Previous Article | Next Article 
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 1999, p. 1932-1934, Vol. 37, No. 6
0095-1137/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Evaluation of Three Nucleic Acid Amplification
Methods for Direct Detection of Mycobacterium
tuberculosis Complex in Respiratory Specimens
S. X.
Wang and
L.
Tay*
Central Tuberculosis Laboratory, Department
of Pathology, Singapore General Hospital, Singapore, Republic of
Singapore
Received 27 August 1998/Returned for modification 28 December
1998/Accepted 20 March 1999
 |
ABSTRACT |
Two hundred thirty respiratory specimens from 230 patients were
analyzed by using COBAS AMPLICOR PCR, Amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis Direct Test, and ligase chain reaction methods.
Results were compared with those of smear microscopy and radiometric
culture (Bactec) methods. No significant differences were observed
among the results of the three methods, which are acceptable for direct detection of M. tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Tuberculosis has recently reemerged
as a public health concern. The World Health Organization (WHO)
declared it to be a global emergency in 1993. According to a WHO
report, there are 20 million cases of tuberculosis worldwide, with 8 million new cases and 3 million deaths each year. The problem of
tuberculosis management and control has been compounded by the
emergence of multiple-drug-resistant strains of M. tuberculosis and the human immunodeficiency virus epidemic. One of
the main obstacles to the effective control of tuberculosis is the long
time taken for laboratory diagnosis by culture (1). On the
other hand, acid-fast microscopy, although rapid enough to provide a
result within 24 h, lacks sensitivity and is unable to distinguish
tubercle bacilli from other mycobacteria. Recently, some new products
for rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis have become commercially available.
These include the PCR-based COBAS AMPLICOR Mycobacterium
tuberculosis Test (Roche Diagnostic Systems, Branchburg, N.J.);
the Amplified M. tuberculosis Direct Test (MTD) (Gen-Probe,
San Diego, Calif.), which is based on transcription-mediated amplification; and the ligase chain reaction-based LCx test (LCx M. tuberculosis; Abbott Diagnostics Division, Abbott Park,
Ill.) (3, 9, 24). We evaluated all three methods by
comparison with the microscopic and culture results for 230 clinical respiratory specimens.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Specimen processing.
Two hundred thirty respiratory
specimens (222 sputum specimens, 4 bronchoalveolar lavage fluid
specimens, 2 laryngeal swabs, and 2 endotracheal aspirates) were
collected from 230 patients. Specimens were processed by an NaOH
digestion-decontamination procedure (16), using 4% NaOH.
After centrifugation, one or two drops of phenol red indicator solution
was added to each sediment, which was neutralized by adding 2 N HCl
dropwise until the sediment turned from red to yellow. The sediment was
resuspended in 1 ml of phosphate buffer (pH 6.8), and the suspension
was used for acid-fast bacillus smear, culture, and nucleic acid
amplification assays (50 µl for MTD, 100 µl for COBAS AMPLICOR PCR,
and 100 µl for LCx).
Acid-fast microscopy.
Auramine O fluorescent stain was used
to detect the presence of acid-fast bacilli in patients' specimens
(10).
Mycobacterial culture and identification.
A 0.5-ml portion
of the processed specimen was inoculated into a BACTEC 12B culture
vial. The BACTEC 460 instrument (Becton Dickinson Diagnostic Instrument
System, Sparks, Md.) was used to detect the presence of growth in
BACTEC vials twice a week for the first 2 weeks and weekly thereafter.
The vials were incubated for a total of 6 weeks at 37°C. The BACTEC
NAP (p-nitro-
-acetylamino-
-hydroxypropiophenone) test
was performed to identify M. tuberculosis complex isolates (22).
Nucleic acid amplification test.
All three nucleic acid
amplification methods were performed by using micropipettes with
aerosol barrier tips.
COBAS AMPLICOR PCR.
The COBAS AMPLICOR test was performed
according to the manufacturer's instructions (9). The
internal control used in the COBAS AMPLICOR assay is a sequence of
plasmid DNA with primer-binding regions identical to those of the
M. tuberculosis target sequence. A unique probe-binding
region differentiates the internal control from the target amplicon.
The internal control is introduced into each amplification reaction and
is coamplified with the possible target DNA from the clinical specimen.
Specimens for which A660 is <0.35 and internal
controls for which it is
0.35 should be interpreted as negative. For
a valid run, specimens with A660 of
0.35 are
interpreted as positive for M. tuberculosis regardless of
the internal control results. Specimens with
A660 of <0.35 and internal controls with
A660 of <0.35 should be interpreted as having
an invalid result.
LCx.
LCx M. tuberculosis test was performed
according to the manufacturer's instructions (8, 24). Each
series of tests (no more than 20 specimens) was run along with a
negative control and a calibrator in duplicate. Amplified tubes were
transferred unopened to the carousel of the analyzer, which directly
detects the amplification products by a microparticle enzyme
immunoassay and displays the results as fluorescence rates, which
are compared to the calibrator rate. If the rates exceeded 30% of the
average calibrator rate, the results were considered positive.
MTD.
The MTD procedure was carried out according to the
instructions of the manufacturer (3, 11). The specimen
results were read in a Leader 450 luminometer (Gen-Probe); a cutoff
value of 30,000 relative light units or more was used for
diagnosing positive specimens. Positive and negative controls were
included in every run.
Statistical analysis.
Statistical comparisons of the three
methods were calculated by using the chi-square test; a P
value of <0.05 was considered significant.
 |
RESULTS |
A total of 230 respiratory specimens collected from 230 patients
were included in this study. All these specimens were examined by use
of fluorescence microscopy and BACTEC460 TB system as routinely performed in our laboratory. Of the 230 specimens, 66 were smear positive and culture positive, 6 were smear negative and culture positive, and the remaining 158 specimens were both smear and culture
negative. As summarized in Table 1, the
LCx assay detected all smear-positive, culture-positive specimens
(100%) and smear-negative, culture-positive specimens (100%).
There were seven (4.4%) smear-negative, culture-negative specimens
that were positive by LCx. COBAS AMPLICOR detected 64 smear-positive,
culture-positive specimens (96.9%) and five smear-negative,
culture-positive specimens (83.3%). There were six (3.8%)
smear-negative, culture-negative specimens that were positive by COBAS
AMPLICOR. MTD assay detected 66 smear-positive, culture-positive
specimens (100%) and 5 smear-negative, culture-positive specimens (83.3%). There were two (1.3%)
smear-negative, culture-negative specimens that were
positive by MTD. For those specimens with positive amplification
results but negative smears and cultures, the patients' data were
retrieved to check relevant tuberculosis history. Of the six patients
with positive results detected by COBAS AMPLICOR, four and two had
records indicating that positive smear and culture had been obtained
within the previous 6 months and within the previous 12 months,
respectively. Of the two patients with positive results detected
by MTD, only one had records indicating that positive smear and culture
had been obtained within the previous 12 months. Of the seven patients
with positive results detected by LCx, five and one had records
indicating that positive smear and culture had been obtained within the
previous 6 months and within the previous 12 months, respectively.
After resolution, the results showed that LCx produced one
false-positive result and MTD produced one false-positive result plus
one false-negative result (all these specimens were smear
negative), whereas COBAS AMPLICOR produced three
false-negative results (two specimens were smear positive and one
specimen was smear negative). The COBAS M. tuberculosis and
internal control readings for these three specimens were 0.005 (M. tuberculosis negative) and 2.343 (internal control
positive) with positive smear result, 0.008 (M. tuberculosis
negative) and 0.010 (internal control negative) with negative smear
result, and 0.030 (M. tuberculosis negative) and 0.316 (internal control negative) with positive smear result, respectively.
All three specimens were positive by LCx and MTD. The analysis of the
first two specimens was repeated and showed reproducible results. We
were unable to repeat the analysis of the third specimen due to
insufficient volume. Although the second and third specimens gave
invalid negative results according to the manufacturer's criteria for
interpretation of results, since this study was an evaluation of the
three methods and the other two methods were able to detect M. tuberculosis complex in the same specimens, we considered these
two specimens to be negative in the analysis of results in this study.
The resolved results showed that the overall (smear-positive plus
smear-negative specimens) sensitivities and specificities were 100 and
99.3% for LCx, 96.1 and 100% for COBAS AMPLICOR, and 98.6 and 99.4%
for MTD, respectively. The positive and negative predictive values were
98.7 and 100% for LCx, 100 and 98.1% for COBAS AMPLICOR, and 98.6 and
99.4% for MTD, respectively. Statistical analysis showed that there
were no statistically significant differences among the three methods.
The P values were 0.133 for smear-positive plus
culture-positive specimens, 0.570 for smear-negative but culture-positive specimens, and 0.236 for smear-negative plus culture-negative specimens (Table 1).
The specimens were divided into two groups, smear positive and smear
negative, for further analysis. The results are shown in Table
2. The sensitivities and specificities
for smear-negative specimens were 100 and 99.3% for LCx, 91.7 and
100% for COBAS AMPLICOR, and 85.7 and 99.4% for MTD, respectively.
Positive predictive values for smear-negative specimens were 92.3% for
LCx, 85.7% for MTD, and 100% for COBAS AMPLICOR. Negative predictive
values for smear-negative specimens for LCx, MTD, and COBAS AMPLICOR were 100, 99.4, and 99.3%, respectively. The sensitivities and specificities for smear-positive specimens were 100 and 100% for LCx,
96.9 and 100% for COBAS AMPLICOR, and 100 and 100% for MTD, respectively. Positive predictive values for smear-positive specimens were 100% for all three methods. Efficiency was 98.7% for COBAS AMPLICOR, 99.1% for MTD, and 99.6% for LCx.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 2.
Evaluation of the three nucleic acid amplification
systems for direct detection of M. tuberculosis complex in
respiratory specimens
|
|
 |
DISCUSSION |
The increased incidence of tuberculosis has stimulated the
development of rapid and direct detection methods for the laboratory identification of M. tuberculosis. Newly developed,
standardized, commercially available test kits include automated COBAS
AMPLICOR PCR, Gen-Probe MTD, and LCx. The kits contain all the reagents needed for specimen amplification and detection, as well as controls. Generally, differences between cutoff values of positive and negative controls and specimens were broad enough to permit easy discrimination. Negative results obtained by amplification assays for culture-positive specimens may be explained by the presence of inhibitors of enzymatic amplification and/or by a small number of mycobacteria, unequally distributed in the test suspension (6, 19). Of the three specimens that were negative by COBAS AMPLICOR but positive by culture
in our study, two of the internal controls showed negative results,
indicating the existence of endogenous inhibitors. However, the
internal control for the third one was positive. Hence, our results, to
some extent, support the view that a single-sample PCR-negative result
must be considered carefully because of the potential for
false-negative results (6). Our results obtained from the
analysis of all samples showed that the sensitivities of LCx, COBAS
AMPLICOR, and MTD were 100, 96.1, and 98.6%, respectively. The
specificities were 99.3, 100, and 99.4%, respectively. The positive
and negative predictive values, derived by comparison with culture
results, were 98.7 and 100% for LCx, 100 and 98.1% for COBAS
AMPLICOR, and 98.6 and 99.4% for MTD, respectively. In general, data
taken from the literature are in agreement with our findings. MTD
sensitivities and specificities ranged from 91 to 98.4% and from 96.9 to 100%, respectively (1, 17, 19). However, the sensitivity
of 96.1% and specificity of 100% obtained for the automated COBAS
AMPLICOR PCR are higher than those obtained for the manual AMPLICOR MTB
Test, which has sensitivities and specificities ranging from 66.7 to
86.5% and from 97 to 100%, respectively (4, 5, 11, 21).
Published data (8, 24) showed that when the LCx test was
used for direct detection of M. tuberculosis complex in
pulmonary and extrapulmonary specimens, the sensitivity, specificity,
and positive and negative predictive values, derived by comparison with
culture results, were 95.5, 99.3, 97.3, and 98.8%, respectively. When
the LCx test was used for respiratory specimens only, its sensitivity
reached 99.0% (7, 8, 24). The data we obtained were in
agreement with those findings for respiratory specimens. It should be
noted that the LCx yielded the highest sensitivity among the three kits
in our study. However, LCx also produced one false-positive result. As
to this result produced by LCx and the false-positive result produced
by MTD, neither of these specimens was analyzed following analysis of a
positive specimen either in the carousel of the LCx instrument or in
the reading rack of the Leader 450 luminometer, ruling out a carryover
effect. These false-positive results might have been due to an
accidental contamination of the specimens. Our results suggest that
nucleic acid amplification methods for direct detection of M. tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens should be applied as
an adjunct to smears and culture. In conclusion, our results suggest
that all the three assays are acceptable rapid diagnostic methods for
pulmonary tuberculosis.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Central
Tuberculosis Laboratory, Department of Pathology, Singapore General
Hospital, Outram Rd., Singapore 169608, Republic of Singapore. Phone:
(65)-3214906. Fax: (65)-2226826. E-mail:
gpttay{at}sgh.gov.sg.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Abe, C.,
K. Hirano,
M. Wada,
Y. Kazumi,
M. Takahashi,
Y. Fukasawa,
T. Yoshimura,
C. Miyagi, and S. Goto.
1993.
Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical specimens by polymerase chain reaction and Gen-Probe Amplified Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Direct Test.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
31:3270-3274[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Beavis, K. G.,
M. B. Lichty,
D. L. Jungkind, and O. Giger.
1995.
Evaluation of Amplicor PCR for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from sputum specimens.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
33:2582-2586[Abstract].
|
| 3.
|
Bodmer, T.,
A. Gurtner,
K. Schopfer, and L. Matter.
1994.
Screening of respiratory tract specimens for the presence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by using the Gen-Probe Amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis Direct Test.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:1483-1487[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
|
Carpentier, E.,
B. Drouillard,
M. Dailloux,
D. Moinard,
E. Vallee,
B. Dutilh,
J. Maugein,
E. Bergogne-Berezin, and B. Carbonnelle.
1995.
Diagnosis of tuberculosis by Amplicor Mycobacterium tuberculosis test: a multicenter study.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
33:3106-3110[Abstract].
|
| 5.
|
D'Amato, R. F.,
A. A. Wallman,
L. H. Hochstein,
P. M. Colaninno,
M. Scardamaglia,
E. Ardila,
M. Ghouri,
K. Kim,
R. C. Patel, and A. Miller.
1995.
Rapid diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis by using Roche AMPLICOR Mycobacterium tuberculosis PCR test.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
33:1832-1834[Abstract].
|
| 6.
|
Devallois, A.,
E. Legrand, and N. Rastogi.
1996.
Evaluation of Amplicor MTB as adjunct to smears and culture for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the French Caribbean.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
34:1065-1068[Abstract].
|
| 7.
|
Fiore, M.,
J. Mitchell,
T. Doan,
R. Nelson,
G. Winter,
C. Grandsone,
K. Zeng,
R. Haraden,
J. Smith,
K. Harris,
J. Leszczynald,
D. Berry,
G. Scafford,
A. Barnes,
A. Scholnick, and K. Ludington.
1988.
The Abbott 1Mx automated benchtop immunochemistry analyser system.
Clin. Chem.
34:1726-1732[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 8.
|
Gamboa, F.,
J. Dominguez,
E. Padilla,
J. M. Manterola,
E. Gazapo,
J. Lonca,
L. Matas,
A. Hernandez,
P. J. Cardona, and V. Ausina.
1998.
Rapid diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis by ligase chain reaction amplification.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
36:1324-1329[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 9.
|
Jungkind, D.,
S. DiRenzo,
K. G. Beavis, and N. S. Silverman.
1996.
Evaluation of automated COBAS AMPLICOR PCR system for detection of several infectious agents and its impact on laboratory management.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
34:2778-2783[Abstract].
|
| 10.
|
Kent, P. T., and G. P. Kubica.
1985.
Public health mycobacteriology: a guide for the level III laboratory.
Centers for Disease Control, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Atlanta, Ga.
|
| 11.
|
Miller, N.,
S. G. Hernandez, and T. J. Cleary.
1994.
Evaluation of Gen-Probe Amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis Direct Test and PCR for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical specimens.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:393-397[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 12.
|
Moore, D. F., and J. I. Curry.
1995.
Detection and identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis directly from sputum sediments by Amplicor PCR.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
33:2686-2691[Abstract].
|
| 13.
|
Moore, D. F.,
J. I. Curry,
C. A. Knott, and V. Jonas.
1996.
Amplification of rRNA for assessment of treatment response of pulmonary tuberculosis patients during antimicrobial therapy.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
34:1745-1749[Abstract].
|
| 14.
|
Nolte, F. S., and B. Metchock.
1995.
Mycobacterium, p. 400-437.
In
P. R. Murray, E. J. Baron, M. A. Pfaller, F. C. Tenover, and R. H. Yolken (ed.), Manual of clinical microbiology, 6th ed. ASM Press, Washington, D.C.
|
| 15.
|
Noordhoek, G. T.,
D. A. van Embden, and A. H. J. Kolk.
1996.
Reliability of nucleic acid amplification for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: an international collaborative quality control study among 30 laboratories.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
34:2522-2525[Abstract].
|
| 16.
|
Petroff, S. A.
1915.
A new and rapid method for the isolation and cultivation of tubercle bacilli directly from the sputum and feces.
J. Exp. Med.
21:38-42[Abstract].
|
| 17.
|
Pfyffer, G. E.,
P. Kissling,
E. M. I. Jahn,
H.-M. Welscher,
M. Salfinger, and R. Weber.
1996.
Diagnostic performance of Amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis Direct Test with cerebrospinal fluid, other nonrespiratory, and respiratory specimens.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
34:834-841[Abstract].
|
| 18.
|
Pfyffer, G. E.,
P. Kissling,
R. Wirth, and R. Weber.
1994.
Direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens by a target-amplified test system.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
32:918-923[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 19.
|
Piersomoni, C.,
A. Callegaro,
D. Nista,
S. Bornigia,
F. De Conti,
G. Santini, and G. De Sio.
1997.
Comparative evaluation of two commercial amplification assays for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
35:193-196[Abstract].
|
| 20.
|
Schirm, J.,
L. A. B. Oostendorp, and J. G. Mulder.
1993.
Comparison of Amplicor, in-house PCR, and conventional culture for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in clinical samples.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
33:3221-3224[Abstract].
|
| 21.
|
Se Thoe, S. Y.,
L. Tay, and E. H. Sng.
1997.
Evaluation of Amplicor and IS6110-PCR for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in Singapore.
Trop. Med. Int. Health
2:1095-1101[Medline].
|
| 22.
|
Siddiqi, S. H.
1995.
BACTEC460 TB SYSTEM: products and procedure manual, revision D.
Becton Dickinson and Company, Sparks, Md.
|
| 23.
|
Tenover, F. C.,
J. T. Crawford,
R. E. Huebner,
L. J. Gelter,
C. R. Horsburgh, and R. C. Good.
1993.
The resurgence of tuberculosis. Is your laboratory ready?
J. Clin. Microbiol.
31:767-770[Free Full Text].
|
| 24.
|
Tortoli, E.,
F. Lavinia, and M. T. Simonetti.
1997.
Evaluation of a commercial ligase chain reaction kit (Abbott Lcx) for direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pulmonary and extrapulmonary specimens.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
35:2424-2426[Abstract].
|
| 25.
|
Vlaspolder, F.,
P. Singer, and C. Roggeveen.
1995.
Diagnostic value of an amplification method (Gen-Probe) compared with that of culture for diagnosis of tuberculosis.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
33:2699-2703[Abstract].
|
| 26.
|
Vuorinen, P.,
A. Miettienen,
R. Vuento, and O. Hallstrom.
1995.
Direct detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex in respiratory specimens by Gen-Probe Amplified Mycobacterium tuberculosis Direct Test and Roche Amplicor Mycobacterium tuberculosis test.
J. Clin. Microbiol.
30:1856-1859[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
Journal of Clinical Microbiology, June 1999, p. 1932-1934, Vol. 37, No. 6
0095-1137/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
This article has been cited by other articles:
-
Greco, S, Girardi, E, Navarra, A, Saltini, C
(2006). Current evidence on diagnostic accuracy of commercially based nucleic acid amplification tests for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. Thorax
61: 783-790
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Piersimoni, C., Scarparo, C.
(2003). Relevance of Commercial Amplification Methods for Direct Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex in Clinical Samples. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 5355-5365
[Full Text]
-
Cleary, T. J., Roudel, G., Casillas, O., Miller, N.
(2003). Rapid and Specific Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by Using the Smart Cycler Instrument and a Specific Fluorogenic Probe. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 4783-4786
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Dowdy, D. W., Maters, A., Parrish, N., Beyrer, C., Dorman, S. E.
(2003). Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of the Gen-Probe Amplified Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Direct Test as Used Routinely on Smear-Positive Respiratory Specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol.
41: 948-953
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Miller, N., Cleary, T., Kraus, G., Young, A. K., Spruill, G., Hnatyszyn, H. J.
(2002). Rapid and Specific Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis from Acid-Fast Bacillus Smear-Positive Respiratory Specimens and BacT/ALERT MP Culture Bottles by Using Fluorogenic Probes and Real-Time PCR. J. Clin. Microbiol.
40: 4143-4147
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Lim, T. K., Gough, A., Chin, N.-K., Kumarasinghe, G.
(2000). Relationship Between Estimated Pretest Probability and Accuracy of Automated Mycobacterium tuberculosis Assay in Smear-Negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis. Chest
118: 641-647
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
-
Scarparo, C., Piccoli, P., Rigon, A., Ruggiero, G., Scagnelli, M., Piersimoni, C.
(2000). Comparison of Enhanced Mycobacterium tuberculosis Amplified Direct Test with COBAS AMPLICOR Mycobacterium tuberculosis Assay for Direct Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex in Respiratory and Extrapulmonary Specimens. J. Clin. Microbiol.
38: 1559-1562
[Abstract]
[Full Text]