | ||
| AMTD Standard ( | 0.79 | 0.91 |
| Smear positive ( | 0.98 | 0.55 |
| Smear negative ( | 0.75 | 0.90 |
| Gastric aspirate only ( | 0.73 | 1.00 |
| Cut-off: 71,000 ( | 0.83 | 0.91 |
| Cut-off: 7,300,000 ( | 0.90 | 0.85 |
| Cut-off: 30,000 ( | 0.93 | 0.66 |
| AMTD Enhanced ( | 0.89 | 0.98 |
| Smear positive ( | 1.00 | 0.90 |
| Smear negative ( | 0.83 | 0.98 |
| Low suspicion of TB ( | 0.83 | 0.97 |
| Intermediate suspicion of TB ( | 0.75 | 1.00 |
| High suspicion of TB ( | 0.88 | 1.00 |
| Amplicor COBAS ( | 0.72 | 0.99 |
| Low pretest probability ( | 0.33 | 0.99 |
| Intermediate pretest probability ( | 0.33 | 0.98 |
| High pretest probability ( | 0.47 | 1.00 |
| Smear positive ( | 0.91 | 0.50 |
| Smear negative ( | 0.75 | 0.99 |
| Amplicor manual ( | 0.68 | 0.94 |
| Smear positive ( | 0.91 | 0.74 |
| Smear negative ( | 0.57 | 0.90 |
| LCx assay ( | 0.90 | 0.96 |
| Smear positive ( | 0.98 | 0.10 |
| Smear negative ( | 0.90 | 0.96 |
| Amplicis Myco B ( | 0.92 | 0.85 |
| Sputum only ( | 0.91 | 0.90 |
| GeneXpert adult population ( | 0.95 | 1.00 |
| Tanzanian adult population (sputum and smear positive, ( | 0.88 | 0.99 |
| Children population | ||
| Two induced sputum samples ( | 0.76 | 0.99 |
| Smear positive ( | 1.00 | 0.99 |
| Smear negative ( | 0.61 | 0.99 |
| In house tests | ||
| IS 986 ( | 0.90 | 0.95 |
| Smear positive ( | 0.97 | 0.83 |
| Smear negative ( | 0.75 | 0.47 |
| Sputum only ( | 1.00 | 1.00 |
| IS 6110 ( | 0.79 | 0.84 |
| Chemical DNA extraction ( | 0.60 | 0.92 |
| Simple boiling ( | 0.85 | 0.98 |
| Smear negative ( | 0.90 | 0.92 |
| Smear positive ( | 0.92 | 0.42 |
| Bronchiestasis only ( | NA | 0.86 |
| Upper lobe infiltrates ( | 0.67 | 1.00 |
| Agarose gel electrophoresis ( | 0.90 | 1.00 |
| Dot blot hybridisation ( | 0.92 | 0.98 |
| ELISA ( | 0.90 | 1.00 |
| MTP40 ( | 0.97 | 0.86 |
| MTP40 and | 0.74 | 1.00 |
| MPB70 ( | 0.98 | 0.50 |
| Smear positive ( | 0.99 | 0.13 |
| Smear negative ( | 0.96 | 0.53 |
| 2.4 kb DNA ( | 0.55 | 0.94 |
| 65 kDa ( | 0.84 | 0.85 |
| Gastric aspirate only ( | 1.00 | 0.80 |
| Sputum only ( | 1.00 | 0.84 |
| MPB64 ( | 0.56 | 0.84 |
| 2.4 kb DNA and MBP64 ( | 0.98 | 0.70 |
| 2.4 kb DNA and MBP64 and 65 kDa ( | 0.98 | 0.70 |
| MTB 10 and MTB 11 ( | 0.94 | 0.94 |
| Ag 85 ( | 0.90 | 0.94 |
| groEL ( | 0.82 | 0.81 |
| Meta-analysis for tuberculous pleuritis | 0.92 | 0.90 |
| ADA ( | 0.80 | 0.84 |
| Pab ( | ||
| E-nose | ||
| Culture positive ( | 0.89 | 0.91 |
| EN Rob ( | 0.68 | 0.75 |
| EN Walter ( | 0.75 | 0.67 |
Values were obtained from the average of different studies [40–42]. Most data of sensitivity and specificity has not been validated for its application in children populations. AMTD: amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis Direct test, LCx: ligase chain reaction, n: number of conducted studies on each test, NA: not available, Pab: protein antigen b.