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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |