Scanty AFB smears: what's in a name?

SETTING: A tuberculosis control project in Bangladesh. OBJECTIVE: To document the frequency and diagnostic value of smears with scanty acid-fast bacilli (AFB) (IUATLD/WHO scale, < 10/100 high power fields), and to assess the appropriateness of the current positivity threshold. DESIGN: Analysis of databases of laboratory registers, patient records and the diagnostic yield of sputum collection strategies. RESULTS: Scanty smears constituted about 10% of suspect and almost 50% of follow-up smears. In suspect series, 10% of scanty 1-9/100 were not confirmed by another positive or scanty AFB sputum, compared to 7.5% of results at the current cut-off value of 10/100. Considering such results as positive by adopting a lower cut-off as low as the 1/100 used in the ATS scale added 1.5% false positives at the most. In return, the gain in confirmed positive cases was up to 10%, and that in positive results exceeded the incremental yield of the third diagnostic sputum. Significance of scanty follow-up smears at the end of the intensive phase was suggested by their association with treatment failure and unfavourable outcome overall. CONCLUSIONS: Scanty results (IUATLD/WHO scale) are not rare and should not be ignored. Adoption of a considerably lower positivity threshold would be appropriate in control programmes where basic conditions for reliable AFB microscopy, including regular quality assessment, are present.

Optimal tuberculosis case detection by direct sputum smear microscopy: how much better is more?

SETTING: A tuberculosis control project in Bangladesh. OBJECTIVE: To define the efficiency of numbers of microscopic fields screened and the sputum collection scheme used for diagnostic smear examination. DESIGN: Quality controllers noted cumulative numbers of acid-fast bacilli per 100 fields screened. The incremental diagnostic yield of different sputum sampling strategies was determined. Doubtful series were re-checked and/or further samples examined. RESULTS: Acid-fast bacilli were found in 99.6% of 1412 positive and in 79.3% of 576 scanty slides in the first 100 fields. Examination of a third specimen yielded a maximum of 2.7% positives incrementally. The most efficient strategy, using three morning specimens, yielded 94.2% positives on the first and 1.0% on the third sputum; although 10% of suspects did not return, only 1.5% of the positives were among them and more cases were confirmed and treated. The positive predictive value of a single positive or scanty smear was very high (99.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Reading more than 100 fields per smear or examining a third sputum has insufficient marginal returns to justify the workload. Examining morning samples only is more efficient, and their collection does not necessarily inconvenience patients. Treatment can be started on the basis of one positive smear. Provided that a well functioning system of smear-microscopy quality control is in place, we propose a strategy based on examination of two morning sputum samples for negative suspects, with the diagnosis based on a single positive result.