| Literature DB >> 25317709 |
Juliana Maria Azevedo de Lyra1, Magda Maruza2, Mirela Verza3, Maria Madileuza Carneiro4, Maria de Fátima Militão de Albuquerque5, Maria Lúcia Rossetti3, Ricardo Ximenes6, Maria Cynthia Braga7, Norma Lucena-Silva1.
Abstract
The present study analysed the concordance among four different molecular diagnostic methods for tuberculosis (TB) in pulmonary and blood samples from immunocompromised patients. A total of 165 blood and 194 sputum samples were collected from 181 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients with upper respiratory complaints, regardless of suspicious for TB. The samples were submitted for smear microscopy, culture and molecular tests: a laboratory-developed conventional polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) and the Gen-Probe and Detect-TB Ampligenix kits. The samples were handled blindly by all the technicians involved, from sample processing to results analysis. For sputum, the sensitivity and specificity were 100% and 96.7% for qPCR, 81.8% and 94.5% for Gen-Probe and 100% and 66.3% for Detect-TB, respectively. qPCR presented the best concordance with sputum culture [kappa (k) = 0.864)], followed by Gen-Probe (k = 0.682). For blood samples, qPCR showed 100% sensitivity and 92.3% specificity, with a substantial correlation with sputum culture (k = 0.754) and with the qPCR results obtained from sputum of the corresponding patient (k = 0.630). Conventional PCR demonstrated the worst results for sputa and blood, with a sensitivity of 100% vs. 88.9% and a specificity of 46.3% vs. 32%, respectively. Commercial or laboratory-developed molecular assays can overcome the difficulties in the diagnosis of TB in paucibacillary patients using conventional methods available in most laboratories.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25317709 PMCID: PMC4238774 DOI: 10.1590/0074-0276130542
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz ISSN: 0074-0276 Impact factor: 2.743
Fig. 1: flowchart of clinical specimens tested for tuberculosis diagnosis. PCR: polymerase chain reaction.
Fig. 2: receiver operating characteristic curve accuracy for molecular assay in tuberculosis (TB). A: accuracy estimated for four different molecular assays for TB testing in sputa using culture as gold-standard; B: accuracy of different cut-off set for TB testing in sputa using the Detect-TB assay; C: accuracy of conventional e quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) for TB diagnosis in blood.
Positive (PPV) and negative (NPV) predictive values, sensitivity and specificity in samples using different molecular methods for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) and sputum culture as gold standard
| Reference x tests (sample) | n | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture x PCR (sputum) | 194 | 16.81 (9.4-29.5) | 100 (88.8-100) | 100 (67.9-100) | 46.3 (32.7-53.7) |
| Culture x qPCR (sputum) | 102 | 78.60 (48.8-94.3) | 100 (94.8-100) | 100 (67.9-100) | 96.70 (90-99.1) |
| Culture x Detect-TB (sputum) | 194 | 24.36 (12.2-37) | 100 (91.6-100) | 100 (67.9-100) | 66.30 (47.4-68.3) |
| Culture x Gen-Probe (sputum) | 102 | 64.30 (35.6-86) | 97.70 (91.3-99.6) | 81.80 (47.8-96.8) | 94.50 (87.1-98) |
| Culture x PCR (blood) | 165 | 13.8 (8.3-21.7) | 95.9 (89.9-99.3) | 88.90 (63.9-98.3) | 32 (24.7-40.2) |
| Culture x qPCR (blood) | 102 | 61.1 (36.1-81.7) | 100 (94.6-100) | 100 (67.9-100) | 92.30 (84.3-96.6) |
Detect-TB is a test in developing and Gen-Probe a commercial molecular test for TB diagnosis. Blood and sputum samples were collected on the same day. PCR: in house polymerase chain reaction; qPCR: quantitative real-time PCR.
Concordance between microbiological and molecular tests for diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB)
| Tests (sample) | n | Agreement | Kappa | Z | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Culture X PCR (sputum) | 194 | 0.490 | 0.139 | 2.76 | 0.0029 |
| Culture X qPCR (sputum) | 102 | 0.971 | 0.864 | 8.80 | 0.0000 |
| Culture X Detect-TB (sputum) | 194 | 0.628 | 0.231 | 3.65 | 0.0002 |
| Culture X Gen-Probe (sputum) | 102 | 0.931 | 0.682 | 6.95 | 0.0000 |
| Culture X PCR (blood) | 165 | 0.382 | 0.062 | 1.83 | 0.0337 |
| Culture X qPCR (blood) | 102 | 0.931 | 0.754 | 7.59 | 0.0000 |
| PCR (sputum) X qPCR (sputum) | 102 | 0.520 | 0.179 | 3.17 | 0.0007 |
| PCR (sputum) X Detect-TB (sputum) | 102 | 0.647 | 0.301 | 3.15 | 0.0008 |
| PCR (sputum) X Gen-Probe (sputum) | 102 | 0.480 | 0.112 | 1.99 | 0.0236 |
| qPCR (sputum) X Detect-TB (sputum) | 102 | 0.657 | 0.294 | 4.19 | 0.0000 |
| qPCR (sputum) X Gen-Probe (sputum) | 102 | 0.902 | 0.586 | 5.92 | 0.0000 |
| PCR (blood) X qPCR (blood) | 102 | 0.461 | 0.157 | 2.95 | 0.0016 |
| qPCR (sputum) X qPCR (blood) | 102 | 0.902 | 0.630 | 6.44 | 0.0000 |
Detect-TB is a test in developing and Gen-Probe a commercial molecular test for TB diagnosis. Blood and sputum samples were collected on the same day. Culture was performed only in sputa. PCR: in house polymerase chain reaction; qPCR: quantitative real-time PCR.
Performance of different molecular tests for tuberculosis detection in HIV-infected patients
| Reference | HIV-infected population | Biological sample | Sampling (n) | Methodology | Sensitivity (%) | Specificity (%) | PPV (%) | NPV (%) | Target suspected cases | Gold stantard |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This paper | Recife, Brazil | Blood | 102 | qPCR | 100 | 92.3 | 61.1 | 100 | In and outpatient | Solid culture |
| Sputa | 102 | qPCR | 100 | 96.7 | 78.6 | 100 | ||||
| 102 | Gene-Probe | 81.8 | 94.5 | 64.3 | 97.7 | |||||
| Detect-TB | 66.3 | 100 | 24.4 | 100 | ||||||
| Albuquerque et al. (2014) | Recife, Brazil | Sputa | 140 | qPCR | 87.2 | 98.9 | 97.6 | 93.9 | In and outpatient | Solid culture |
| Feasey et al. (2013) | Malawi, Africa | Blood | 104 | Xpert MTB/RIF | 21 | 100 | 100 | 64 | In and outpatient | Sputum and solid culture |
| Abed Al-Darraji et al. (2013) | Malaya, Malaysia | Sputa | 125 | Xpert MTB/RIF | 53.3 | 100 | 100 | 94 | Prisoners | Liquid culture |
| Silva et al. (2012) | Santa Catarina, Brazil | Sputa | 85 | PCR | 59 | 33 | 87 | 10 | Inpatient | Solid culture |
| O’Grady et al. (2012) | Lusaka, Zambia | Sputa | 408 | Xpert MTB/RIF | 88.2 | 95.1 | 92.2 | 92.5 | Inpatient | Liquid culture |
| Peter et al. (2012) | Cape Town, South Africa | Urine | 113 | Xpert MTB/RIF | 48 | 98 | - | - | Inpatient | Liquid culture |
| Balcells et al. (2012) | Santiago, Chile | Sputa | 160 | Xpert MTB/RIF | 91.7 | 99.3 | 94.7 | 99.3 | Inpatient | Liquid culture |
| Carriquiry et al. (2012) | Lima, Peru | Sputa | 131 | Xpert MTB/RIF | 97.8 | 97.7 | 95.7 | 98.8 | Inpatient | Liquid culture |
| Scherer et al. (2011) | Porto Alegre, Brazil | Sputa | 74 | PCR dot blot | 72 | 85 | 85 | 72 | In and outpatient | Solid culture combined with clinics |
| PCR (agarose) | 42 | 76 | 68 | 53 | ||||||
| Lawn et al. (2011) | Cape Town, South Africa | Sputa | 445 | Xpert MTB/RIF | 73.3 | 99.2 | 94.8 | 94.8 | Outpatient | Liquid culture |
| Boehme et al. (2011) | Multi-site | Sputa | 602 | Xpert MTB/RIF | 82.4 | 99.2 | 98.3 | 91.3 | Outpatient | Liquid culture |
| Michelon et al. (2011) | Multi-site, Brazil | Sputa | 47 | Detect-TB | 75 | 100 | - | - | Outpatient | Culture |
| Scott et al. (2011) | Johannesburg, South Africa | Sputa | 124 | Xpert MTB/RIF | 84 | 96 | 92 | 92 | Outpatient | Liquid culture |
| MTBDR plus | 70 | 96 | 91 | 85 | ||||||
| Light Cycler Detection | 70 | 98 | 97 | 86 | ||||||
| Davis et al. (2011) | Uganda, South Africa | Sputa and bronchoalveolar lavage | 170 | MTB/RIF | 39 | 95 | - | - | Inpatient | Solid culture |
HIV: human immunodeficiency virus; NPV: negative predictive value; PCR: in house polymerase chain reaction; PPV: positive predictive value; qPCR: quantitative real-time PCR.