Xpert MTB/RIF 和 Xpert ultra 检测与 Löwenstein-Jensen 培养法相比,在肺结核和肺外结核病中的诊断准确性

IF 2.3 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Miguel Hueda-Zavaleta , Juan Gomez-de-la-Torre , Claudia Barletta-Carrillo , Cinthya Flores-Flores , Nilver Piscoche-Botello , Cecilia Miranda-Visalot , Ada Mendoza-Farro , Sujey Gomez-Colque , Álvaro Taype-Rondán , Cesar Copaja-Corzo
{"title":"Xpert MTB/RIF 和 Xpert ultra 检测与 Löwenstein-Jensen 培养法相比,在肺结核和肺外结核病中的诊断准确性","authors":"Miguel Hueda-Zavaleta ,&nbsp;Juan Gomez-de-la-Torre ,&nbsp;Claudia Barletta-Carrillo ,&nbsp;Cinthya Flores-Flores ,&nbsp;Nilver Piscoche-Botello ,&nbsp;Cecilia Miranda-Visalot ,&nbsp;Ada Mendoza-Farro ,&nbsp;Sujey Gomez-Colque ,&nbsp;Álvaro Taype-Rondán ,&nbsp;Cesar Copaja-Corzo","doi":"10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101730","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. However, an accurate diagnosis contributes to timely treatment, reducing its adverse consequences. The aim of this research was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the molecular test Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for the diagnosis of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB compared to Löwenstein-Jensen culture.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a cross-sectional study of diagnostic accuracy. We included samples from patients who attended a Peruvian laboratory between 2011 and 2022. The index test was the Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra and the reference standard was Löwenstein-Jensen solid culture for <em>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</em>. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We evaluated 1023 samples, of which 737 were pulmonary samples, 197 tested positive for the Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra tests; and 151 tested positive for culture. The Xpert (MTB/RIF and Ultra) showed a joint sensitivity and specificity of: 97 % (95%CI: 93–99) and 93 % (95%CI: 91–95) in pulmonary samples, 100 % (95%CI: 29.2–100) and 98.3 % (95%CI: 94.1–99.8) in cerebrospinal fluid, 66.7 % (95%CI: 22.3–95.7) and 96.8 % (95%CI: 91–99.3) in pleural fluid, 100 % (95%CI: 15.8–100) and 94.3 % (95%CI: 80.8–99.3) in urine. For the detection of pulmonary TB, the Xpert MTB/RIF had a sensitivity and specificity of 97.1 % (95%CI: 89.9–99.6) and 95.6 % (95%CI: 92.9–97.5) and the Xpert Ultra of 97 % (95%CI: 88.5–99.6) 89.5 % (95%CI: 84.9–93.1) respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our results suggest that the Xpert MTB/RIF and the Xpert Ultra are tests with high diagnostic performance for the detection of pulmonary TB and adequate specificity in pulmonary, cerebrospinal fluid, pleural, and urine samples. However, the results for other samples were imprecise.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46404,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002264/pdfft?md5=a30709977ef40c2bbab41f653e67a270&pid=1-s2.0-S2213398424002264-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert ultra tests in pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis compared to Löwenstein-Jensen culture\",\"authors\":\"Miguel Hueda-Zavaleta ,&nbsp;Juan Gomez-de-la-Torre ,&nbsp;Claudia Barletta-Carrillo ,&nbsp;Cinthya Flores-Flores ,&nbsp;Nilver Piscoche-Botello ,&nbsp;Cecilia Miranda-Visalot ,&nbsp;Ada Mendoza-Farro ,&nbsp;Sujey Gomez-Colque ,&nbsp;Álvaro Taype-Rondán ,&nbsp;Cesar Copaja-Corzo\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.cegh.2024.101730\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. However, an accurate diagnosis contributes to timely treatment, reducing its adverse consequences. The aim of this research was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the molecular test Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for the diagnosis of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB compared to Löwenstein-Jensen culture.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a cross-sectional study of diagnostic accuracy. We included samples from patients who attended a Peruvian laboratory between 2011 and 2022. The index test was the Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra and the reference standard was Löwenstein-Jensen solid culture for <em>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</em>. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>We evaluated 1023 samples, of which 737 were pulmonary samples, 197 tested positive for the Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra tests; and 151 tested positive for culture. The Xpert (MTB/RIF and Ultra) showed a joint sensitivity and specificity of: 97 % (95%CI: 93–99) and 93 % (95%CI: 91–95) in pulmonary samples, 100 % (95%CI: 29.2–100) and 98.3 % (95%CI: 94.1–99.8) in cerebrospinal fluid, 66.7 % (95%CI: 22.3–95.7) and 96.8 % (95%CI: 91–99.3) in pleural fluid, 100 % (95%CI: 15.8–100) and 94.3 % (95%CI: 80.8–99.3) in urine. For the detection of pulmonary TB, the Xpert MTB/RIF had a sensitivity and specificity of 97.1 % (95%CI: 89.9–99.6) and 95.6 % (95%CI: 92.9–97.5) and the Xpert Ultra of 97 % (95%CI: 88.5–99.6) 89.5 % (95%CI: 84.9–93.1) respectively.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Our results suggest that the Xpert MTB/RIF and the Xpert Ultra are tests with high diagnostic performance for the detection of pulmonary TB and adequate specificity in pulmonary, cerebrospinal fluid, pleural, and urine samples. However, the results for other samples were imprecise.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46404,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002264/pdfft?md5=a30709977ef40c2bbab41f653e67a270&pid=1-s2.0-S2213398424002264-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002264\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213398424002264","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景结核病(TB)是导致全球死亡的主要原因之一。然而,准确的诊断有助于及时治疗,减少不良后果。本研究旨在确定分子检验 Xpert MTB/RIF 和 Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra(Xpert Ultra)与 Löwenstein-Jensen 培养法相比在肺结核和肺外结核诊断中的准确性。我们纳入了 2011 年至 2022 年期间在秘鲁实验室就诊的患者样本。指标检验是 Xpert MTB/RIF 和 Xpert Ultra,参考标准是 Löwenstein-Jensen 结核分枝杆菌固体培养。我们计算了灵敏度、特异性以及阳性和阴性似然比。结果 我们评估了 1023 份样本,其中 737 份为肺部样本,197 份在 Xpert MTB/RIF 和 Xpert Ultra 检测中呈阳性,151 份在培养中呈阳性。Xpert(MTB/RIF 和 Ultra)的灵敏度和特异性均为肺部样本的灵敏度为 97%(95%CI:93-99),特异度为 93%(95%CI:91-95);脑脊液样本的灵敏度为 100%(95%CI:29.2-100),特异度为 98.3%(95%CI:94.1-99.8);胸腔积液样本的灵敏度为 66.7%(95%CI:22.3-95.7),特异度为 96.8%(95%CI:91-99.3);尿液样本的灵敏度为 100%(95%CI:15.8-100),特异度为 94.3%(95%CI:80.8-99.3)。对于肺结核的检测,Xpert MTB/RIF 的敏感性和特异性分别为 97.1 %(95%CI:89.9-99.6)和 95.6 %(95%CI:92.9-97.5),而 Xpert Ultra 的敏感性和特异性分别为 97 %(95%CI:88.5-99.6)和 89.5 %(95%CI:84.9-93.1)。结论我们的研究结果表明,Xpert MTB/RIF 和 Xpert Ultra 对肺结核的检测具有很高的诊断性能,在肺部、脑脊液、胸膜和尿液样本中具有足够的特异性。然而,其他样本的结果并不精确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert ultra tests in pulmonary and extrapulmonary tuberculosis compared to Löwenstein-Jensen culture

Background

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. However, an accurate diagnosis contributes to timely treatment, reducing its adverse consequences. The aim of this research was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the molecular test Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for the diagnosis of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB compared to Löwenstein-Jensen culture.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study of diagnostic accuracy. We included samples from patients who attended a Peruvian laboratory between 2011 and 2022. The index test was the Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra and the reference standard was Löwenstein-Jensen solid culture for Mycobacterium tuberculosis. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative likelihood ratios.

Results

We evaluated 1023 samples, of which 737 were pulmonary samples, 197 tested positive for the Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra tests; and 151 tested positive for culture. The Xpert (MTB/RIF and Ultra) showed a joint sensitivity and specificity of: 97 % (95%CI: 93–99) and 93 % (95%CI: 91–95) in pulmonary samples, 100 % (95%CI: 29.2–100) and 98.3 % (95%CI: 94.1–99.8) in cerebrospinal fluid, 66.7 % (95%CI: 22.3–95.7) and 96.8 % (95%CI: 91–99.3) in pleural fluid, 100 % (95%CI: 15.8–100) and 94.3 % (95%CI: 80.8–99.3) in urine. For the detection of pulmonary TB, the Xpert MTB/RIF had a sensitivity and specificity of 97.1 % (95%CI: 89.9–99.6) and 95.6 % (95%CI: 92.9–97.5) and the Xpert Ultra of 97 % (95%CI: 88.5–99.6) 89.5 % (95%CI: 84.9–93.1) respectively.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that the Xpert MTB/RIF and the Xpert Ultra are tests with high diagnostic performance for the detection of pulmonary TB and adequate specificity in pulmonary, cerebrospinal fluid, pleural, and urine samples. However, the results for other samples were imprecise.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health
Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
218
审稿时长
66 days
期刊介绍: Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health (CEGH) is a multidisciplinary journal and it is published four times (March, June, September, December) a year. The mandate of CEGH is to promote articles on clinical epidemiology with focus on developing countries in the context of global health. We also accept articles from other countries. It publishes original research work across all disciplines of medicine and allied sciences, related to clinical epidemiology and global health. The journal publishes Original articles, Review articles, Evidence Summaries, Letters to the Editor. All articles published in CEGH are peer-reviewed and published online for immediate access and citation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信