Cargando…

Effect of two alternative methods of pooling sputum prior to testing for tuberculosis with genexpert MTB/RIF

BACKGROUND: Pooling sputum specimens is one potential strategy for reducing the cost of using Xpert MTB/RIF, a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based test, for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. We sought to compare the sensitivity of two alternative method of pooling. METHODS: Patients r...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Phuong, Nguyen Thi Bich, Anh, Nguyen Thu, Van Son, Nguyen, Sintchenko, Vitali, Ho, Jennifer, Fox, Greg J., Nhung, Nguyen Viet, Marks, Guy B.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6486971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31029099
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-3778-9
_version_ 1783414411410538496
author Phuong, Nguyen Thi Bich
Anh, Nguyen Thu
Van Son, Nguyen
Sintchenko, Vitali
Ho, Jennifer
Fox, Greg J.
Nhung, Nguyen Viet
Marks, Guy B.
author_facet Phuong, Nguyen Thi Bich
Anh, Nguyen Thu
Van Son, Nguyen
Sintchenko, Vitali
Ho, Jennifer
Fox, Greg J.
Nhung, Nguyen Viet
Marks, Guy B.
author_sort Phuong, Nguyen Thi Bich
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Pooling sputum specimens is one potential strategy for reducing the cost of using Xpert MTB/RIF, a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based test, for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. We sought to compare the sensitivity of two alternative method of pooling. METHODS: Patients referred for assessment for TB, whose initial sputum was Xpert MTB positive, were recruited and their sputum specimens were pooled for analysis with sputum specimens that were Xpert MTB negative. Two alternative pooling strategies were employed: one in which the concentration of sample reagent (buffer) was maintained at 2:1 (standard), in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and another in which the concentration of sample reagent was reduced to 1:1. RESULTS: We tested 101 Xpert MTB positive sputum specimens. Among these, 96% of valid test results (95% confidence interval (CI) 89–99%) were positive using the “standard buffer method”. Using the “reduced buffer pooling” method 94% of valid test results (95% CI 87–98%) were positive. McNemar’s test for the difference in paired proportions did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: We have confirmed that pooling of two sputum specimens for testing in a single cartridge is a valid method of reducing the number of cartridges required when using Xpert MTB to detect pulmonary tuberculosis. Two alternative pooling strategies tested here yielded similar results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study was conducted within the Active Casefinding in Tuberculosis (ACT3) Trial. The ACT3 Trial had been registered with Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register on 8th April, 2014. The trial registration number is ACTRN12614000372684. (Retrospectively registered).
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6486971
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-64869712019-05-06 Effect of two alternative methods of pooling sputum prior to testing for tuberculosis with genexpert MTB/RIF Phuong, Nguyen Thi Bich Anh, Nguyen Thu Van Son, Nguyen Sintchenko, Vitali Ho, Jennifer Fox, Greg J. Nhung, Nguyen Viet Marks, Guy B. BMC Infect Dis Technical Advance BACKGROUND: Pooling sputum specimens is one potential strategy for reducing the cost of using Xpert MTB/RIF, a rapid polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based test, for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. We sought to compare the sensitivity of two alternative method of pooling. METHODS: Patients referred for assessment for TB, whose initial sputum was Xpert MTB positive, were recruited and their sputum specimens were pooled for analysis with sputum specimens that were Xpert MTB negative. Two alternative pooling strategies were employed: one in which the concentration of sample reagent (buffer) was maintained at 2:1 (standard), in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions, and another in which the concentration of sample reagent was reduced to 1:1. RESULTS: We tested 101 Xpert MTB positive sputum specimens. Among these, 96% of valid test results (95% confidence interval (CI) 89–99%) were positive using the “standard buffer method”. Using the “reduced buffer pooling” method 94% of valid test results (95% CI 87–98%) were positive. McNemar’s test for the difference in paired proportions did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.56). CONCLUSION: We have confirmed that pooling of two sputum specimens for testing in a single cartridge is a valid method of reducing the number of cartridges required when using Xpert MTB to detect pulmonary tuberculosis. Two alternative pooling strategies tested here yielded similar results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The present study was conducted within the Active Casefinding in Tuberculosis (ACT3) Trial. The ACT3 Trial had been registered with Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register on 8th April, 2014. The trial registration number is ACTRN12614000372684. (Retrospectively registered). BioMed Central 2019-04-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6486971/ /pubmed/31029099 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-3778-9 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Technical Advance
Phuong, Nguyen Thi Bich
Anh, Nguyen Thu
Van Son, Nguyen
Sintchenko, Vitali
Ho, Jennifer
Fox, Greg J.
Nhung, Nguyen Viet
Marks, Guy B.
Effect of two alternative methods of pooling sputum prior to testing for tuberculosis with genexpert MTB/RIF
title Effect of two alternative methods of pooling sputum prior to testing for tuberculosis with genexpert MTB/RIF
title_full Effect of two alternative methods of pooling sputum prior to testing for tuberculosis with genexpert MTB/RIF
title_fullStr Effect of two alternative methods of pooling sputum prior to testing for tuberculosis with genexpert MTB/RIF
title_full_unstemmed Effect of two alternative methods of pooling sputum prior to testing for tuberculosis with genexpert MTB/RIF
title_short Effect of two alternative methods of pooling sputum prior to testing for tuberculosis with genexpert MTB/RIF
title_sort effect of two alternative methods of pooling sputum prior to testing for tuberculosis with genexpert mtb/rif
topic Technical Advance
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6486971/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31029099
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12879-019-3778-9
work_keys_str_mv AT phuongnguyenthibich effectoftwoalternativemethodsofpoolingsputumpriortotestingfortuberculosiswithgenexpertmtbrif
AT anhnguyenthu effectoftwoalternativemethodsofpoolingsputumpriortotestingfortuberculosiswithgenexpertmtbrif
AT vansonnguyen effectoftwoalternativemethodsofpoolingsputumpriortotestingfortuberculosiswithgenexpertmtbrif
AT sintchenkovitali effectoftwoalternativemethodsofpoolingsputumpriortotestingfortuberculosiswithgenexpertmtbrif
AT hojennifer effectoftwoalternativemethodsofpoolingsputumpriortotestingfortuberculosiswithgenexpertmtbrif
AT foxgregj effectoftwoalternativemethodsofpoolingsputumpriortotestingfortuberculosiswithgenexpertmtbrif
AT nhungnguyenviet effectoftwoalternativemethodsofpoolingsputumpriortotestingfortuberculosiswithgenexpertmtbrif
AT marksguyb effectoftwoalternativemethodsofpoolingsputumpriortotestingfortuberculosiswithgenexpertmtbrif