Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2022
Comparative diagnostic utility of metagenomic next-generation sequencing, GeneXpert, modified Ziehl-Neelsen staining, and culture using cerebrospinal fluid for tuberculous meningitis: A multi-center, retrospective study in China.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Chen Yuxin, Wang Yuqing, Liu Xiaojin, Li Wen, Fu Hongyi, Liu Xinyan, Zhang Xun, Zhou Xueqin, Yang Bingzhou, Yao Jie, Ma Xiaolei, Han Lijun, Li Huan, Zheng Liheng
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Early diagnosis of tuberculosis meningitis (TBM) remains a great challenge during clinical practice. The diagnostic efficacies of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)-based mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT) culture, modified Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) staining, Xpert MTB/RIF, and metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) for TBM remained elusive.
METHODS: A total of 216 adult patients with suspicious TBM were retrospectively enrolled in this multi-cohort study. The diagnostic performances for MGIT, modified ZN staining, Xpert MTB/RIF, and mNGS using CSF samples were evaluated.
RESULTS: Uniform clinical case definition classified 88 (40.7%) out of 216 patients as the definite TBM, 5 (2.3%) patients as probable TBM cases, and 24 (11.1%) patients as possible TBM cases. The sensitivities of MGIT, modified ZN staining, Xpert MTB/RIF, and mNGS for TBM diagnosis against consensus uniform case definition for definite TBM were 25.0%, 76.1%, 73.9%, and 84.1%, respectively. Negative predictive values (NPVs) were 66.0%, 85.9%, 84.8%, and 90.1%, respectively. The sensitivities of MGIT, modified ZN staining, Xpert MTB/RIF, and mNGS for TBM diagnosis against consensus uniform case definition for definite, probable, and possible TBM were 18.8%, 57.3%, 55.5%, and 63.2%, respectively. Negative predictive values (NPVs) were 51.0%, 66.4%, 65.6%, and 69.7%, respectively. mNGS combined with modified ZN stain and Xpert could cover TBM cases against a composite microbiological reference standard, yielding 100% specificity and 100% NPV.
CONCLUSION: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing detected TBM with higher sensitivity than Xpert, ZN staining and MGIT culture, but mNGS cannot be used as a rule-out test. mNGS combined with Xpert or modified ZN staining could enhance the sensitivity of diagnostic tests for TBM.
METHODS: A total of 216 adult patients with suspicious TBM were retrospectively enrolled in this multi-cohort study. The diagnostic performances for MGIT, modified ZN staining, Xpert MTB/RIF, and mNGS using CSF samples were evaluated.
RESULTS: Uniform clinical case definition classified 88 (40.7%) out of 216 patients as the definite TBM, 5 (2.3%) patients as probable TBM cases, and 24 (11.1%) patients as possible TBM cases. The sensitivities of MGIT, modified ZN staining, Xpert MTB/RIF, and mNGS for TBM diagnosis against consensus uniform case definition for definite TBM were 25.0%, 76.1%, 73.9%, and 84.1%, respectively. Negative predictive values (NPVs) were 66.0%, 85.9%, 84.8%, and 90.1%, respectively. The sensitivities of MGIT, modified ZN staining, Xpert MTB/RIF, and mNGS for TBM diagnosis against consensus uniform case definition for definite, probable, and possible TBM were 18.8%, 57.3%, 55.5%, and 63.2%, respectively. Negative predictive values (NPVs) were 51.0%, 66.4%, 65.6%, and 69.7%, respectively. mNGS combined with modified ZN stain and Xpert could cover TBM cases against a composite microbiological reference standard, yielding 100% specificity and 100% NPV.
CONCLUSION: Metagenomic next-generation sequencing detected TBM with higher sensitivity than Xpert, ZN staining and MGIT culture, but mNGS cannot be used as a rule-out test. mNGS combined with Xpert or modified ZN staining could enhance the sensitivity of diagnostic tests for TBM.