A comparison of digital chest radiography and Xpert® MTB/RIF in active case finding for tuberculosis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two community screening tests for TB: sputum examination using Xpert® MTB/RIF and chest radiography (CXR).METHOD: Men aged ≥15 years and women aged >45 years living in 96 sub-communes in Ca Mau, Viet Nam, were invited to provide a single sputum specimen that was tested using Xpert. Participants were also invited to attend a nearby location for digital radiography. Participants whose sputum was Xpert MTB-positive or whose CXR was reported as 'consistent with TB´ were requested to provide two further sputum specimens for culture. The sensitivities of the two tests for detecting TB (defined as sputum culture-positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis) were compared.RESULTS: There were 72 985 eligible participants, of whom 57 597 (78.9%) participated in Xpert screening, 12 752 (17.5%) had CXR and 11 235 (15.4%) had both tests. We estimated that there were 59 cases of TB, of whom 20 were Xpert MTB-positive (programmatic sensitivity 34.0%) and 47 had CXR reported as 'consistent with TB´ (sensitivity 80.0%, P < 0.0001).CONCLUSION: In community-wide screening for TB, CXR is more sensitive than a single spontaneously expectorated sputum sample tested using Xpert, but it has a substantially lower participation rate.

The role of macroscopic sputum quality assessments to optimise sputum testing for tuberculosis.

SETTING: Community-wide active case finding for tuberculosis (TB) using Xpert® MTB/RIF as the primary screening tool, Ca Mau Province, Viet Nam. OBJECTIVES: To determine whether macroscopic sputum quality characteristics (sputum colour and volume) can be used to predict Xpert MTB-negative sputum and hence exclude sputum samples from testing. DESIGN: Field staff conducted household visits to approximately 51,200 adults in 58 villages randomly selected from throughout the province. Sputum samples from all screened participants who were able to produce ⩾1 ml sputum underwent macroscopic sputum assessment and were tested with Xpert. RESULTS: Of the 21,624 sputum samples tested, 159 (0.74%) were Xpert MTB-positive; 93% of the samples were 1-2 ml and nearly all were mucoid (93%) or mucopurulent (5.7%). One salivary sample was Xpert MTB-positive (2.0% of all salivary samples). The lowest positive predictive value for any sputum volume or colour characteristic was 0.66%. This was not substantially different from the overall prevalence of positive sputum Xpert MTB (0.74%). CONCLUSION: Sputum colour and volume cannot be used to predict the presence or absence of M. tuberculosis in sputum detected using Xpert. These sputum quality parameters cannot therefore be used to exclude sputum samples from testing for TB.