Grant Theron1,2, Rouxjeane Venter2, Greg Calligaro3, Liezel Smith3, Jason Limberis3, Richard Meldau3, Duncan Chanda1,4, Aliasgar Esmail3, Jonny Peter3, Keertan Dheda1,5. 1. Lung Infection and Immunity Unit, Division of Pulmonology and University of Cape Town Lung Institute, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town and. 2. DST/NRF of Excellence for Biomedical Tuberculosis Research, and MRC Centre for Molecular and Cellular Biology, Division of Molecular Biology and Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa. 3. Lung Infection and Immunity Unit, Division of Pulmonology and University of Cape Town Lung Institute, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Townand. 4. Institute for Medical Research and Training, Lusaka, Zambia. 5. Institute of Infectious Diseases and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, South Africa.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with previous tuberculosis may have residual DNA in sputum that confounds nucleic acid amplification tests such as Xpert MTB/RIF. Little is known about the frequency of Xpert-positive, culture-negative ("false positive") results in retreatment patients, whether these are distinguishable from true positives, and whether Xpert's automated filter-based wash step reduces false positivity by removing residual DNA associated with nonintact cells. METHODS: Pretreatment patients (n = 2889) with symptoms of tuberculosis from Cape Town, South Africa, underwent a sputum-based liquid culture and Xpert. We also compared Xpert results from dilutions of intact or heat-lysed and mechanically lysed bacilli. RESULTS: Retreatment cases were more likely to be Xpert false-positive (45/321 Xpert-positive retreatment cases were false-positive) than new cases (40/461) (14% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 10%-18%] vs 8% [95% CI, 6%-12%];P= .018). Fewer years since treatment completion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.85 [95% CI, .73-.99]), less mycobacterial DNA (aOR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.27] per cycle threshold [CT]), and a chest radiograph not suggestive of active tuberculosis (aOR, 0.22 [95% CI, .06-.82]) were associated with false positivity. CThad suboptimal accuracy for false positivity: 46% of Xpert-positives with CT> 30 would be false positive, although 70% of false positives would be missed. CT's predictive ability (area under the curve, 0.83 [95% CI, .76-.90]) was not improved by additional variables. Xpert detected nonviable, nonintact bacilli without a change in CTvs controls. CONCLUSIONS: One in 7 Xpert-positive retreatment patients were culture negative and potentially false positive. False positivity was associated with recent previous tuberculosis, high CT, and a chest radiograph not suggestive of active tuberculosis. Clinicians may consider awaiting confirmatory testing in retreatment patients with CT> 30; however, most false positives fall below this cut-point. Xpert can detect DNA from nonviable, nonintact bacilli.
BACKGROUND:Patients with previous tuberculosis may have residual DNA in sputum that confounds nucleic acid amplification tests such as Xpert MTB/RIF. Little is known about the frequency of Xpert-positive, culture-negative ("false positive") results in retreatment patients, whether these are distinguishable from true positives, and whether Xpert's automated filter-based wash step reduces false positivity by removing residual DNA associated with nonintact cells. METHODS: Pretreatment patients (n = 2889) with symptoms of tuberculosis from Cape Town, South Africa, underwent a sputum-based liquid culture and Xpert. We also compared Xpert results from dilutions of intact or heat-lysed and mechanically lysed bacilli. RESULTS: Retreatment cases were more likely to be Xpert false-positive (45/321 Xpert-positive retreatment cases were false-positive) than new cases (40/461) (14% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 10%-18%] vs 8% [95% CI, 6%-12%];P= .018). Fewer years since treatment completion (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.85 [95% CI, .73-.99]), less mycobacterial DNA (aOR, 1.14 [95% CI, 1.03-1.27] per cycle threshold [CT]), and a chest radiograph not suggestive of active tuberculosis (aOR, 0.22 [95% CI, .06-.82]) were associated with false positivity. CThad suboptimal accuracy for false positivity: 46% of Xpert-positives with CT> 30 would be false positive, although 70% of false positives would be missed. CT's predictive ability (area under the curve, 0.83 [95% CI, .76-.90]) was not improved by additional variables. Xpert detected nonviable, nonintact bacilli without a change in CTvs controls. CONCLUSIONS: One in 7 Xpert-positive retreatment patients were culture negative and potentially false positive. False positivity was associated with recent previous tuberculosis, high CT, and a chest radiograph not suggestive of active tuberculosis. Clinicians may consider awaiting confirmatory testing in retreatment patients with CT> 30; however, most false positives fall below this cut-point. Xpert can detect DNA from nonviable, nonintact bacilli.
Authors: Paolo Miotto; Sara Bigoni; Giovanni Battista Migliori; Alberto Matteelli; Daniela M Cirillo Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2012-05 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Robert Blakemore; Pamela Nabeta; Amy L Davidow; Viral Vadwai; Rasim Tahirli; Vanisha Munsamy; Mark Nicol; Martin Jones; David H Persing; Doris Hillemann; Sabine Ruesch-Gerdes; Felicity Leisegang; Carlos Zamudio; Camilla Rodrigues; Catharina C Boehme; Mark D Perkins; David Alland Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2011-11-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Isobella Honeyborne; Timothy D McHugh; Patrick P J Phillips; Selina Bannoo; Anna Bateson; Nora Carroll; Felicity M Perrin; Katharina Ronacher; Laura Wright; Paul D van Helden; Gerhard Walzl; Stephen H Gillespie Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2011-09-07 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Karen R Steingart; Hojoon Sohn; Ian Schiller; Lorie A Kloda; Catharina C Boehme; Madhukar Pai; Nandini Dendukuri Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-01-31
Authors: Robin Wood; Stephen D Lawn; Judy Caldwell; Richard Kaplan; Keren Middelkoop; Linda-Gail Bekker Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Susan E Dorman; Violet N Chihota; James J Lewis; Maunank Shah; David Clark; Alison D Grant; Gavin J Churchyard; Katherine L Fielding Journal: PLoS One Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Florian M Marx; Ted Cohen; Nicolas A Menzies; Joshua A Salomon; Grant Theron; Reza Yaesoubi Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2020-09 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Anil Pooran; Grant Theron; Lynn Zijenah; Duncan Chanda; Petra Clowes; Lawrence Mwenge; Farirai Mutenherwa; Paul Lecesse; John Metcalfe; Hojoon Sohn; Michael Hoelscher; Alex Pym; Jonny Peter; David Dowdy; Keertan Dheda Journal: Lancet Glob Health Date: 2019-06 Impact factor: 26.763
Authors: Samantha Pillay; Karen R Steingart; Geraint R Davies; Marty Chaplin; Margaretha De Vos; Samuel G Schumacher; Rob Warren; Grant Theron Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2022-05-18
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
Authors: Yap Boum; Soyeon Kim; Patrick Orikiriza; Carlos Acuña-Villaorduña; Solange Vinhas; Maryline Bonnet; Dan Nyehangane; Juliet Mwanga-Amumpaire; Kevin P Fennelly; Edward C Jones-López Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2016-03-30 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Brett M Babin; Gabriela Fernandez-Cuervo; Jessica Sheng; Ori Green; Alvaro A Ordonez; Mitchell L Turner; Laura J Keller; Sanjay K Jain; Doron Shabat; Matthew Bogyo Journal: ACS Cent Sci Date: 2021-04-14 Impact factor: 14.553