In patients with tuberculous pericarditis, neither prednisolone nor M. indicus pranii had a significant effect on the composite of death, cardiac tamponade requiring pericardiocentesis, or constrictive pericarditis. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; IMPI ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00810849.).
The determinants of Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity, a widely used PCR test for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) are poorly understood. We compared culture time-to-positivity (TTP; a surrogate of bacterial load), MTB/RIF TB-specific and internal positive control (IPC)-specific CT values, and clinical characteristics in patients with suspected TB who provided expectorated (n = 438) or induced sputum (n = 128), tracheal aspirates (n = 71), bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (n = 152), pleural fluid (n = 76), cerebral spinal fluid (CSF; n = 152), pericardial fluid (n = 131), or urine (n = 173) specimens. Median bacterial load (TTP in days) was the strongest associate of MTB/RIF positivity in each fluid. TTP correlated with CT values in pulmonary specimens but not extrapulmonary specimens (Spearman's coefficient 0.5043 versus 0.1437; p = 0.030). Inhibition affected a greater proportion of pulmonary specimens than extrapulmonary specimens (IPC CT > 34: 6% (47/731) versus 1% (4/381; p < 0.0001). Pulmonary specimens had greater load than extrapulmonary specimens [TTPs (interquartile range) of 11 (7–16) versus 22 (18–33.5) days; p < 0.0001]. HIV-infection was associated with a decreased likelihood of MTB/RIF-positivity in pulmonary specimens but an increased likelihood in extrapulmonary specimens. Mycobacterial load, which displays significant variation across different body compartments, is the main determinant of MTB/RIF-positivity rather than PCR inhibition. MTB/RIF CT is a poor surrogate of load in extrapulmonary specimens.
BackgroundTuberculous pericarditis (TBP) is associated with high morbidity and mortality, and is an important treatable cause of heart failure in developing countries. Tuberculous aetiology of pericarditis is difficult to diagnose promptly. The utility of the new quantitative PCR test (Xpert MTB/RIF) for the diagnosis of TBP is unknown. This study sought to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF test compared to pericardial adenosine deaminase (ADA) and unstimulated interferon-gamma (uIFNγ) in suspected TBP.MethodsFrom October 2009 through September 2012, 151 consecutive patients with suspected TBP were enrolled at a single centre in Cape Town, South Africa. Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture and/or pericardial histology served as the reference standard for definite TBP. Receiver-operating-characteristic curve analysis was used for selection of ADA and uIFNγ cut-points.ResultsOf the participants, 49% (74/151) were classified as definite TBP, 33% (50/151) as probable TBP and 18% (27/151) as non TBP. A total of 105 (74%) participants were human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive. Xpert-MTB/RIF had a sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) of 63.8% (52.4% to 75.1%) and 100% (85.6% to 100%), respectively. Concentration of pericardial fluid by centrifugation and using standard sample processing did not improve Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy. ADA (≥35 IU/L) and uIFNγ (≥44 pg/ml) both had a sensitivity of 95.7% (88.1% to 98.5%) and a negative likelihood ratio of 0.05 (0.02 to 0.10). However, the specificity and positive likelihood ratio of uIFNγ was higher than ADA (96.3% (81.7% to 99.3%) and 25.8 (3.6 to 183.4) versus 84% (65.4% to 93.6%) and 6.0 (3.7 to 9.8); P = 0.03) at an estimated background prevalence of TB of 30%. The sensitivity and negative predictive value of both uIFNγ and ADA were higher than Xpert-MT/RIF (P < 0.001).ConclusionsuIFNγ offers superior accuracy for the diagnosis of microbiologically confirmed TBP compared to the ADA assay and the Xpert MTB/RIF test.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.