Author:
Hassane-Harouna Souleymane,Braet Sofie Marijke,Decroo Tom,Camara Lansana Mady,Delamou Alexandre,Bock Sven de,Ortuño-Gutiérrez Nimer,Cherif Gba-Foromo,Williams Caroline M.,Wisniewska Anika,Barer Michael R.,Rigouts Leen,de Jong Bouke Catherine
Abstract
Abstract
Background
Pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) diagnosis relies on sputum examination, a challenge in sputum-scarce patients. Alternative non-invasive sampling methods such as face mask sampling (FMS) have been proposed.
Objective
To evaluate the value of FMS for PTB diagnosis by assessing its agreement with sputum samples processed by GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Ultra)(Xpert) testing, and describe FMS sensitivity and specificity.
Methods
This was a prospective study conducted at the Carrière TB clinic in Guinea. Presumptive TB patients willing to participate were asked to wear a surgical mask containing a polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) strip for thirty minutes. Subsequently, two spot sputum samples were collected, of which one was processed by microscopy on site and the other by Xpert in Guinea’s National Reference Laboratory of Mycobacteriology (LNRM). The first 30 FMS were processed at the Supranational Reference Laboratory in Antwerp, Belgium, and the following 118 FMS in the LNRM.
Results
One hundred fifty patients participated, of whom 148 had valid results for both mask and sputum. Sputum smear microscopy was positive for 47 (31.8%) patients while sputum-Xpert detected MTB in 54 (36.5%) patients. Among the 54 patients testing sputum-Xpert positive, 26 (48.1%) yielded a positive FMS-Xpert result, while four sputum-Xpert negative patients tested positive for FMS and 90 patients were Xpert-negative for both sputum and mask samples, suggesting a moderate level of agreement (k-value of 0.47). The overall mask sensitivity was 48.1%, with 95.7% specificity.
Conclusion
In our setting, Xpert testing on FMS did not yield a high level of agreement to sputum sample.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Infectious Diseases,Microbiology (medical),General Medicine
Reference18 articles.
1. World Health Organization. Tuberculosis Global Report 2022. Vol. 4., 2022. 68 p.
2. Luabeya AK, Wood RC, Shenje J, Filander E, Ontong C, Mabwe S, et al. Noninvasive detection of tuberculosis by oral swab analysis. J Clin Microbiol. 2019;57(3):12–5.
3. Ealand C, Peters J, Jacobs O, Sewcharran A, Ghoor A, Golub J, et al. Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex Bacilli and nucleic acids from Tongue Swabs in Young, Hospitalized Children. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2021;11(June):1–9.
4. Wood RC, Andama A, Hermansky G, Burkot S, Asege L, Job M et al. Characterization of oral swab samples for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. PLoS One [Internet]. 2021;16(5 May 2021):1–13. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251422.
5. Molina-Moya B, Ciobanu N, Hernandez M, Prat-Aymerich C, Crudu V, Adams ER, et al. Molecular detection of mycobacterium tuberculosis in oral mucosa from patients with presumptive tuberculosis. J Clin Med. 2020;9(12):1–7.