ObjectiveTo determine the sensitivity and specificity of a Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) program for scoring chest x-rays (CXRs) of presumptive tuberculosis (TB) patients compared to Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert).MethodConsecutive presumptive TB patients with a cough of any duration were offered digital CXR, and opt out HIV testing. CXRs were electronically scored as normal (CAD score ≤60) or abnormal (CAD score>60) using a CAD program. All patients regardless of CAD score were requested to submit a spot sputum sample for testing with Xpert and a spot and morning sample for testing with LED Fluorescence Microscopy-(FM).ResultsOf 350 patients with evaluable data, 291 (83.1%) had an abnormal CXR score by CAD. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of CXR compared to Xpert were 100% (95%CI 96.2–100), 23.2% (95%CI 18.2–28.9), 33.0% (95%CI 27.6–38.7) and 100% (95% 93.9–100), respectively. The area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) for CAD was 0.71 (95%CI 0.66–0.77). CXR abnormality correlated with smear grade (r = 0.30, p<0.0001) and with Xpert CT(r = 0.37, p<0.0001).ConclusionsTo our knowledge this is the first time that a CAD program for TB has been successfully tested in a real world setting. The study shows that the CAD program had high sensitivity but low specificity and PPV. The use of CAD with digital CXR has the potential to increase the use and availability of chest radiography in screening for TB where trained human resources are scarce.

BackgroundThe current cost of Xpert MTB RIF (Xpert) consumables is such that algorithms are needed to select which patients to prioritise for testing with Xpert.ObjectiveTo evaluate two algorithms for prioritisation of Xpert in primary health care settings in a high TB and HIV burden setting.MethodConsecutive, presumptive TB patients with a cough of any duration were offered either Xpert or Fluorescence microscopy (FM) test depending on their CXR score or HIV status. In one facility, sputa from patients with an abnormal CXR were tested with Xpert and those with a normal CXR were tested with FM (“CXR algorithm”). CXR was scored automatically using a Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) program. In the other facility, patients who were HIV positive were tested using Xpert and those who were HIV negative were tested with FM (“HIV algorithm”).ResultsOf 9482 individuals pre-screened with CXR, Xpert detected TB in 2090/6568 (31.8%) with an abnormal CXR, and FM was AFB positive in 8/2455 (0.3%) with a normal CXR. Of 4444 pre-screened with HIV, Xpert detected TB in 508/2265 (22.4%) HIV positive and FM was AFB positive in 212/1920 (11.0%) in HIV negative individuals. The notification rate of new bacteriologically confirmed TB increased; from 366 to 620/ 100,000/yr and from 145 to 261/100,000/yr at the CXR and HIV algorithm sites respectively. The median time to starting TB treatment at the CXR site compared to the HIV algorithm site was; 1(IQR 1-3 days) and 3 (2-5 days) (p<0.0001) respectively.ConclusionUse of Xpert in a resource-limited setting at primary care level in conjunction with pre-screening tests reduced the number of Xpert tests performed. The routine use of Xpert resulted in additional cases of confirmed TB patients starting treatment. However, there was no increase in absolute numbers of patients starting TB treatment. Same day diagnosis and treatment commencement was achieved for both bacteriologically confirmed and empirically diagnosed patients where Xpert was used in conjunction with CXR.

BackgroundHousehold (HH) contact tracing is a strategy that targets high risk groups for TB. Symptom based screening is the standard used to identify HH contacts at risk for TB during HH contact tracing for TB. However, this strategy may be limited due to poor performance in predicting TB. The objective of this study was to compare CXR with Computer Aided Diagnosis (CAD) against symptom screen for defining presumptive TB and how TB detection changes with each method.MethodsHousehold contacts of consecutive index bacteriologically confirmed TB cases were visited by study teams and given TB/HIV education to raise awareness of the risk of TB following close contact with a TB patient. Contacts were encouraged to visit the health facility for screening; where symptoms history was obtained and opt out HIV testing was provided as part of the screening process. CXR was offered to all regardless of symptoms, followed by definitive sputum test with either Xpert MTB RIF or smear microscopy.ResultsAmong 919 HH contacts that presented for screening, 865 were screened with CXR and 464 (53.6%) had an abnormal CXR and the rest had a normal CXR. Among 444 HH contacts with valid sputum results, 274 (61.7%) were symptom screen positive and 255 (57.4%) had an abnormal CXR. Overall, TB was diagnosed in 32/444 (7.2%); 13 bacteriologically unconfirmed and 19 bacteriologically confirmed. Of 19 bacteriologically confirmed TB 8 (42.1%) were symptom screen negative contacts with an abnormal CXR and these 6/8 (75.0%) were HIV positive. Among the 13 bacteriologically unconfirmed TB cases, 7 (53.8%) were HIV positive and all had an abnormal CXR.ConclusionSymptom screen if used alone with follow on definitive TB testing only for symptom screen positive individuals would have missed eight of the 19 confirmed TB cases detected in this study. There is need to consider use of other screening strategies apart from symptom screen alone for optimal rule out of TB especially in HIV positive individuals that are at greatest risk of TB and present atypically.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-017-2388-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The performance of the Xpert© MTB/RIF and MTBDRplus assays for the detection of rifampicin resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis was compared to culture-based drug susceptibility testing in 30 specimens with rifampicin-resistant and rifampicin-indeterminate Xpert MTB/RIF results collected between March 2012 and March 2014. Xpert MTB/RIF and MTBDRplus were 100% sensitive and 100% concordant for rifampicin resistance detection, but 3 of 13 samples (23%) positive for rifampicin resistance on Xpert MTB/RIF and MTBDRplus were negative for rifampicin resistance on mycobacteria growth indicator tube drug susceptibility testing. Specificity was 72% for Xpert MTB/RIF and 80% for MTBDRplus. Positive predictive value for Xpert MTB/RIF for multidrug resistant tuberculosis was 47.8% for new patients and 77.8% for previously treated patients; negative predictive value was 100% for both new and previously treated patients. The discordant rifampicin resistance test results indicate a need to fully characterise circulating rifampicin resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains in Zambia and to inform the development of guidelines for decision-making in relation to diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis.

No abstract