Comparison of culture, confocal microscopy and PCR in routine hospital use for microbial keratitis diagnosis

Aims To evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of polymerase chain reaction (PCR), in vivo confocal microscopy (IVCM) and culture for microbial keratitis (MK) diagnosis. Methods Retrospective review of PCR, IVCM and culture results for MK diagnosis at Moorfields Eye Hospital between August 2013 and December 2014. Results PCR results were available for 259 MK patients with concurrent culture for 203/259 and IVCM for 149/259. Sensitivities and specificities with 95% confidence intervals [95% CI] were calculated for Acanthamoeba keratitis (AK) and fungal keratitis (FK), by comparison with culture, for both IVCM and PCR. For AK, FK and bacterial keratitis (BK) sensitivities were calculated, for each diagnostic method, by comparison with a composite reference standard (a positive result for one or more of culture, PCR or IVCM having a specificity of 100% by definition). For the latter, sensitivities with [95% CI] were: for AK, IVCM 77.1% [62.7–88.0%], PCR 63.3% [48.3–76.6%], culture 35.6 [21.9–51.2]; for FK, IVCM 81.8% [48.2–97.7%], PCR 30.8% [9.09–61.4%], culture 41.7% [15.2–72.3%]; for BK, PCR 25.0% [14.7–37.9%], culture 95.6% [87.6–99.1%]. Conclusion IVCM was the most sensitive technique for AK and FK diagnosis but culture remains our gold standard for BK. These findings reflect results to be expected from service providers to UK ophthalmology units and demonstrates the need at our centre for ongoing diagnostic result audit leading to the potential to improve PCR diagnosis. Both FK and AK are now common in the UK; ophthalmology units need to have all these techniques available to optimise their MK management.

Towards soil-transmitted helminths transmission interruption: The impact of diagnostic tools on infection prediction in a low intensity setting in Southern Mozambique

World Health Organization goals against soil-transmitted helminthiases (STH) are pointing towards seeking their elimination as a public health problem: reducing to less than 2% the proportion of moderate and heavy infections. Some regions are reaching WHO goals, but transmission could rebound if strategies are discontinued without an epidemiological evaluation. For that, sensitive diagnostic methods to detect low intensity infections and localization of ongoing transmission are crucial. In this work, we estimated and compared the STH infection as obtained by different diagnostic methods in a low intensity setting. We conducted a cross-sectional study enrolling 792 participants from a district in Mozambique. Two stool samples from two consecutive days were collected from each participant. Samples were analysed by Telemann, Kato-Katz and qPCR for STH detection. We evaluated diagnostic sensitivity using a composite reference standard. By geostatistical methods, we estimated neighbourhood prevalence of at least one STH infection for each diagnostic method. We used environmental, demographical and socioeconomical indicators to account for any existing spatial heterogeneity in infection. qPCR was the most sensitive technique compared to composite reference standard: 92% (CI: 83%– 97%) for A. lumbricoides, 95% (CI: 88%– 98%) for T. trichiura and 95% (CI: 91%– 97%) for hookworm. qPCR also estimated the highest neighbourhood prevalences for at least one STH infection in a low intensity setting. While 10% of the neighbourhoods showed a prevalence above 20% when estimating with single Kato-Katz from one stool and Telemann from one stool, 86% of the neighbourhoods had a prevalence above 20% when estimating with qPCR. In low intensity settings, STH estimated prevalence of infection may be underestimated if based on Kato-Katz. qPCR diagnosis outperformed the microscopy methods. Thus, implementation of qPCR based predictive maps at STH control and elimination programmes would disclose hidden transmission and facilitate targeted interventions for transmission interruption.

Increased Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Disease Using a Tissue-Based Laboratory-Developed Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay Compared to Standard Diagnostics

Standard diagnostics for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) including acid-fast bacilli (AFB) smear and culture, and Xpert™ MTB/RIF real-time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR; Xpert) have variable sensitivity and/or long turnaround times. We describe the clinical performance of a laboratory-developed tissue-based MTB PCR compared with AFB culture and Xpert using a composite reference standard (CRS). Over an 8-year period, MTB PCR was performed on pulmonary, pleural, or lymph node specimens for 36 patients. Of these, 11 met criteria for confirmed/probable MTB using CRS. MTB PCR was positive in 100% (11/11), AFB cultures were positive in 73% (8/11), and Xpert in 0% (0/4). MTB PCR was negative in 25 cases of “No MTB” (100% specific). The MTB PCR assay resulted faster than positive AFB culture (mean time 4.3 versus 21.2 days). Tissue-based MTB PCR was associated with increased and rapid detection of MTB, improving clinical sensitivity in strongly suspected MTB cases.

Diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for tuberculous pericarditis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculous pericarditis (TBP). Methods We searched relevant databases for Xpert MTB/RIF for TBP diagnosis until April 2021 and screened eligible studies for study inclusion. We evaluated the effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF when the composite reference standard (CRS) and mycobacterial culture were the gold standards, respectively. We performed meta-analyses using a bivariate random-effects model, and when the heterogeneity was obvious, the source of heterogeneity was further discussed. Results We included seven independent studies comparing Xpert MTB/RIF with the CRS and six studies comparing it with culture. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve of Xpert MTB/RIF were 65% (95% confidence interval, 59–72%), 99% (97–100%), and 0.99 (0.97–0.99) as compared with the CRS, respectively, and 75% (53–88%), 99% (90–100%), and 0.94 (0.92–0.96) as compared with culture, respectively. There was no significant heterogeneity between studies when CRS was the gold standard, whereas heterogeneity was evident when culture was the gold standard. Conclusions The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF for diagnosing TBP was moderate and the specificity was good; thus, Xpert MTB/RIF can be used in the initial diagnosis of TBP.

Diversity in Typhoid Diagnostic Protocols And Recommendation for Composite Reference Standard

Typhoid fever is a major public health burden which causes substantial global morbidity and mortality due to lack of decisive diagnostic protocols. The capacity of commonly use diagnostic test to validate the absence of typhoid fever is controversial. This study explores to evaluate new techniques for typhoid diagnosis and proposed a harmonised suitable standardized composite reference to be adopted. Published peer-reviewed articles indexed in PubMed, MEDLINE and Google scholar were reviewed for hospital-based studies. This study reveals new typhoid diagnostic techniques such as proteomics, serology, Rapid Diagnostic tests (RDTs), transcriptomics, genomics, and metabolomics. 34.4% of the studies use prospective study design. The study result establishes that, Widal test has a moderate diagnostic accuracy with average percentage sensitivity (52.9%), specificity (54%), positive predictive value (PPV) (56.8%) as well as negative predictive value (NPV) (55.6%) when compared with 29.4%, 28%, 29.5%, and 27.8% of Typhidot respectively. The findings showed a statistically significant difference on the sensitivity between Widal and Typhidot t (40) = 2.639, p = 0.012 at p<0.05 using independent sample t-test. When there is no perfect reference standard that has an optimal diagnostic accuracy, the need for a harmonised suitable standardized composite reference is essential. Hence, this study recommends that, peripheral blood culture with established sensitivity of 60% and Widal test with average sensitivity of 52.9% be adopted as a consensus composite reference standard for typhoid fever diagnosis in other to improve confidence in prevalence estimates.

Diversity in Typhoid Diagnostic Protocols And Recommendation for Composite Reference Standard

Typhoid fever is a major public health burden which causes substantial global morbidity and mortality due to lack of decisive diagnostic protocols. The capacity of commonly use diagnostic test to validate the absence of typhoid fever is controversial. This study explores to evaluate new techniques for typhoid diagnosis and proposed a harmonised suitable standardized composite reference to be adopted. Published peer-reviewed articles indexed in PubMed, MEDLINE and Google scholar were reviewed for hospital-based studies. This study reveals new typhoid diagnostic techniques such as proteomics, serology, Rapid Diagnostic tests (RDTs), transcriptomics, genomics, and metabolomics. 34.4% of the studies use prospective study design. The study result establishes that, Widal test has a moderate diagnostic accuracy with average percentage sensitivity (52.9%), specificity (54%), positive predictive value (PPV) (56.8%) as well as negative predictive value (NPV) (55.6%) when compared with 29.4%, 28%, 29.5%, and 27.8% of Typhidot respectively. The findings showed a statistically significant difference on the sensitivity between Widal and Typhidot t (40) = 2.639, p = 0.012 at p<0.05 using independent sample t-test. When there is no perfect reference standard that has an optimal diagnostic accuracy, the need for a harmonised suitable standardized composite reference is essential. Hence, this study recommends that, peripheral blood culture with established sensitivity of 60% and Widal test with average sensitivity of 52.9% be adopted as a consensus composite reference standard for typhoid fever diagnosis in other to improve confidence in prevalence estimates.

Relative sensitivity of anterior nares and nasopharyngeal swabs for initial detection of SARS-CoV-2 in ambulatory patients: Rapid review and meta-analysis

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered “gold standard” for diagnosing SARS-CoV-2 infections, but anterior nares or mid-turbinate swabs (nasal swabs) are often used. We performed a meta-analysis comparing the sensitivity of nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs against a composite reference standard for the initial diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection in ambulatory patients. The study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020221827). Data sources included studies appearing between January 1, 2020 and March 20, 2021, identified by searches of PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv. Studies included at least 20 subjects who simultaneously provided nasal and nasopharyngeal specimens for reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction testing, and for which confusion matrices could be constructed. Authors individually assessed studies for inclusion and compared assessments. Each author independently extracted all data elements; differences were reconciled by review of initial data sources. Extracted data included specimen site, patient characteristics, collection site, and confusion matrices comparing results for nasal and nasopharyngeal swabs. Assessed against a composite reference standard, anterior nares swabs are less sensitive (82% - 88%) than nasopharyngeal swabs (98%). For populations with 10% specimen positivity, the negative predictive values of all swab types were greater than 98%. Mid-turbinate and anterior nares swabs seem to perform similarly. The lower sensitivity associated with nasal swab SARS-CoV-2 diagnosis is justified by the ability to screen more patients and reduced personal protective equipment requirements. Our conclusions are limited by the small number of studies and the significant heterogeneity of study designs and study outcomes.

Performance of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for tuberculosis diagnosis in the context of passive and active case finding

We present a field evaluation of the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), using two cohorts in a high TB/HIV burden setting in Southern Mozambique. Single respiratory specimens from symptomatic adults accessing health care services (passive case finding (PCF) cohort), and from household and community close contacts (active case finding (ACF) cohort), were tested by smear microscopy, culture, Xpert and Ultra. Liquid and solid culture served as a composite reference standard. We explored trace results’ impact on specificity via their recategorisation to negative (in all and just among those previously treated individuals) A total of 1419 and 252 participants were enrolled in the PCF and ACF cohorts, respectively. For the PCF cohort, Ultra showed higher sensitivity than Xpert overall (0.95 (95% CI: 0.90, 0.98) versus 0.88 (0.82, 0.93); p<0.001) and among smear negative patients (0.63 (0.48, 0.76) and 0.84 (0.71, 0.93). Ultra's specificity was lower than Xpert's (0.98 (0.97, 0.99) versus 0.96 (0.95, 0.97); p=0.008). For ACF, sensitivities were the same (0.67 (95% CI: 0.22,0.96) for both tests), although Ultra detected a higher number of microbiologically confirmed samples than Xpert (4.7% (12/252) versus 2.7% (7/252)). Conditional recategorisation of trace results among previously treated participants maintained differences in specificity in the PCF cohort. These results add evidence on the improved sensitivity of Ultra and support its use in different case finding scenarios.

Tuberculosis diagnostic accuracy of stool Xpert MTB/RIF and urine AlereLAM in vulnerable children

BackgroundNon-sputum based diagnostic approaches are crucial in children at high risk of disseminated tuberculosis [TB] who cannot expectorate sputum. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF from stool and urine AlereLipoarabinomannan [LAM] test in this group of children.MethodsHospitalised children with presumptive TB and either age <2 years, HIV-positive or severe malnutrition were enrolled in a diagnostic cohort. At enrolment, we attempted to collect two urine, two stool and two respiratory samples. Urine and stool were tested with AlereLAM and Xpert MTB/RIF, respectively. Respiratory samples were tested with Xpert MTB/RIF and mycobacterial culture. Both a microbiological and a composite clinical reference standard were used.ResultsThe study enrolled 219 children; median age 16.4 months, 72 (32.9%) HIV-positive and 184 (84.4%) severely malnourished. Twelve (5.5%) and 58 (28.5%) children had confirmed and unconfirmed TB respectively. Stool and urine were collected in 219 (100%) and 216 (98.6%) children. Against the microbiological reference standard the sensitivity and specificity (n/N, 95% confidence intervals) of stool Xpert MTB/RIF was 50.0% (6/12, 21.1–78.9) and 99.1% (198/200 96.4–99.9), while that of urine AlereLAM was 50.0% (6/12, 21.1–78.9) and 74.6% (147/197, 67.9–80.5) respectively. Against the composite reference standard sensitivity was reduced to 11.4% (8/70) for stool and 26.2% (17/68) for urine, with no major difference by age group (<2 and >2 years) or HIV status.ConclusionThe Xpert MTB/RIF assay has excellent specificity on stool, but sensitivity is suboptimal. Urine AlereLAM is compromised by poor sensitivity and specificity in children.

Diagnostic accuracy of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay for detection of tubercular pleural effusion

India has been engaged in tuberculosis (TB) control activities for over 50 years and yet TB continues to remain India’s important public health problem. The present study was conducted to compare the performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF (GXpert) assay with composite reference standard in diagnosing cases of tubercular pleural effusion (TPE) and to evaluate the reliability of rifampicin resistance. A cross-sectional study was performed in a Department of Medicine of a rural teaching tertiary care hospital in central India. In all consecutive patients with pleural effusion on chest radiograph presenting to Department of Medicine, GXpert assay and composite reference standard was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of GXpert assay for detecting TPE in comparison to composite reference standard. Standard formulae were used to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), positive likelihood ratios (LR+) and negative likelihood ratios (LR-). Mc-Nemar’s test was applied to compare variables. All comparisons were two-tailed. We considered the difference to be statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05. The sensitivity of the GXpert assay in diagnosing TPE was 16.6% among 158 study participants, the specificity was 100% and diagnostic accuracy was 52.5% which was statistically significant (p value < 0.05). It had a PPV of 100% (95%CI: 88.3% - 100%) and a NPV of 47.5% (95%CI: 39.3% - 55.7%). The LR+ and LR-were 23.5 (95%CI: 1.43–38.6) and 0.83 (95%CI: 0.76–0.91) respectively. GXpert assay has a very high specificity in diagnosing TPE but has a low sensitivity. In comparison to composite reference standard Thus its clinical utility is limited when used as a standalone test. A physician’s clinical acumen in combination with routine pleural fluid analysis should be the key factor in the diagnosis of TPE in clinically and radiologically suspected patients, especially in high TB burden countries.