4.2 Article

A multicenter study of Cross-Priming Amplification for tuberculosis diagnosis at peripheral level in China

Journal

TUBERCULOSIS
Volume 94, Issue 4, Pages 428-433

Publisher

CHURCHILL LIVINGSTONE
DOI: 10.1016/j.tube.2014.04.006

Keywords

Mycobacterium tuberculosis; CPA; Sensitivity; Specificity

Funding

  1. Major State Basic Research Development Program [2014CB744403]
  2. Chinese Anti-tuberculosis Association

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Cross-Priming Amplification (CPA) has been shown to rapidly and effectively detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in sputum samples under isothermal conditions. However, no performance data exist from peripheral-level tuberculosis (TB) clinics in tuberculosis-endemic countries. We conducted a clinical trial at four county-level TB clinics in China to evaluate the effectiveness of the CPA assay. TB suspects were continuously enrolled by a clinician at each clinic. Following informed consent, each patient provided two sputum specimens (spot and morning sputum). Sputum samples were tested by smear microscopy, solid culture and CPA. The National TB reference laboratory (NTRL) collected all culture positive strains and performed 16S-23S rDNA internal transcribed spacer (ITS) sequence analysis for strain identification. Solid culture was used as the gold standard to evaluate the effectiveness of CPA in detecting MTB. A total of 2200 TB-suspected patients were enrolled at the four county-level TB clinics. Compared to solid culture, the sensitivity and specificity of the CPA test for MTB detection within this group was 84.1% (95%CI, 79.5-88.6) and 97.8% (95%CI, 97.1-98.5), respectively, and the sensitivity in smear-negative cases was 59.8% (95%CI, 49.8-69.8). The test failure rate of CPA was 0.8% (32/3918), significantly lower than the 1.7% (106/6138) culture contamination rate. (C) 2014 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available