Diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, and acceptability of stool-based testing for childhood tuberculosis

B. Yenew, P. de Haas, Yohannes Babo, G. Diriba, Bihil Sherefdin, A. Bedru, B. Tegegn, T. Gudina, Tadesse Getahun, Saro Abdella, D. Jerene, Eveline Klinkenberg, E. Tiemersma
{"title":"Diagnostic accuracy, feasibility, and acceptability of stool-based testing for childhood tuberculosis","authors":"B. Yenew, P. de Haas, Yohannes Babo, G. Diriba, Bihil Sherefdin, A. Bedru, B. Tegegn, T. Gudina, Tadesse Getahun, Saro Abdella, D. Jerene, Eveline Klinkenberg, E. Tiemersma","doi":"10.1183/23120541.00710-2023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Childhood tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis remains challenging, partly because children cannot provide sputum. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Simple One-Step (SOS) stool method with Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert-Ultra) for childhood TB compared to culture and Xpert-Ultra on a respiratory sample (RS) and clinical diagnosis. It also assessed the feasibility and acceptability of stool testing according to laboratory staff, and caregivers’ sample preference.We enrolled children (≤10 years) with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis in Ethiopia. RS was tested with Xpert-Ultra and culture; stool samples were tested using the SOS stool method with Xpert-Ultra. Laboratory staff and caregivers’ opinions were assessed using standardized questionnaires.Of 898 children enrolled, 792, 832 and 794 were included for assessing the diagnostic accuracy of SOS stool with Xpert-Ultra against culture, RS Xpert-Ultra, and clinical diagnosis, respectively, yielding sensitivity estimates for SOS stool with Xpert-Ultra of 69.1% (95% confidence interval (CI), 56.0–79.7%), 76.8% (95% CI, 64.2–85.9%), and 59.0% (95% CI, 47.9–69.2%), respectively. The specificity was ≥98.8% for all comparisons. The rate of non-determinate test results was 2.8% after one repeat test. According to laboratory staff, stool collection was feasible, acceptable and the SOS stool method was easy to perform. Most caregivers (75%) preferred stool for TB diagnosis over RS.This study shows that SOS stool Xpert-Ultra testing offers a good alternative to RS testing for TB in children who cannot spontaneously produce a sputum sample and would otherwise need to undergo invasive procedures to obtain RS for diagnosis.","PeriodicalId":504874,"journal":{"name":"ERJ Open Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERJ Open Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/23120541.00710-2023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Childhood tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis remains challenging, partly because children cannot provide sputum. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of the Simple One-Step (SOS) stool method with Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert-Ultra) for childhood TB compared to culture and Xpert-Ultra on a respiratory sample (RS) and clinical diagnosis. It also assessed the feasibility and acceptability of stool testing according to laboratory staff, and caregivers’ sample preference.We enrolled children (≤10 years) with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis in Ethiopia. RS was tested with Xpert-Ultra and culture; stool samples were tested using the SOS stool method with Xpert-Ultra. Laboratory staff and caregivers’ opinions were assessed using standardized questionnaires.Of 898 children enrolled, 792, 832 and 794 were included for assessing the diagnostic accuracy of SOS stool with Xpert-Ultra against culture, RS Xpert-Ultra, and clinical diagnosis, respectively, yielding sensitivity estimates for SOS stool with Xpert-Ultra of 69.1% (95% confidence interval (CI), 56.0–79.7%), 76.8% (95% CI, 64.2–85.9%), and 59.0% (95% CI, 47.9–69.2%), respectively. The specificity was ≥98.8% for all comparisons. The rate of non-determinate test results was 2.8% after one repeat test. According to laboratory staff, stool collection was feasible, acceptable and the SOS stool method was easy to perform. Most caregivers (75%) preferred stool for TB diagnosis over RS.This study shows that SOS stool Xpert-Ultra testing offers a good alternative to RS testing for TB in children who cannot spontaneously produce a sputum sample and would otherwise need to undergo invasive procedures to obtain RS for diagnosis.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
儿童结核病粪便检测的诊断准确性、可行性和可接受性
儿童结核病(TB)的诊断仍然具有挑战性,部分原因是儿童无法提供痰液。本研究评估了简单一步法(SOS)粪便检测法与 Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra(Xpert-Ultra)对儿童肺结核的诊断准确性,并对呼吸道样本(RS)和临床诊断的培养和 Xpert-Ultra 进行了比较。我们在埃塞俄比亚招募了推测患有肺结核的儿童(≤10 岁)。用 Xpert-Ultra 和培养法检测 RS;用 SOS 粪便法和 Xpert-Ultra 检测粪便样本。在入组的 898 名儿童中,有 792、832 和 794 名儿童被纳入评估 SOS 粪便 Xpert-Ultra 与培养、RS Xpert-Ultra 和临床诊断的诊断准确性,SOS 粪便 Xpert-Ultra 的灵敏度估计为 69.1%(95% 置信区间 (CI),56.0-79.7%)、76.8%(95% CI,64.2-85.9%)和 59.0%(95% CI,47.9-69.2%)。所有比较的特异性均≥98.8%。重复检测一次后,检测结果不确定的比例为 2.8%。实验室工作人员认为,粪便采集是可行的、可接受的,SOS 粪便法也很容易操作。这项研究表明,SOS粪便Xpert-Ultra检测法为那些不能自发提供痰液样本的儿童提供了一种替代RS检测法的肺结核检测方法,否则这些儿童就需要接受侵入性程序以获得RS进行诊断。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pulmonary fibrosis in patients with auto-immune pulmonary alveolar proteinosis: a retrospective nationwide cohort study Long-term dupilumab efficacy in type 2 asthma regardless of baseline characteristics The prevalence and implications of depression and anxiety in patients with bronchiectasis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Neutrophil extracellular traps are associated with airways inflammation and increased severity of lung disease in Cystic Fibrosis Extracellular vesicles in sputum of children with cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbations
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1