摘要：Tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis relies on a sputum sample, which cannot be easily obtained from all symptomatic patients. Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA can be detected from oral swabs, a noninvasive, safe alternative sample type; however, reported sensitivities have been variable and likely depend on sample collection, processing procedures and host characteristics. We analyzed three buccal swab samples from 123 adults with culture-confirmed TB in Lima, Peru. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of two sample collection devices (OmniSwab and EasiCollect FTA cards) and examined factors associated with detection. DNA was extracted with a commercially available kit and detected via real-time PCR IS6110 amplification. Overall sensitivity for buccal samples was 51% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 42–60%). Specificity from a single sample among healthy controls was 96.7% (95% CI 83–99.9%). Positive sputum smear and cavitary disease, correlates of disease burden, were associated with detection via buccal swab. Although we observed higher sensitivities with the Omniswab samples, this appeared to be due primarily to differences in patient characteristics (e.g., cavitary disease). Overall, our findings support the potential for a buccal sample-based TB assay. Future work should focus on assay optimization and streamlining the assay workflow.
其他摘要：Abstract Tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis relies on a sputum sample, which cannot be easily obtained from all symptomatic patients. Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA can be detected from oral swabs, a noninvasive, safe alternative sample type; however, reported sensitivities have been variable and likely depend on sample collection, processing procedures and host characteristics. We analyzed three buccal swab samples from 123 adults with culture-confirmed TB in Lima, Peru. We compared the sensitivity and specificity of two sample collection devices (OmniSwab and EasiCollect FTA cards) and examined factors associated with detection. DNA was extracted with a commercially available kit and detected via real-time PCR IS6110 amplification. Overall sensitivity for buccal samples was 51% (95% Confidence Interval [CI] 42–60%). Specificity from a single sample among healthy controls was 96.7% (95% CI 83–99.9%). Positive sputum smear and cavitary disease, correlates of disease burden, were associated with detection via buccal swab. Although we observed higher sensitivities with the Omniswab samples, this appeared to be due primarily to differences in patient characteristics (e.g., cavitary disease). Overall, our findings support the potential for a buccal sample-based TB assay. Future work should focus on assay optimization and streamlining the assay workflow.
