Comparison of two laboratory-developed PCR methods for the diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Brazilian patients with and without HIV infection

Abstract Background Direct smear examination with Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) staining for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) is cheap and easy to use, but its low sensitivity is a major drawback, particularly in HIV seropositive patients. As such, new tools for laboratory diagnosis are urgently needed to improve the case detection rate, especially in regions with a high prevalence of TB and HIV. Objective To evaluate the performance of two in house PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction): PCR dot-blot methodology (PCR dot-blot) and PCR agarose gel electrophoresis (PCR-AG) for the diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis (PTB) in HIV seropositive and HIV seronegative patients. Methods A prospective study was conducted (from May 2003 to May 2004) in a TB/HIV reference hospital. Sputum specimens from 277 PTB suspects were tested by Acid Fast Bacilli (AFB) smear, Culture and in house PCR assays (PCR dot-blot and PCR-AG) and their performances evaluated. Positive cultures combined with the definition of clinical pulmonary TB were employed as the gold standard. Results The overall prevalence of PTB was 46% (128/277); in HIV+, prevalence was 54.0% (40/74). The sensitivity and specificity of PCR dot-blot were 74% (CI 95%; 66.1%-81.2%) and 85% (CI 95%; 78.8%-90.3%); and of PCR-AG were 43% (CI 95%; 34.5%-51.6%) and 76% (CI 95%; 69.2%-82.8%), respectively. For HIV seropositive and HIV seronegative samples, sensitivities of PCR dot-blot (72% vs 75%; p = 0.46) and PCR-AG (42% vs 43%; p = 0.54) were similar. Among HIV seronegative patients and PTB suspects, ROC analysis presented the following values for the AFB smear (0.837), Culture (0.926), PCR dot-blot (0.801) and PCR-AG (0.599). In HIV seropositive patients, these area values were (0.713), (0.900), (0.789) and (0.595), respectively. Conclusion Results of this study demonstrate that the in house PCR dot blot may be an improvement for ruling out PTB diagnosis in PTB suspects assisted at hospitals with a high prevalence of TB/HIV.

The performance of four molecular methods for the laboratory diagnosis of congenital toxoplasmosis in amniotic fluid samples

Introduction Toxoplasmosis may be life-threatening in fetuses and in immune-deficient patients. Conventional laboratory diagnosis of toxoplasmosis is based on the presence of IgM and IgG anti-Toxoplasma gondii antibodies; however, molecular techniques have emerged as alternative tools due to their increased sensitivity. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of 4 PCR-based methods for the laboratory diagnosis of toxoplasmosis. One hundred pregnant women who seroconverted during pregnancy were included in the study. The definition of cases was based on a 12-month follow-up of the infants. Methods Amniotic fluid samples were submitted to DNA extraction and amplification by the following 4 Toxoplasma techniques performed with parasite B1 gene primers: conventional PCR, nested-PCR, multiplex-nested-PCR, and real-time PCR. Seven parameters were analyzed, sensitivity (Se), specificity (Sp), positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive likelihood ratio (PLR), negative likelihood ratio (NLR) and efficiency (Ef). Results Fifty-nine of the 100 infants had toxoplasmosis; 42 (71.2%) had IgM antibodies at birth but were asymptomatic, and the remaining 17 cases had non-detectable IgM antibodies but high IgG antibody titers that were associated with retinochoroiditis in 8 (13.5%) cases, abnormal cranial ultrasound in 5 (8.5%) cases, and signs/symptoms suggestive of infection in 4 (6.8%) cases. The conventional PCR assay detected 50 cases (9 false-negatives), nested-PCR detected 58 cases (1 false-negative and 4 false-positives), multiplex-nested-PCR detected 57 cases (2 false-negatives), and real-time-PCR detected 58 cases (1 false-negative). Conclusions The real-time PCR assay was the best-performing technique based on the parameters of Se (98.3%), Sp (100%), PPV (100%), NPV (97.6%), PLR (â^ž), NLR (0.017), and Ef (99%).