1887

Abstract

This study evaluated a new decontamination and concentration (DC) method for sputum microscopy and culture. Sputum samples from patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) (=106) were tested using the proposed hypertonic saline–sodium hydroxide (HS–SH) DC method, the recommended -acetyl--cysteine–sodium citrate–sodium hydroxide (NALC-NaOH) DC method and unconcentrated direct smear (Ziehl–Neelsen) techniques for the presence of mycobacteria using Löwenstein-Jensen culture and light microscopy. Of 94 valid specimens, 21 (22.3 %) were positive in culture and were further characterized as . The sensitivity for acid-fast bacilli (AFB) smears was increased from 28.6 % using the direct method to 71.4 % (HS–SH) and 66.7 % (NALC-NaOH) using DC methods. Both concentration techniques were highly comparable for culture (kappa=0.794) and smear (kappa=0.631) for AFB. Thus the proposed HS–SH DC method improved the sensitivity of AFB microscopy compared with a routine unconcentrated direct smear; its performance was comparable to that of the NALC-NaOH DC method for AFB smears and culture, but it was methodologically simpler and less expensive, making it a promising candidate for evaluation by national TB control programmes in developing countries.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.2008/001339-0
2008-09-01
2020-07-11
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/jmm/57/9/1094.html?itemId=/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.2008/001339-0&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Allen B. W., Mitchison D. A. 1992; Counts of viable tubercle bacilli in sputum related to smear and culture gradings. Med Lab Sci 49:94–98
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Apers L., Mutsvangwa J., Magwenzi J., Chigara N., Butterworth A., Mason P., Van der Stuyft P. 2003; A comparison of direct microscopy, the concentration method and the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube for the examination of sputum for acid-fast bacilli. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 7:376–381
    [Google Scholar]
  3. IUATLD 2005; Tuberculosis bacteriology – priorities and indications in high prevalence countries: position of the technical staff of the Tuberculosis Division of the International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 9:355–361
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Karstaedt A. S., Jones N., Khoosal M., Crewe-Brown H. H. 1998; The bacteriology of pulmonary tuberculosis in a population with high human immunodeficiency virus seroprevalence. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2:312–316
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Kent B., Kubica G. 1985 Public Health Mycobacteriology: a Guide for the Level II Laboratory Atlanta, GA: US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control;
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Khan E. A., Starke J. R. 1995; Diagnosis of tuberculosis in children: increased need for better methods. Emerg Infect Dis 1:115–123 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  7. King M., Dasgupta B., Tomkiewicz R. P., Brown N. E. 1997; Rheology of cystic fibrosis sputum after in vitro treatment with hypertonic saline alone and in combination with recombinant human deoxyribonuclease I. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 156:173–177 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Levy H., Feldman C., Sacho H., van der Meulen H., Kallenbach J., Koornhof H. 1989; A reevaluation of sputum microscopy and culture in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. Chest 95:1193–1197 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Long R. 2001; Smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis in industrialized countries. Chest 120:330–334 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Marei A. M., El-Behedy E. M., Mohtady H. A., Afify A. F. 2003; Evaluation of a rapid bacteriophage-based method for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical samples. J Med Microbiol 52:331–335 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Mirovic V., Lepsanovic Z. 2002; Evaluation of the MB/BacT system for recovery of mycobacteria from clinical specimens in comparison to Lowenstein–Jensen medium. Clin Microbiol Infect 8:709–714 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Palomino J. C. 2006; Newer diagnostics for tuberculosis and multi-drug resistant tuberculosis. Curr Opin Pulm Med 12:172–178 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Perkins M. D., Kritski A. L. 2002; Diagnostic testing in the control of tuberculosis. Bull World Health Organ 80:512–513
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Peterson E. M., Nakasone A., Platon-DeLeon J. M., Jang Y., de La Maza L. M., Desmond E. 1999; Comparison of direct and concentrated acid-fast smears to identify specimens culture positive for Mycobacterium spp. J Clin Microbiol 37:3564–3568
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Rattan A., Kishore K., Singh S., Jaber M., Xess I., Kumar R. 1994; Evaluation of a safe sputum processing method for detecting tuberculosis. J Clin Pathol 47:411–413 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ricaldi J. N., Guerra H. 2008; A simple and improved method for diagnosis of tuberculosis using hypertonic saline and sodium hydroxide (HS–SH) to concentrate and decontaminate sputum. Trop Doct 38:97–99 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Siddiqi K., Lambert M. L., Walley J. 2003; Clinical diagnosis of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis in low-income countries: the current evidence. Lancet Infect Dis 3:288–296 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Somoskovi A., Magyar P. 1999; Comparison of the mycobacteria growth indicator tube with MB redox, Lowenstein–Jensen, and Middlebrook 7H11 media for recovery of mycobacteria in clinical specimens. J Clin Microbiol 37:1366–1369
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Steingart K. R., Henry M., Ng V., Hopewell P. C., Ramsay A., Cunningham J., Urbanczik R., Perkins M., Aziz M. A., Pai M. 2006a; Fluorescence versus conventional sputum smear microscopy for tuberculosis: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 6:570–581 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Steingart K. R., Ng V., Henry M., Hopewell P. C., Ramsay A., Cunningham J., Urbanczik R., Perkins M., Aziz M. A., Pai M. 2006b; Sputum processing methods to improve the sensitivity of smear microscopy for tuberculosis: a systematic review. Lancet Infect Dis 6:664–674 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Suarez P. G., Watt C. J., Alarcon E., Portocarrero J., Zavala D., Canales R., Luelmo F., Espinal M. A., Dye C. 2001; The dynamics of tuberculosis in response to 10 years of intensive control effort in Peru. J Infect Dis 184:473–478 [CrossRef]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Toman K. 2004 Tuberculosis Case-Finding and Chemotherapy. Case Detection, Treatment and Monitoring – Questions and Answers , 2nd edn. Geneva: World Health Organization;
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Van Deun A., Maug A. K., Cooreman E., Hossain M. A., Chambuganj N., Rema V., Marandi H., Kawria A., Portaels F. 2000; Bleach sedimentation method for increased sensitivity of sputum smear microscopy: does it work?. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 4:371–376
    [Google Scholar]
  24. WHO 1998 Global Tuberculosis Programme. Laboratory Services in Tuberculosis Control WHO/TB/98.258 (Pt 2 Geneva: World Health Organization;
    [Google Scholar]
  25. WHO 2002; Global Tuberculosis Control: Surveillance, Planning, Financing. WHO Report 2002 . WHO/CDS/TB/2002.295. Geneva: World Health Organization;
  26. WHO 2005 Global Tuberculosis Control: Surveillance, Planning, Financing. WHO Report 2005 WHO/HTM/TB/2005.349. Geneva: World Health Organization;
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.2008/001339-0
Loading
/content/journal/jmm/10.1099/jmm.0.2008/001339-0
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Most cited this month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error