Lung Infection and Immunity Unit, Division of Pulmonology and UCT Lung Institute, Department of Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa.
DST/NRF Centre of Excellence for Biomedical Tuberculosis Research and SA MRC Centre for Tuberculosis Research, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, Tygerberg, South Africa.
J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Feb 22;56(3). doi: 10.1128/JCM.01696-17. Print 2018 Mar.
Globally, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) is the most widely used PCR test for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). Positive results in previously treated patients, which are due to old DNA or active disease, are a diagnostic dilemma. We prospectively retested sputum from 238 patients, irrespective of current symptoms, who were previously diagnosed to be Xpert positive and treated successfully. Patients who retested as Xpert positive and culture negative were exhaustively investigated (repeat culture, chest radiography, bronchoscopy with bronchoalveolar lavage, long-term clinical follow-up). We evaluated whether the duration since previous treatment completion, mycobacterial burden (the Xpert cycle threshold [ ] value), and reclassification of Xpert-positive results with a very low semiquantitation level to Xpert-negative results reduced the rate of false positivity. A total of 229/238 (96%) of patients were culture negative. Sixteen of 229 (7%) were Xpert positive a median of 11 months (interquartile range, 5 to 19 months) after treatment completion. The specificity was 93% (95% confidence interval [CI], 89 to 96%). Nine of 15 (40%) Xpert-positive, culture-negative patients reverted to Xpert negative after 2 to 3 months (1 patient declined further participation). Patients with false-positive Xpert results had a lower mycobacterial burden than patients with true-positive Xpert results ( , 28.7 [95% CI, 27.2 to 30.4] versus 17.6 [95% CI, 16.9 to 18.2]; < 0.001), an increased likelihood of a chest radiograph not compatible with active TB (5/15 patients versus 0/5 patients; = 0.026), and less-viscous sputum (15/16 patients versus 2/5 patients whose sputum was graded as mucoid or less; = 0.038). All patients who initially retested as Xpert positive and culture negative ("Xpert false positive") were clinically well without treatment after follow-up. The duration since the previous treatment poorly predicted false-positive results (a duration of ≤2 years identified only 66% of patients with false-positive results). Reclassifying Xpert-positive results with a very low semiquantitation level to Xpert negative improved the specificity (+3% [95% CI, +2 to +5%]) but reduced the sensitivity (-10% [95% CI, -4 to -15%]). Patients with previous TB retested with Xpert can have false-positive results and thus not require treatment. These data inform clinical practice by highlighting the challenges in interpreting Xpert-positive results, underscore the need for culture, and have implications for next-generation ultrasensitive tests.
全球范围内,Xpert MTB/RIF(Xpert)是诊断结核病(TB)最广泛使用的 PCR 检测方法。在先前接受过治疗的患者中,阳性结果可能是由于陈旧的 DNA 或活动性疾病引起的,这是一个诊断上的难题。我们前瞻性地重新检测了 238 例先前被诊断为 Xpert 阳性并成功治疗的患者的痰液,无论当前症状如何。对于那些重新检测为 Xpert 阳性且培养阴性的患者,我们进行了详尽的调查(重复培养、胸部 X 线检查、支气管镜检查和支气管肺泡灌洗、长期临床随访)。我们评估了治疗完成后时间的长短、分枝杆菌负荷(Xpert 循环阈值[ ]值),以及将 Xpert 阳性结果的极少量定性重新分类为 Xpert 阴性结果是否会降低假阳性率。共有 229/238(96%)的患者培养结果为阴性。在治疗完成后中位数为 11 个月(四分位距,5 至 19 个月)的时间里,229 例患者中有 16 例(7%)Xpert 检测阳性。特异性为 93%(95%置信区间[CI],89 至 96%)。15 例 Xpert 阳性、培养阴性患者中有 9 例(40%)在 2 至 3 个月后 Xpert 转为阴性(1 例患者拒绝进一步参与)。假阳性 Xpert 结果患者的分枝杆菌负荷低于真阳性 Xpert 结果患者( ,28.7 [95%CI,27.2 至 30.4]比 17.6 [95%CI,16.9 至 18.2]; < 0.001),更有可能出现与活动性结核病不相符的胸片(5/15 例患者与 0/5 例患者; = 0.026),痰液更稀薄(15/16 例患者与 2/5 例痰液分级为黏液性或以下的患者; = 0.038)。所有最初 Xpert 检测阳性且培养阴性的患者(“Xpert 假阳性”)在随访后临床状况良好,无需治疗。治疗完成后时间的长短不能很好地预测假阳性结果(治疗完成后时间≤2 年仅能识别出 66%的假阳性患者)。将 Xpert 阳性结果的极低半定量水平重新分类为 Xpert 阴性可提高特异性(+3%[95%CI,+2%至+5%]),但降低敏感性(-10%[95%CI,-4%至-15%])。以前患有结核病的患者用 Xpert 进行重复检测可能会出现假阳性结果,因此不需要治疗。这些数据通过突出解释 Xpert 阳性结果的挑战,强调了培养的必要性,并对下一代超敏检测产生影响,为临床实践提供了信息。