Background Assessing Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) viability by fluorescein diacetate (FDA) microscopy can predict TB culture results, treatment response and infectiousness. However, diverse methods have been published. We aimed to optimise FDA microscopy, minimising sputum processing, biohazard and complexity for use in resource-constrained settings. Methods and results Optimization: Patients with smear-positive pulmonary TB before treatment and healthy control participants provided sputa. These were divided into equal aliquots that were tested directly or after NaOH centrifuge-decontamination. Each aliquot was cultured and used to prepare slides (n = 80). FDA microscopy used: 1 or 3 drops of sputum; with/out acid-alcohol wash; with/out phenol sterilization; with 0/30/60 seconds KMnO 4 quenching. Control samples all had negative culture and microscopy results. FDA microscopy had higher sensitivity when performed directly (without centrifuge-decontamination) on 1 drop of sputum (P<0.001), because 3 drops obscured microscopy. Acid-alcohol wash and KMnO 4 quenching made bacilli easier to identity (P = 0.005). Phenol sterilization did not impair microscopy (P>0.1). Validation: The 2 protocols that performed best in the optimization experiments were reassessed operationally by comparing duplicate slides (n = 412) stained with KMnO 4 quenching for 30 versus 60 seconds. FDA microscopy results were similar (P = 0.4) and highly reproducible, with 97% of counts agreeing within +/-1 logarithm. Storage: Smear microscopy slides and aliquots of the sputum from which they were made were stored for 4 weeks. Twice-weekly, paired slides (n = 80) were stained with freshly prepared versus stored FDA and read quantitatively. Storing sputum, microscopy slides or FDA solution at 4°C or room temperature had no effect on FDA microscopy results (all P>0.2). Cost: Material costs for each slide tested by FDA microscopy using reagents purchased locally were USD $0.05 and required the same equipment, time and skills as auramine acid-fast microscopy. Conclusions We recommend a simple, bio-secure protocol for FDA microscopy that provides sensitive and repeatable results without requiring centrifugation.

Background: Some sputum smear microscopy protocols recommend placing filter paper over sputum smears during staining for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB). We found no published evidence assessing whether this is beneficial. We aimed to evaluate the effect of filter paper on sputum smear microscopy results. Methods: Sputum samples were collected from 30 patients with confirmed pulmonary TB and 4 healthy control participants. From each sputum sample, six smears (204 smears in total) were prepared for staining with Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN), auramine or viability staining with fluorescein diacetate (FDA). Half of the slides subjected to each staining protocol were randomly selected to have Whatman grade 3 filter paper placed over the dried smears prior to stain application and removed prior to stain washing. The counts of acid-fast bacilli (AFB) and precipitates per 100 high-power microscopy fields of view, and the proportion of smear that appeared to have been washed away were recorded. Statistical analysis used a linear regression model adjusted by staining technique with a random effects term to correct for between-sample variability.   Results: The inclusion of filter paper in the staining protocol significantly decreased microscopy positivity independent of staining with ZN, auramine or FDA (p=0.01). Consistent with this finding, there were lower smear grades in slides stained using filter paper versus without (p=0.04), and filter paper use reduced AFB counts by 0.28 logarithms (95% confidence intervals, CI=0.018, 0.54, p=0.04) independent of staining technique. In all analyses, auramine was consistently more sensitive with higher AFB counts versus ZN (p=0.001), whereas FDA had lower sensitivity and lower AFB counts (p<0.0001). Filter paper use was not associated with the presence of any precipitate (p=0.5) or the probability of any smear washing away (p=0.6) during the staining process. Conclusions: Filter paper reduced the sensitivity of AFB microscopy and had no detectable beneficial effects so is not recommended.