Evaluation of different diagnostic methods for spinal tuberculosis infection.
Diagnosis
Metagenomic next-generation sequencing
Mycobacterium tuberculosis
Spinal tuberculosis
Xpert MTB/RIF
Journal
BMC infectious diseases
ISSN: 1471-2334
Titre abrégé: BMC Infect Dis
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968551
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 Oct 2023
18 Oct 2023
Historique:
received:
06
05
2023
accepted:
27
09
2023
medline:
23
10
2023
pubmed:
19
10
2023
entrez:
18
10
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Tuberculosis (TB) is the most fatal infectious disease worldwide. Approximately 24.6% of tuberculosis cases are extrapulmonary and predominantly affect the spine. It is difficult to diagnose spinal TB (STB). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT)-960 culture, T-SPOT.TB, Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB)/resistance to rifampin (RIF), and Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) to detect STB. We assessed 126 patients presumed to have STB using these four methods. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using clinical diagnosis as a reference. Of the patients, 41 were diagnosed with STB and 85 with non-STB. In the STB group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the MGIT-960 culture were 29.3% (12/41), 100% (85/85), 100% (12/12), and 74.6% (85/114), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of T-SPOT.TB were 92.7% (38/41), 82.4% (70/85), 58.5% (31/53), and 95.9% (70/73), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay were 53.7% (22/41), 100% (85/85), 100% (22/22), and 81.7% (85/104), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mNGS were 39.0% (16/41), 98.8% (84/85), 94.1% (16/17), and 77.1% (84/109), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mNGS + Xpert MTB/RIF were 73.2% (30/41), 100% (85/85), 96.8% (30/31), and 72.0% (85/118), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the mNGS + T-spot assay were 97.6% (40/41), 100% (85/85), 67.9% (38/56), and 75.9% (85/113), respectively. Moreover, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of T-spot + Xpert MTB/RIF were 95.1% (39/41), 100% (85/85), 72.2% (39/54), and 81.0% (85/105), respectively. T-SPOT.TB is the most effective method for diagnosing STB; however, Xpert MTB/RIF is more reliable and can detect RIF resistance. Clinicians can use mNGS to identify pathogens in patients with spinal infections; these pathogens appeared to be more meaningful in guiding the clinical management of patients in the non-STB group. The combination of Xpert MTB/RIF and mNGS can improve the early diagnosis rate and drug resistance detection, reduce the diagnostic cycle, and provide early targeted anti-TB treatment for patients with STB.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
OBJECTIVE
Tuberculosis (TB) is the most fatal infectious disease worldwide. Approximately 24.6% of tuberculosis cases are extrapulmonary and predominantly affect the spine. It is difficult to diagnose spinal TB (STB). We aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT)-960 culture, T-SPOT.TB, Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB)/resistance to rifampin (RIF), and Metagenomic Next-Generation Sequencing (mNGS) to detect STB.
METHODS
METHODS
We assessed 126 patients presumed to have STB using these four methods. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated using clinical diagnosis as a reference.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of the patients, 41 were diagnosed with STB and 85 with non-STB. In the STB group, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the MGIT-960 culture were 29.3% (12/41), 100% (85/85), 100% (12/12), and 74.6% (85/114), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of T-SPOT.TB were 92.7% (38/41), 82.4% (70/85), 58.5% (31/53), and 95.9% (70/73), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay were 53.7% (22/41), 100% (85/85), 100% (22/22), and 81.7% (85/104), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mNGS were 39.0% (16/41), 98.8% (84/85), 94.1% (16/17), and 77.1% (84/109), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of mNGS + Xpert MTB/RIF were 73.2% (30/41), 100% (85/85), 96.8% (30/31), and 72.0% (85/118), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of the mNGS + T-spot assay were 97.6% (40/41), 100% (85/85), 67.9% (38/56), and 75.9% (85/113), respectively. Moreover, the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of T-spot + Xpert MTB/RIF were 95.1% (39/41), 100% (85/85), 72.2% (39/54), and 81.0% (85/105), respectively.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
T-SPOT.TB is the most effective method for diagnosing STB; however, Xpert MTB/RIF is more reliable and can detect RIF resistance. Clinicians can use mNGS to identify pathogens in patients with spinal infections; these pathogens appeared to be more meaningful in guiding the clinical management of patients in the non-STB group. The combination of Xpert MTB/RIF and mNGS can improve the early diagnosis rate and drug resistance detection, reduce the diagnostic cycle, and provide early targeted anti-TB treatment for patients with STB.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37853312
doi: 10.1186/s12879-023-08655-5
pii: 10.1186/s12879-023-08655-5
pmc: PMC10583401
doi:
Substances chimiques
Rifampin
VJT6J7R4TR
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
695Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
Front Public Health. 2022 Jun 17;10:901504
pubmed: 35784201
Orthopade. 2020 Aug;49(8):691-701
pubmed: 32642943
J Clin Lab Anal. 2018 Feb;32(2):
pubmed: 28594104
J Clin Lab Anal. 2022 Apr;36(4):e24307
pubmed: 35202495
Spine J. 2019 Nov;19(11):1858-1870
pubmed: 31102727
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2018 Jun 25;8:205
pubmed: 29988504
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Feb 10;66(5):778-788
pubmed: 29040428
Eur Spine J. 2013 Jun;22 Suppl 4:624-33
pubmed: 22565802
World J Orthop. 2019 Feb 18;10(2):54-62
pubmed: 30788222
Int J Infect Dis. 2021 Feb;103:91-96
pubmed: 33227518
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2023 Feb 08;13:1076525
pubmed: 36844401
Lancet Public Health. 2022 Apr;7(4):e305-e315
pubmed: 35338849
Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2016 Jul 19;96(27):2179-81
pubmed: 27464546
J Infect. 2018 Mar;76(3):225-240
pubmed: 29305150
Bone Joint J. 2014 Oct;96-B(10):1366-9
pubmed: 25274923
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2020 Feb 1;45(3):163-169
pubmed: 31513101
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Nov 13;67(suppl_2):S231-S240
pubmed: 30423048
Thorax. 2009 Dec;64(12):1090-5
pubmed: 19850965
Int J Infect Dis. 2023 Mar;128:69-77
pubmed: 36509333
Eur Spine J. 2022 Feb;31(2):442-447
pubmed: 34677679
Front Microbiol. 2022 Dec 07;13:1018938
pubmed: 36569091
Genet Test Mol Biomarkers. 2017 Dec;21(12):722-726
pubmed: 29172708
Bone Joint J. 2020 Oct;102-B(10):1274-1276
pubmed: 32993334
J Clin Med. 2023 Feb 24;12(5):
pubmed: 36902625
Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2019 Oct 18;9:351
pubmed: 31681628
J Spinal Cord Med. 2011;34(5):440-54
pubmed: 22118251