PT - JOURNAL ARTICLE AU - Boldi, Marc-Olivier AU - Denis-Lessard, Justin AU - Neziri, Rina AU - Brouillet, René AU - von-Garnier, Christophe AU - Chavez, Valérie AU - Mazza-Stalder, Jesica AU - Jaton, Katia AU - Greub, Gilbert AU - Opota, Onya TI - Performance of microbiological tests for tuberculosis diagnostic according to the type of respiratory specimen: a 10-year retrospective study AID - 10.1101/2022.12.27.22283924 DP - 2023 Jan 01 TA - medRxiv PG - 2022.12.27.22283924 4099 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/11/2022.12.27.22283924.short 4100 - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/01/11/2022.12.27.22283924.full AB - Background The microbial diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) remains challenging and relies on multiple microbiological tests performed on different clinical specimens. Polymerase chain reactions (PCRs), introduced in the last decades has had a significant impact on the diagnosis of TB. However, questions remain about the use of PCRs in combination with conventional tests for TB, namely microscopy and culture. We aimed to determine the performance of microscopy, culture and PCR for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis according to the type of clinical specimen in order to improve the diagnostic yield and to avoid unnecessary, time and labor-intensive tests.Methods We conducted a retrospective study (2008-2018) on analysis (34’429 specimens, 14’358 patients) performed in our diagnostic laboratory located in the Lausanne University Hospital to compare the performance of microbiological tests on sputum, induced sputum, bronchial aspirate and bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL). We analysed the performance using a classical “per specimen” approach and a “per patient” approach for paired specimens collected from the same patient.Results The overall sensitivities of microscopy, PCR and culture were 0.523 (0.489, 0.557), 0.798 (0.755, 0.836) and 0.988 (0.978, 0.994) and the specificity were 0.994 (0.993, 0.995), 1 (0.999, 1) and 1 (1, 1). Microscopy displayed no significant differences in sensitivity according to the type of sample. The sensitivities of PCR for sputum, induced sputum, bronchial aspirate and BAL were, 0.821 (0.762, 0.871), 0.643 (0.480, 0.784), 0.837 (0.748, 0.904) and 0.759 (0.624, 0.865) respectively and the sensitivity of culture were, 0.993 (0.981, 0.998), 0.980 (0.931, 0.998), 0.965 (0.919, 0.988), and 1 (0.961, 1) respectively. Pairwise comparison of specimens collected from the same patient reported a significantly higher sensitivity of PCR on bronchial aspirate over BAL (p < 0.001) and sputum (p < 0.05) and a significantly higher sensitivity of culture on bronchial aspirate over BAL (p < 0.0001).Conclusions PCR displayed a higher sensitivity and specificity than microscopy for all respiratory specimens, a rational for a smear-independent PCR-based approach to initiate tuberculosis microbial diagnostic. The diagnosis yield of bronchial aspirate was higher than BAL. Therefore, PCR should be systematically performed also on bronchial aspirates when available.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNAAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This study was approved by the relevant ethics committee, the cantonal Ethics Committee on human research of the Vaud Canton, Switzerland "Commission Cantonale d Ethique de la Recherche sur l Etre Humain du Canton de Vaud, Suisse, cer-vd.ch" (Approval number CER-2020-00136)I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData produced in the present study were obtained within the frame of an ethical autorisation; they would be available upon reasonable request to the authors and within the frame of another ethical autorisation only