IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0180572.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Sputum quality and diagnostic performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF among smear-negative adults with presumed tuberculosis in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Amanda J Meyer
  • Collins Atuheire
  • William Worodria
  • Samuel Kizito
  • Achilles Katamba
  • Ingvar Sanyu
  • Alfred Andama
  • Irene Ayakaka
  • Adithya Cattamanchi
  • Freddie Bwanga
  • Laurence Huang
  • J Lucian Davis

Abstract

Background: Introduction of GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assay has constituted a major breakthrough for tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics. Several patient factors may influence diagnostic performance of Xpert including sputum quality. Objective: We carried out a prospective, observational, cross-sectional study to determine the effect of sputum quality on diagnostic performance of Xpert among presumed TB patients in Uganda. Methods: We collected clinical and demographic information and two sputum samples from participants. Staff recorded sputum quality and performed LED fluorescence microscopy and mycobacterial culture on each sample. If both smear examinations were negative, Xpert testing was performed. We calculated diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and other indicators for Xpert for each stratum of sputum quality in reference to a standard of mycobacterial culture. Results: Patients with salivary sputum showed a trend towards a substantially higher proportion of samples that were Xpert-positive (54/286, 19%, 95% CI 15–24) compared with those with all other sputum sample types (221/1496, 15%, 95% CI 13–17). Blood-stained sputum produced the lowest sensitivity (28%; 95% CI 12–49) and salivary sputum the highest (66%; 95% CI 53–77). Specificity didn’t vary meaningfully by sample types. Salivary sputum was significantly more sensitive than mucoid sputum (+13%, 95% CI +1 to +26), while blood-stained sputum was significantly less sensitive (-24%, 95% CI -42 to -5). Conclusions: Our findings demonstrate the need to exercise caution in collecting sputum for Xpert and in interpreting results because sputum quality may impact test yield and sensitivity. In particular, it may be wise to pursue additional testing should blood-stained sputum test negative while salivary sputum should be readily accepted for Xpert testing given its higher sensitivity and potentially higher yield than other sample types. These findings challenge conventional recommendations against collecting salivary sputum for TB diagnosis and could inform new standards for sputum quality.

Suggested Citation

  • Amanda J Meyer & Collins Atuheire & William Worodria & Samuel Kizito & Achilles Katamba & Ingvar Sanyu & Alfred Andama & Irene Ayakaka & Adithya Cattamanchi & Freddie Bwanga & Laurence Huang & J Lucia, 2017. "Sputum quality and diagnostic performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF among smear-negative adults with presumed tuberculosis in Uganda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(7), pages 1-12, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180572
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0180572
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180572
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0180572&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0180572?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0180572. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.