Asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy: what is the validity of urine sediment microscopy as a screening tool in a low resource setting?

Background: Asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy should be screened and treated to reduce the risk of morbidity and mortality. Urine culture is the recommended test. In low resource setting with large patient load urine culture in all pregnant patients is not feasible. In this study authors have assessed the validity of urine microscopy in the screening of asymptomatic bacteriuria in pregnancy.Methods: Midstream clean catch urine specimen collected from 675 pregnant women was subjected to urine sediment microscopy and culture. It was considered screen positive if pus cells were >5/HPF. Asymptomatic bacteriuria was diagnosed if there were >/=100000 CFU of a single uropathogen per ml. Results obtained were statistically analysed for the prevalence of asymptomatic bacteriuria, sociodemographic and medical risk factors, causative organisms, antibiotic sensitivity and validity of urine sediment microscopy in detecting asymptomatic bacteriuria.Results: The incidence of asymptomatic bacteriuria in our study was 10.2%. The incidence was higher in the age group between 20-30 years, in gravida 3 and above, in upper lower and lower socioeconomic status, in women with hyperglycemia in pregnancy and anaemia. E. coli was the commonest bacterial isolate in culture positive cases. Bacterial isolates had poor sensitivity for Ampicillin, amoxicillin and nitrofurantoin and good sensitivity for cephalosporins and aminoglycosides. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values for urine microscopy was 43%, 85%, 25% and 93% respectively.Conclusions: This study shows poor sensitivity and positive predictive value and good specificity and negative predictive value.

Utility of GeneXpert in the diagnosis, reliance on urine microscopy and clinical characteristics of genitourinary tuberculosis at a tertiary care hospital

Background: One-third of the world's population is infected with tuberculosis (TB) with new infection occurring every second. In humans, TB is primarily caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis(MTB). Genitourinary TB (GUTB) is still a major health problem in many developing countries including India and had been declared by the World Health Organisation as 'public health emergency' in 1993. Materials and Methods: This is a prospective study conducted at a tertiary care hospital involving 46 patients who presented with clinical feature suggestive of GUTB – urine specimens of these 46 patients were analysed for acid–fast bacilli (AFB), AFB culture, GeneXpert, and other relevant investigations were done to reach the diagnosis. Majority of patients were female (65.25%). This is especially relevant to rural and low socioeconomic areas in developing countries where women's health is worse than men's (in terms of nutrition); women's risk of disease may be increased. Most of our patients were above 30 years of age and exhibited nonspecific symptoms such as dysuria, haematuria and frequency. All patients were put on antitubercular drugs and followed as per the guidelines. Conclusion: The sample size in the present study is small to arrive at a brisk inference, but it may safely be postulated that yield of detection for GeneXpert may be improved using multiple sampling, especially the early morning ones. It is also pertinent to mention here that GeneXpert may not be able to pick up mutant genomes.

Comparison of ELISA and Urine Microscopy for Diagnosis of Schistosoma haematobium Infection

BACKGROUND: Schistosoma haematobium which causes urogenital schistosomiasis (UGS) is highly prevalent in African countries. Urine microscopy (UM) is the first-line diagnostic method of UGS. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is a common method for screening many parasite infections primarily or alternatively. The present study established an in-house diagnostic system by ELISA and evaluated its diagnostic efficacy in comparison with UM for screening UGS in White Nile State, Republic of Sudan, 2011–2013. METHODS: A total of 490 participants were screened by UM or ELISA, and 149 by both. The in-house ELISA system was established employing soluble egg antigen of S. haematobium and the cut-off absorbance was set at 0.270. RESULTS: Of the 149 subjects, 58 participants (38.9%) were positive by UM, 119 (79.9%) were positive by ELISA and 82 (55.0%) showed consistently positive or negative results by both methods. The diagnostic sensitivity of ELISA was 94.8% and specificity was 29.7% based on UM results. The ELISA positive serum samples also cross-reacted with egg antigens of Schistosoma mansoni and Schistosoma japonicum. CONCLUSION: We have established in-house ELISA for screening serum immunoglobulin (Ig) G antibodies by employing soluble egg antigen of S. haematobium for diagnosis of UGS with 94.8% sensitivity and 29.7% specificity. The ELISA system can supplement the conventional diagnosis by UM.

Comparison of urine analysis using manual and sedimentation methods / Comparación del análisis de orina usando el método manual y el método de sedimentación

OBJECTIVE: Microscopic examination of urine sediment is an essential part in the evaluation of renal and urinary tract diseases. Traditionally, urine sediments are assessed by microscopic examination of centrifuged urine. However, the current method used by the Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation Medical Laboratory involves uncentrifuged urine. To encourage high level of care, the results provided to the physician must be accurate and reliable for proper diagnosis. The aim of this study is to determine whether the centrifuge method is more clinically significant than the uncentrifuged method. METHODS: In this study, a comparison between the results obtained from centrifuged and uncentrifuged methods were performed. A total of 167 urine samples were randomly collected and analysed during the period April-May 2010 at the Medical Laboratory, Georgetown Public Hospital Corporation. The urine samples were first analysed microscopically by the uncentrifuged, and then by the centrifuged method. The results obtained from both methods were recorded in a log book. These results were then entered into a database created in Microsoft Excel, and analysed for differences and similarities using this application. Analysis was further done in SPSS software to compare the results using Pearson's correlation. RESULTS: When compared using Pearson's correlation coefficient analysis, both methods showed a good correlation between urinary sediments with the exception ofwhite bloods cells. The centrifuged method had a slightly higher identification rate for all of the parameters. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial agreement between the centrifuged and uncentrifuged methods. However, the uncentrifuged method provides for a rapid turnaround time.

OBJETIVO: El examen microscópico del sedimento de orina es una parte esencial en la evaluación de enfermedades renales y del tracto urinario. Tradicionalmente, los sedimentos de orina son evaluados mediante examen microscópico de orina centrifugada. Sin embargo, el método actual usado por el Laboratorio Médico de la Corporación del Hospital Público de Georgetown recurre a la orina no centrifugada. Con el propósito de estimular un alto nivel de cuidado, los resultados proporcionados al médico tienen que ser exactos y fiables para un diagnóstico apropiado. El objetivo de este estudio es determinar si el método de la centrifugación es clinicamente más significativo que el método sin centrifugación. MÉTODOS: En este estudio, se hace una comparación entre los resultados obtenidos a partir del método con centrifugado y sin centrifugado. Un total de 167 muestras de orina fueron recogidas aleatoriamente y analizadas durante el periodo de abril a mayo de 2010 en el Laboratorio Médico de la Corporación del Hospital Público de Georgetown. Las muestras de orina se analizaron primero microscópicamente por el método sin centrifugado, y entonces por el método con centrifugación. Los resultados obtenidos mediante ambos métodos fueron registrados en un en un diario de documentación. Estos resultados fueron entonces introducidos en un banco de datos creado en Microsoft Excel, y analizados en cuanto a sus diferencias y similitudes usando esta aplicación. El análisis se realizó también más tarde mediante el software de SPSS para comparar los resultados usando la correlación de Pearson. RESULTADOS: Al ser comparados mediante análisis basado en el coeficiente de correlación de Pearson, ambos métodos mostraron una buena correlación de los sedimentos urinarios, con excepción de los leucocitos. El método de la centrifugación tuvo una tasa de identificación ligeramente más alta para todos los parámetros. CONCLUSIONES: Existe una correspondencia sustancial entre los métodos con centrifugado y sin centrifugado. Sin embargo, el método que no emplea la centrifugación ofrece un tiempo de respuesta más rápido.