| Literature DB >> 24839587 |
Stephen P Kelley1, Holly R Courtneidge1, Rebecca E Birch1, Alberto Contreras-Sanz1, Mark C Kelly1, Jerome Durodie1, Claire M Peppiatt-Wildman1, Christopher K Farmer1, Michael P Delaney1, James Malone-Lee1, Mark A Harber1, Scott S Wildman1.
Abstract
Renal transplant recipients (RTR) are highly susceptible to urinary tract infections (UTIs) with over 50% of patients having at least one UTI within the first year. Yet it is generally acknowledged that there is considerable insensitivity and inaccuracy in routine urinalysis when screening for UTIs. Thus a large number of transplant patients with genuine urine infections may go undiagnosed and develop chronic recalcitrant infections, which can be associated with graft loss and morbidity. Given a recent study demonstrating ATP is released by urothelial cells in response to bacteria exposure, possibly acting at metabotropic P2Y receptors mediating a proinflammatory response, we have investigated alternative, and possibly more appropriate, urinalysis techniques in a cohort of RTRs. Mid-stream urine (MSU) samples were collected from 53 outpatient RTRs. Conventional leukocyte esterase and nitrite dipstick tests, and microscopic pyuria counts (in 1 μl), ATP concentration measurements, and identification of intracellular bacteria in shed urothelial cells, were performed on fresh unspun samples and compared to 'gold-standard' bacterial culture results. Of the 53 RTRs, 22% were deemed to have a UTI by 'gold-standard' conventional bacteria culture, whereas 87%, 8% and 4% showed evidence of UTIs according to leukocyte esterase dipstick, nitrite dipstick, and a combination of both dipsticks, respectively. Intracellular bacteria were visualized in shed urothelial cells of 44% of RTRs, however only 1 of the 23 RTRs (44%) was deemed to have a UTI by conventional bacteria culture. A significant association of the 'gold-standard' test with urinary ATP concentration combined with visualization of intracellular bacteria in shed urothelial cells was determined using the Fisher's exact test. It is apparent that standard bedside tests for UTIs give variable results and that seemingly quiescent bacteria in urothelial cells are very common in RTRs and may represent a focus of subclinical infection. Furthermore, our results suggest urinary ATP concentration combined with detection of intracellular bacteria in shed urinary epithelial cells may be a sensitive means by which to detect 'occult' infection in RTRs.Entities:
Keywords: Acridine orange stain; Bladder; IBC; Intracellular bacteria; Pyuria; Urinary ATP
Year: 2014 PMID: 24839587 PMCID: PMC4022969 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-200
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Formulae for test metrics used to evaluate the performance of diagnostic tests
| Test Metric | Formula |
|---|---|
| Sensitivity | TP/(TP + FN) |
| Specificity | TN/(TN + FP) |
| Positive Predictive Value (PPV) | TP/(TP + FP) |
| Positive Likelihood Ratio (LR+) | Sensitivity/(1-Specificity) |
| Negative Likelihood Ratio (LR-) | (1-Sensitivity)/Specificity |
| Accuracy | (TP + TN)/(TP + TN + FP + FN) |
| Youden’s Index | Sensitivity + Specificity −1 |
| Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR) | (TP/FN)/(FP/TN) |
Key: TP, TN, FP, and FN denote the number of true positives, true negatives, false positives, and false negatives, respectively.
Figure 1Shed urothelial cell with evidence of intracellular bacteria. Intracellular localization of bacteria was confirmed by staining with acridine orange and counterstaining with crystal violet; viewed using the x60 objective on a fluorescence microscope. Immunocytochemistry with anti-UPIII (FITC; green) confirmed that cells were urothelial.
Contingency tables detailing comparison of surrogate markers to the ‘gold-standard’ for UTI diagnosis (bacterial culture), in a cohort of renal transplant recipients
| (1) Leukocyte esterase* | (2) Nitrite | (3) Combined dipsticks | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture positive | Culture negative | Culture positive | Culture negative | Culture positive | Culture negative | |||
|
| 6 (11%) | 40 (76%) |
| 2 (4%) | 2 (4%) |
| 0 (4%) | 2 (4%) |
|
| 6 (11%) | 1 (2%) |
| 10 (19%) | 39 (73%) |
| 4 (8%) | 1 (2%) |
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||
|
| 9 (17%) | 35 (66%) |
| 3 (6%) | 0 (0%) |
| 1 (2%) | 22 (41%) |
|
| 3 (6%) | 6 (11%) |
| 9 (17%) | 41 (77%) |
| 11 (21%) | 19 (36%) |
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| |||||||
|
| 1 (2%) | 0 (0%) | ||||||
|
| 0 (0%) | 18 (34%) | ||||||
*denotes Fisher’s exact test <0.05. **denotes Fisher’s exact test =0.0556 (not quite significant). See Methods for an explanation of the surrogate markers used. Key: IB, intracellular bacteria.
Data not included in the contingency tables: with respect to combined dipstick tests; 6 patients (10%) were leukocyte positive/nitrite negative and culture positive; 37 patients (70%) were leukocyte positive/nitrite negative and culture negative; 2 patients (4%) where leukocyte negative/nitrite positive and culture positive; 1 patient (2%) was where leukocyte negative/nitrite positive and culture negative. With respect to combined ATP and IB; 9 patients (17%) were IB positive/ATP <50 and culture positive; 22 patients (41%) were IB positive/ATP <50 and culture negative; 3 patients (6%) were IB negative/ATP >50 and culture positive; 0 patients were IB negative/ATP >50 and culture negative.
Comparison of variables to determine the power of surrogate markers to the ‘gold-standard’ for UTI diagnosis (bacterial culture), in a cohort of renal transplant recipients
| Sensitivity (95% CL) | Specificity (95% CL) | PPV (95% CL) | LR+ | LR- | Accuracy | Youden’s index | DOR (95% CL) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 0.500 (0.21-0.79) | 0.024 (0.00-0.13) | 0.130 (0.05-0.26) | 0.513 | 20.5 | 0.132 | −0.476 | 0.025 (0.00-0.25) |
|
| 0.167 (0.02-0.48) | 0.951 (0.83-0.99) | 0.500 (0.07-0.93) | 3.417 | 0.876 | 0.774 | 0.118 | 3.900 (0.49-31.22) |
|
| 0.000 (0.00-0.60) | 0.333 (0.01-0.91) | 0.000 (0.00-0.84) | 0.000 | 3.000 | 0.143 | −0.667 | 0.067 (0.00-2.33) |
|
| 0.750 (0.43-0.95) | 0.146 (0.06-0.29) | 0.205 (0.10-0.35) | 0.879 | 1.708 | 0.283 | −0.104 | 0.514 (0.11-2.47) |
|
| 0.250 (0.05-0.57) | 1.000 (0.91-1.00) | 1.000 (0.29-1.00) | Infinity | 0.750 | 0.830 | 0.250 | 30.580 (1.45-643.50) |
|
| 0.083 (0.00-0.38) | 0.463 (0.31-0.63) | 0.043 (0.00-0.22) | 0.155 | 1.978 | 0.377 | −0.453 | 0.079 (0.01-0.67) |
|
| 1.000 (0.03-1.00) | 1.000 (0.81-1.00) | 1.000 (0.03-1.00) | Infinity | 0.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 105.000 (1.48-7441.80) |
Key: PPV, positive predictive value; LR+, positive likelihood ratio; LR-, negative likelihood ratio; DOR, diagnostic odds ratio; IB, intracellular bacteria.