Background: With 1.8 million new cases each year, India carries 20% of the global burden of tuberculosis, a situation that is now further exacerbated with the emergence of drug resistance. The current diagnostic technique suggested by the Government of India’s Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme is Ziehl-Neelsen staining of a sputum smear. This technique is known to be inadequate.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate nested PCR (nPCR) in the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis in sputum samples in comparison with conventional smear findings, in an effort to improve detection rates from those obtained by the smear-alone approach.
Study Design: Patients attending a tertiary-care hospital (situated in a rural area of Vellore district) with clinical suspicion of pulmonary tuberculosis were prospectively recruited from mid-April 2009 to mid-December 2009 and investigated. The sputum samples were stained by Ziehl-Neelsen staining for smear examination. DNA extracted from concentrated sputum was tested by nPCR, targeting the IS6110 sequence in the Mycobacterium tuberculosis genome.
Results: Among 84 patients tested (median age 45.5 years), 80.95% were from the rural community and 19.05% were from the peri-urban community. Seventeen patients (20.24%; mid-p 95% CI 31.5, 52.4) tested positive by the smear examination and 35 (41.67%; mid-p 95% CI 12.7, 29.8) tested positive by nPCR. The difference in detection rates was statistically significant (χ2 = 9.02; p = 0.002). The κ coefficient between smear findings and nPCR findings was 0.47, which was a statistically significant agreement (Z = 4.91; p<0.0001).
Conclusion: This report describes the molecular detection of M. tuberculosis in patients’ sputum samples tested by the nPCR format, using IS6110 as a target sequence. A high prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis was identified by the nPCR assay, which was shown to have a significantly higher detection rate than conventional smear staining.
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access
The research work was funded by an intramural research support fund, which is gratefully acknowledged. The authors have no conflicts of interest that are directly relevant to the content of this study.
Jaggarajamma K, Sudha G, Chandrasekaran V, et al. Reasons for non-compliance among patients treated under Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme (RNTCP), Tiruvallur District, South India. Indian J Tuberc 2007; 54: 130–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
Aslanzadeh J, de la Viuda M, Fille M,et al. Comparison of culture and acid-fast bacilli stain to PCR for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical samples. Mol Cell Probes 1998; 12: 207–11PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nolte FS, Metchock B, McGowan JE, et al. Direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum by polymerase chain reaction and DNA hybridization. J Clin Microbiol 1993; 31: 1777–82PubMedGoogle Scholar
Kocagöz T, Yilmaz E, Ozkara S, et al. Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum samples by polymerase chain reaction using a simplified procedure. J Clin Microbiol 1993; 31: 1435–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
García-Quintanilla A, Garcia L, Tudó G, et al. Single-tube balanced heminested PCR for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis in smear-negative samples. J Clin Microbiol 2000; 38: 1166–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
Gengvinij N, Pattanakitsakul SN, Chierakul N, et al. Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from sputum specimens using one-tube nested PCR. Southeast Asian J Trop Med Public Health 2001; 32: 114–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
García-Quintanilla A, González-Martín J, Tudó G, et al. Simultaneous identification of Mycobacterium genus and Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in clinical samples by 5′-exonuclease fluorogenic PCR. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40: 4646–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lemaître N, Armand S, Vachée A, et al. Comparison of the real-time PCR method and the Gen-Probe amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis direct test for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pulmonary and non-pulmonary specimens. J Clin Microbiol 2004; 42: 4307–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi T, Nakayama T. Novel technique of quantitative nested real-time PCR assay for Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44: 1029–39PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Beenhouwerc H, Lhiang Z, Jannes G, et al. Rapid detection of rifampicin resistance in sputum and biopsy specimens from tuberculosis patients by PCR and line probe assay. Tuber Lung Dis 1995; 76(5): 425–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nandagopal B, Sankar S, Karthikeyan L, et al. Evaluation of a nested PCR targeting IS6110 of Mycobacterium tuberculosis for the detection of the organism in the leukocyte fraction of blood samples. Indian J Med Microbiol. In pressGoogle Scholar
Lima JF, Montenegro LM, Montenegro RA, et al. Performance of nested PCR in the specific detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in blood samples of pediatric patients. J Bras Pneumol 2009; 35: 690–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ayele WY, Bartos M, Svastova P, et al. Distribution of Mycobacterium avium subsp. paratuberculosis in organs of naturally infected bull-calves and breeding bulls. Vet Microbiol 2004; 103: 209–17PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis JL, Huang L, Kovacs JA, et al. Polymerase chain reaction of secA1 on sputum or oral wash samples for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. Clin Infect Dis 2009; 48(6): 725–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Omrani M, Ansari MH, Agaverdizadae D. PCR and ELISA methods (IgG and IgM): their comparison with conventional techniques for diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Pak J Biol Sci 2009; 12(4): 373–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Narayanan S, Das S, Garg R, et al. Molecular epidemiology of tuberculosis in a rural area of high prevalence in South India: implications for disease control and prevention. J Clin Microbiol 2002; 40: 4785–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djelouagji Z, Drancourt M. Inactivation of cultured Mycobacterium tuberculosis organisms prior to DNA extraction. J Clin Microbiol 2006; 44: 1594–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosek J, Svastova P, Moravkova M, et al. Methods of mycobacterial DNA isolation from different biological material: a review. Veterinarni Medicina 2006; 51: 180–92Google Scholar
Petroff SA. A new and rapid method for the isolation and cultivation of tubercle bacilli directly from the sputum and feces. J Exp Med 1915; 21: 38–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carricajo A, Fonsale N, Vautrin AC, et al. Evaluation of BacT/Alert 3D liquid culture system for recovery of mycobacteria from clinical specimens using sodium dodecyl (lauryl) sulfate-NaOH decontamination. J Clin Microbiol 2001; 39: 3799–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lakshmi V, Patil MA, Subhadha K, et al. Isolation of mycobacteria by Bactec 460 TB system from clinical specimens. Ind J Med Microbiol 2006; 24: 124–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scarparo C, Piccoli P, Rigon A, et al. Direct identification of mycobacteria from MB/BacT Alert 3D bottles: comparative evaluation of two commercial probe assays. J Clin Microbiol 2001; 39: 3222–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar