Anete Trajman1, Elen Fabricia da Silva Santos Kleiz de Oliveira2, Mayara Lisboa Bastos3, Epaminondas Belo Neto4, Edgar Manoel Silva5, Maria Cristina da Silva Lourenço6, Afrânio Kritski2, Martha Maria Oliveira7. 1. Graduate Program in Health Education, Gama Filho University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Graduate Program in Internal Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; McGill University, Montreal Chest Institute, Montreal, Canada. Electronic address: atrajman@gmail.com. 2. Graduate Program in Internal Medicine, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil; Tuberculosis Academic Program - Medical School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 3. Graduate Program in Health Education, Gama Filho University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Electronic address: mayara_bastos@yahoo.com.br. 4. Medical School, Souza Marques Foundation, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 5. Clemente Ferreira Institute, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Evandro Chagas Clinical Research Institute, Fiocruz, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 7. Tuberculosis Academic Program - Medical School, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based techniques to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA in respiratory specimens have been increasingly used to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis. Their use in non-respiratory specimens to diagnose extrapulmonary tuberculosis is, however, controversial. In this study, we estimated the accuracy of three in-country commercialized PCR-based diagnostic techniques in pleural fluid samples for the diagnosis of pleural tuberculosis. METHODS: Patients underwent thoracenthesis for diagnosis purposes; pleural fluid aliquots were frozen and subsequently submitted to two real time PCR tests (COBAS(®)TAQMAN(®)MTB and Xpert(®)MTB/Rif) and one conventional PCR test (Detect-TB(®)). Two different reference standards were considered: probable tuberculosis (based on clinical grounds) and confirmed tuberculosis (bacteriologically or histologically). RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were included, of whom 65 with pleural tuberculosis, 35 of them confirmed. Sensitivities were 29% for COBAS(®)TAQMAN(®)MTB, 3% for Xpert(®)MTB/Rif and 3% for Detect-TB(®); specificities were 86%, 100% and 97% respectively, considering confirmed tuberculosis. Considering all cases, sensitivities were 16%, 3% and 2%, and specificities, 86%, 100%, and 97%. DISCUSSION: Compared to the 95% sensitivity of adenosine deaminase, the most sensitive test for pleural tuberculosis, the sensitivities of the three PCR-based tests were very low. We conclude that at present, there is no major place for such tests in routine clinical use.
INTRODUCTION: Polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based techniques to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA in respiratory specimens have been increasingly used to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis. Their use in non-respiratory specimens to diagnose extrapulmonary tuberculosis is, however, controversial. In this study, we estimated the accuracy of three in-country commercialized PCR-based diagnostic techniques in pleural fluid samples for the diagnosis of pleural tuberculosis. METHODS:Patients underwent thoracenthesis for diagnosis purposes; pleural fluid aliquots were frozen and subsequently submitted to two real time PCR tests (COBAS(®)TAQMAN(®)MTB and Xpert(®)MTB/Rif) and one conventional PCR test (Detect-TB(®)). Two different reference standards were considered: probable tuberculosis (based on clinical grounds) and confirmed tuberculosis (bacteriologically or histologically). RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were included, of whom 65 with pleural tuberculosis, 35 of them confirmed. Sensitivities were 29% for COBAS(®)TAQMAN(®)MTB, 3% for Xpert(®)MTB/Rif and 3% for Detect-TB(®); specificities were 86%, 100% and 97% respectively, considering confirmed tuberculosis. Considering all cases, sensitivities were 16%, 3% and 2%, and specificities, 86%, 100%, and 97%. DISCUSSION: Compared to the 95% sensitivity of adenosine deaminase, the most sensitive test for pleural tuberculosis, the sensitivities of the three PCR-based tests were very low. We conclude that at present, there is no major place for such tests in routine clinical use.
Authors: Mikashmi Kohli; Ian Schiller; Nandini Dendukuri; Keertan Dheda; Claudia M Denkinger; Samuel G Schumacher; Karen R Steingart Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2018-08-27