6 research outputs found
Comparison of same day diagnostic tools including Gene Xpert and unstimulated IFN-γ for the evaluation of pleural tuberculosis: a prospective cohort study
Background: The accuracy of currently available same-day diagnostic tools (smear microscopy and conventional nucleic acid amplification tests) for pleural tuberculosis (TB) is sub-optimal. Newer technologies may offer improved detection. Methods: Smear-microscopy, adenosine deaminase (ADA), interferon gamma (IFN-γ), and Xpert MTB/RIF [using an unprocessed (1 ml) and centrifuged (~20 ml) sample] test accuracy was evaluated in pleural fluid from 103 consecutive patients with suspected pleural TB. Culture for M.tuberculosis and/or histopathology (pleural biopsy) served as the reference standard. Patients were followed prospectively to determine their diagnostic categorisation. Results: Of 93 evaluable participants, 40 had definite-TB (reference positive), 5 probable-TB (not definite but treated for TB) and 48 non-TB (culture and histology negative, and not treated for TB). Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) was 22.5% (12.4 - 37.6) and 98% (89.2 - 99.7), respectively, and centrifugation did not improve sensitivity (23.7%). The Xpert MTB/RIF internal positive control showed no evidence of inhibition. Biomarker specific sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPVs were: ADA (48.85 IU/L; rule-in cut-point) 55.3% (39.8 - 69.9), 95.2% (83.9 - 98.7), 91.4 (73.4 - 95.4), 69.7% (56.7 - 80.1); ADA (30 IU/L; clinically used cut-point) 79% (63.7 - 89), 92.7% (80.6 - 97.5), 91.0 (73.4 - 95.4), 82.7% (69.3 - 90.1); and IFN-γ (107.7 pg/ml; rule-in cut-point) 92.5% (80.2 - 97.5), 95.9% (86.1 - 98.9), 94.9% (83.2 - 98.6), 93.9% (83.5 - 97.9), respectively (IFN-γ sensitivity and NPV better than Xpert [p < 0.05] and rule-in ADA [p < 0.05]). Conclusion: The usefulness of Xpert MTB/RIF to diagnose pleural TB is limited by its poor sensitivity. IFN-γ is an excellent rule-in test and, compared to ADA, has significantly better sensitivity and rule-out value in a TB-endemic setting
Clinical features and outcomes of COVID-19 admissions in a population with a high prevalence of HIV and tuberculosis: a multicentre cohort study
Background
There is still a paucity of evidence on the outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PWH) and those co-infected with tuberculosis (TB), particularly in areas where these conditions are common. We describe the clinical features, laboratory findings and outcome of hospitalised PWH and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-uninfected COVID-19 patients as well as those co-infected with tuberculosis (TB).
Methods
We conducted a multicentre cohort study across three hospitals in Cape Town, South Africa. All adults requiring hospitalisation with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia from March to July 2020 were analysed.
Results
PWH comprised 270 (19%) of 1434 admissions. There were 47 patients with active tuberculosis (3.3%), of whom 29 (62%) were PWH. Three-hundred and seventy-three patients (26%) died. The mortality in PWH (n = 71, 26%) and HIV-uninfected patients (n = 296, 25%) was comparable. In patients with TB, PWH had a higher mortality than HIV-uninfected patients (n = 11, 38% vs n = 3, 20%; p = 0.001). In multivariable survival analysis a higher risk of death was associated with older age (Adjusted Hazard Ratio (AHR) 1.03 95%CI 1.02–1.03, p < 0.001), male sex (AHR1.38 (95%CI 1.12–1.72, p = 0.003) and being “overweight or obese” (AHR 1.30 95%CI 1.03–1.61 p = 0.024). HIV (AHR 1.28 95%CI 0.95–1.72, p 0.11) and active TB (AHR 1.50 95%CI 0.84–2.67, p = 0.17) were not independently associated with increased risk of COVID-19 death. Risk factors for inpatient mortality in PWH included CD4 cell count < 200 cells/mm3, higher admission oxygen requirements, absolute white cell counts, neutrophil/lymphocyte ratios, C-reactive protein, and creatinine levels.
Conclusion
In a population with high prevalence of HIV and TB, being overweight/obese was associated with increased risk of mortality in COVID-19 hospital admissions, emphasising the need for public health interventions in this patient population
Recommended from our members
Bacterial and host determinants of cough aerosol culture positivity in patients with drug-resistant versus drug-susceptible tuberculosis.
A burgeoning epidemic of drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) threatens to derail global control efforts. Although the mechanisms remain poorly clarified, drug-resistant strains are widely believed to be less infectious than drug-susceptible strains. Consequently, we hypothesized that lower proportions of patients with drug-resistant TB would have culturable Mycobacterium tuberculosis from respirable, cough-generated aerosols compared to patients with drug-susceptible TB, and that multiple factors, including mycobacterial genomic variation, would predict culturable cough aerosol production. We enumerated the colony forming units in aerosols (≤10 µm) from 452 patients with TB (227 with drug resistance), compared clinical characteristics, and performed mycobacterial whole-genome sequencing, dormancy phenotyping and drug-susceptibility analyses on M. tuberculosis from sputum. After considering treatment duration, we found that almost half of the patients with drug-resistant TB were cough aerosol culture-positive. Surprisingly, neither mycobacterial genomic variants, lineage, nor dormancy status predicted cough aerosol culture positivity. However, mycobacterial sputum bacillary load and clinical characteristics, including a lower symptom score and stronger cough, were strongly predictive, thereby supporting targeted transmission-limiting interventions. Effective treatment largely abrogated cough aerosol culture positivity; however, this was not always rapid. These data question current paradigms, inform public health strategies and suggest the need to redirect TB transmission-associated research efforts toward host-pathogen interactions
Robust central reduction of amyloid-β in humans with an orally available, non-peptidic β-secretase inhibitor
10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3647-11.2011Journal of Neuroscience314616507-16516JNRS