Discordance between MTB/RIF and Real-Time Tuberculosis-Specific Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay in Bronchial Washing Specimen and Its Clinical Implications

Jo, Yong Suk; Park, Ju Hee; Lee, Jung Kyu; Heo, Eun Young; Chung, Hee Soon; Kim, Deog Kyeom

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0164923

Cited by 14 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar findings were shown by other Authors (Barnard et al, 2015;Lee et al, 2013;Agrawal et al, 2016;Khalil and Butt, 2015;Sharma et al, 2015;Jo et al, 2016;Ullah et al, 2017) who retrospectively demonstrated a high sensitivity (81-100%) of Xpert 1 MTB/RIF in both BW and BAL (Table 1).…”

Section: Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Bronchial Washing Aspiratesupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Xpert 1 MTB/ RIF sensitivity was significantly higher than that of the conventional assay (92.4% vs. 83.8%, respectively) in smear negative patients, without any significant differences in smear positive subjects (Ko et al, 2016). Similar findings were also demonstrated by Jo et al (2016).…”

Section: Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Bronchial Washing Aspiratesupporting

confidence: 61%

“…In comparison with the other commercially available NAATs, it is based on a fully-automated process (Theron et al, 2013;Le Palud et al, 2014;Boehme et al, 2010;World Health Organization, 2011;Sharma et al, 2015;Albert et al, 2016). Its diagnostic accuracy was widely confirmed on sputum specimens; however, in recent years its performance was successfully assessed on bronchoscopic specimens such as BW (Le Palud et al, 2014;Barnard et al, 2015;Lee et al, 2013;Ko et al, 2016;Sharma et al, 2015;Jo et al, 2016), BAL (Theron et al, 2013;Mok et al, 2016;Le Palud et al, 2014;Lee et al, 2013;Ko et al, 2016;Agrawal et al, 2016;Khalil and Butt, 2015;Sharma et al, 2015;Ullah et al, 2017), and endobronchial ultrasound guidedtransbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) (Dhasmana et al, 2014;Dhooria et al, 2016a;Lee et al, 2017) (Table 1).…”

Section: Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Bronchial Washing Aspiratementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bronchoscopic techniques in the management of patients with tuberculosis

Mondoni

Repossi

Carlucci

et al. 2017

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Early diagnosis and treatment are key to prevent Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission. Bronchoscopy can play a primary role in pulmonary TB diagnosis, particularly for suspected patients with scarce sputum or sputum smear negativity, and with endobronchial disease. Bronchoscopic needle aspiration techniques are accurate and safe means adopted to investigate hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes in cases of suspected TB lymphadenopathy. Tracheobronchial stenosis represents the worst complication of endobronchial tuberculosis. Bronchoscopic procedures are less invasive therapeutic strategies than conventional surgery to be adopted in the management of TB-related stenosis. We conducted a non-systematic review aimed at describing the scientific literature on the role of bronchoscopic techniques in the diagnosis and therapy of patients with TB. We focused on three main areas of interventions: bronchoscopic diagnosis of smear negative/sputum scarce TB patients, endobronchial TB diagnosis and treatment and needle aspiration techniques for intrathoracic TB lymphadenopathy. We described experiences on bronchoalveolar lavage, bronchial washing, and biopsy techniques for the diagnosis of patients with tracheobronchial and pulmonary TB; furthermore, we described the role played by conventional and ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration in the diagnosis of suspected hilar and mediastinal TB adenopathy. Finally, we assessed the role of the bronchoscopic therapy in the treatment of endobronchial TB and its complications, focusing on dilation techniques (such as balloon dilation and airway stenting) and ablative procedures (both heat and cold therapies).

show abstract

Section: Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Bronchial Washing Aspiratesupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Bronchial Washing Aspiratesupporting

confidence: 61%

Section: Bronchoalveolar Lavage and Bronchial Washing Aspiratementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bronchoscopic techniques in the management of patients with tuberculosis

Mondoni

Repossi

Carlucci

et al. 2017

International Journal of Infectious Diseases

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Rifampin drug resistance using Xpert MTB/RIF detection is limited due to incidences of cartridge failure and reported false positives and negatives (30,31). In this study, four isolates were resistant by culture DST but sensitive by Xpert MTB/RIF ( Table 5).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 67%

Next-Generation Sequencing for Characterizing Drug Resistance-Conferring Mycobacterium tuberculosis Genes from Clinical Isolates in the Ukraine

Daum¹,

Konstantynovska

Solodiankin

et al. 2018

J Clin Microbiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Ukraine ranks among the top 20 countries with the highest number of multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug resistant (XDR) cases in the world. However, little is known of the genetic diversity, i.e., resistance signatures, in clinical isolates from this region. We analyzed seven of most prevalent MDR/XDR antibiotic resistance-conferring genes from clinical isolates ( = 75) collected from geographically diverse Ukrainian oblasts and the southern Crimean peninsula. Genomic analysis revealed that 6 (8%) were sensitive, 3 (4%) were resistant to at least one antibiotic but were not MDR, 40 (53%) were MDR, and 26 (35%) were XDR. The majority of isolates (81%) were of the Beijing-like lineage. This is the first study to use next-generation sequencing (NGS) of clinical isolates from the Ukraine to characterize mutations in genes conferring drug resistance. Several isolates harbored drug resistance signatures that have not been observed in other countries with high-burden tuberculosis. Most notably, the absence of gene promoter mutations, a diversity of mutation types in the resistance-determining region, and detection of heteroresistance provide a broader understanding of MDR/XDR from this area of the world.

show abstract

“…In the Patient Selection domain, we considered 55 studies (64%) to have low risk of bias because the study enrolled a consecutive or random sample of eligible participants and avoided inappropriate exclusions. We considered 16 studies (19%) to have high risk of bias because the study did not avoid inappropriate exclusions: 13 studies enrolled participants whose sputum specimens were primarily or exclusively smear‐positive or smear‐negative ( Barnard 2015 ; Friedrich 2011 ; Jo 2016 ; Lee 2013 ; Le Palud 2014 ; Meyer 2017 ; Mok 2016 ; Moure 2011 ; Tadesse 2016 ; Theron 2013 ; Van Rie 2013 ; Walusimbi 2013a ; Williamson 2012 ) and three studies exclusively enrolled participants who had previously received tuberculosis treatment ( Meawed 2016 ; Metcalfe 2015 ; Pimkina 2015 ). In addition, we considered 15 studies (17%) to have unclear risk of bias because the manner of participant selection was not stated ( Atwebembeire 2016 ; Barmankulova 2015 ; Bates 2013a ; Boum 2016 ; Chen 2017 ; Huang 2015 ; Kim CH 2015 ; Luetkemeyer 2016 ; Mbelele 2017 ; Moussa 2016 ; Mutingwende 2015 ; Nosova 2013a ; Reechaipichitkul 2017 ; Shao 2017 ; Shenai 2016 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults

Horne

Kohli

Zifodya

et al. 2019

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

184

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert MTB/RIF) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra), the newest version, are the only World Health Organization (WHO)‐recommended rapid tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in persons with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis, at lower health system levels. A previous Cochrane Review found Xpert MTB/RIF sensitive and specific for tuberculosis ( ). Since the previous review, new studies have been published. We performed a review update for an upcoming WHO policy review. Objectives To determine diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for tuberculosis in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and for rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive rifampicin‐resistant tuberculosis. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, to 11 October 2018, without language restriction. Selection criteria Randomized trials, cross‐sectional, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra, or both against the reference standard, culture for tuberculosis and culture‐based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDR plus for rifampicin resistance. Data collection and analysis Four review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we also extracted data by smear and HIV status. We assessed study quality using QUADAS‐2 and performed meta‐analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity separately for tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance. We investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. Most analyses used a bivariate random‐effects model. For tuberculosis detection, we first estimated accuracy using all included studies and then only the subset of studies where participants were unselected, i.e. not selected based on prior microscopy testing. Main results We identified in total 95 studies (77 new studies since the previous review): 86 studies (42,091 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis and 57 studies (8287 participants) for rifampicin resistance. One study compared Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra on the same participant specimen. Tuberculosis detection Of the total 86 studies, 45 took place in high tuberculosis burden and 50 in high TB/HIV burden countries. Most studies had low risk of bias. Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible Interval (CrI)) were 85% (82% to 88%) and 98% (97% to 98%), (70 studies, 37,237 unselected participants; high‐certainty evidence). We found similar accuracy when ...

show abstract

Discordance between MTB/RIF and Real-Time Tuberculosis-Specific Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay in Bronchial Washing Specimen and Its Clinical Implications

Cited by 14 publications

References 21 publications

Bronchoscopic techniques in the management of patients with tuberculosis

Bronchoscopic techniques in the management of patients with tuberculosis

Next-Generation Sequencing for Characterizing Drug Resistance-Conferring Mycobacterium tuberculosis Genes from Clinical Isolates in the Ukraine

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About