Cargando…

Evaluation of different diagnostic methods for spinal tuberculosis infection

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Tuberculosis (TB) is the most fatal infectious disease worldwide. Approximately 24.6% of tuberculosis cases are extrapulmonary and predominantly affect the spine. It is difficult to diagnose spinal TB (STB). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Mycobacteria...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Zhaoxin, Wang, Jin, Xiu, Xin, Shi, Zhenpeng, Zhang, Qiang, Chen, Deqiang
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10583401/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37853312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08655-5
_version_ 1785122543776038912
author Li, Zhaoxin
Wang, Jin
Xiu, Xin
Shi, Zhenpeng
Zhang, Qiang
Chen, Deqiang
author_facet Li, Zhaoxin
Wang, Jin
Xiu, Xin
Shi, Zhenpeng
Zhang, Qiang
Chen, Deqiang
author_sort Li, Zhaoxin
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Tuberculosis (TB) is the most fatal infectious disease worldwide. Approximately 24.6% of tuberculosis cases are extrapulmonary and predominantly affect the spine. It is difficult to diagnose spinal TB (STB). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT)-960 culture, T-SPOT.TB, Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB)/resistance to rifampin (RIF), and Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) to detect STB. METHODS: We assessed 126 patients presumed to have STB using these four methods. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using clinical diagnosis as a reference. RESULTS: Of the patients, 41 were diagnosed with STB and 85 with non-STB. In the STB group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the MGIT-960 culture were 29.3% (12/41), 100% (85/85), 100% (12/12), and 74.6% (85/114), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of T-SPOT.TB were 92.7% (38/41), 82.4% (70/85), 58.5% (31/53), and 95.9% (70/73), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay were 53.7% (22/41), 100% (85/85), 100% (22/22), and 81.7% (85/104), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mNGS were 39.0% (16/41), 98.8% (84/85), 94.1% (16/17), and 77.1% (84/109), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mNGS + Xpert MTB/RIF were 73.2% (30/41), 100% (85/85), 96.8% (30/31), and 72.0% (85/118), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the mNGS + T-spot assay were 97.6% (40/41), 100% (85/85), 67.9% (38/56), and 75.9% (85/113), respectively. Moreover, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of T-spot + Xpert MTB/RIF were 95.1% (39/41), 100% (85/85), 72.2% (39/54), and 81.0% (85/105), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: T-SPOT.TB is the most effective method for diagnosing STB; however, Xpert MTB/RIF is more reliable and can detect RIF resistance. Clinicians can use mNGS to identify pathogens in patients with spinal infections; these pathogens appeared to be more meaningful in guiding the clinical management of patients in the non-STB group. The combination of Xpert MTB/RIF and mNGS can improve the early diagnosis rate and drug resistance detection, reduce the diagnostic cycle, and provide early targeted anti-TB treatment for patients with STB. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-023-08655-5.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10583401
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-105834012023-10-19 Evaluation of different diagnostic methods for spinal tuberculosis infection Li, Zhaoxin Wang, Jin Xiu, Xin Shi, Zhenpeng Zhang, Qiang Chen, Deqiang BMC Infect Dis Research BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Tuberculosis (TB) is the most fatal infectious disease worldwide. Approximately 24.6% of tuberculosis cases are extrapulmonary and predominantly affect the spine. It is difficult to diagnose spinal TB (STB). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT)-960 culture, T-SPOT.TB, Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB)/resistance to rifampin (RIF), and Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) to detect STB. METHODS: We assessed 126 patients presumed to have STB using these four methods. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using clinical diagnosis as a reference. RESULTS: Of the patients, 41 were diagnosed with STB and 85 with non-STB. In the STB group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the MGIT-960 culture were 29.3% (12/41), 100% (85/85), 100% (12/12), and 74.6% (85/114), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of T-SPOT.TB were 92.7% (38/41), 82.4% (70/85), 58.5% (31/53), and 95.9% (70/73), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay were 53.7% (22/41), 100% (85/85), 100% (22/22), and 81.7% (85/104), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mNGS were 39.0% (16/41), 98.8% (84/85), 94.1% (16/17), and 77.1% (84/109), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mNGS + Xpert MTB/RIF were 73.2% (30/41), 100% (85/85), 96.8% (30/31), and 72.0% (85/118), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the mNGS + T-spot assay were 97.6% (40/41), 100% (85/85), 67.9% (38/56), and 75.9% (85/113), respectively. Moreover, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of T-spot + Xpert MTB/RIF were 95.1% (39/41), 100% (85/85), 72.2% (39/54), and 81.0% (85/105), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: T-SPOT.TB is the most effective method for diagnosing STB; however, Xpert MTB/RIF is more reliable and can detect RIF resistance. Clinicians can use mNGS to identify pathogens in patients with spinal infections; these pathogens appeared to be more meaningful in guiding the clinical management of patients in the non-STB group. The combination of Xpert MTB/RIF and mNGS can improve the early diagnosis rate and drug resistance detection, reduce the diagnostic cycle, and provide early targeted anti-TB treatment for patients with STB. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12879-023-08655-5. BioMed Central 2023-10-18 /pmc/articles/PMC10583401/ /pubmed/37853312 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08655-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Li, Zhaoxin
Wang, Jin
Xiu, Xin
Shi, Zhenpeng
Zhang, Qiang
Chen, Deqiang
Evaluation of different diagnostic methods for spinal tuberculosis infection
title Evaluation of different diagnostic methods for spinal tuberculosis infection
title_full Evaluation of different diagnostic methods for spinal tuberculosis infection
title_fullStr Evaluation of different diagnostic methods for spinal tuberculosis infection
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of different diagnostic methods for spinal tuberculosis infection
title_short Evaluation of different diagnostic methods for spinal tuberculosis infection
title_sort evaluation of different diagnostic methods for spinal tuberculosis infection
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10583401/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37853312
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-023-08655-5
work_keys_str_mv AT lizhaoxin evaluationofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsforspinaltuberculosisinfection
AT wangjin evaluationofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsforspinaltuberculosisinfection
AT xiuxin evaluationofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsforspinaltuberculosisinfection
AT shizhenpeng evaluationofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsforspinaltuberculosisinfection
AT zhangqiang evaluationofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsforspinaltuberculosisinfection
AT chendeqiang evaluationofdifferentdiagnosticmethodsforspinaltuberculosisinfection