BioSpace Collaborative

Academic/Biomedical Research
News & Jobs
Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Channel Medical Device and Diagnostics Channel Clinical Research Channel BioSpace Collaborative    Job Seekers:  Register | Login          Employers:  Register | Login  

Free Newsletters
My Subscriptions

News by Subject
News by Disease
News by Date
Search News
Post Your News

Job Seeker Login
Most Recent Jobs
Search Jobs
Post Resume
Career Fairs
Career Resources
For Employers

Regional News
US & Canada
  Biotech Bay
  Biotech Beach
  Pharm Country
  Bio NC
  Southern Pharm
  BioCanada East
  C2C Services & Suppliers™


Company Profiles

Research Store

Research Events
Post an Event
Real Estate
Business Opportunities

PLoS By Category | Recent PLoS Articles
Infectious Diseases - Urology

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Urine-Based Xpert MTB/RIF in HIV-Infected Hospitalized Patients Who Are Smear-Negative or Sputum Scarce
Published: Monday, July 09, 2012
Author: Jonathan G. Peter et al.

by Jonathan G. Peter, Grant Theron, Tapuwa E. Muchinga, Ureshnie Govender, Keertan Dheda


Hospitals in sub-Saharan Africa are inundated with HIV-infected patients and tuberculosis (TB) is the commonest opportunistic infection in this sub-group. Up to one third of TB-HIV co-infected patients fail to produce a sputum sample (sputum scarce) and diagnosis is thus often delayed or missed. We investigated the sensitivity of urine-based methods (Xpert MTB/RIF, LAM strip test and LAM ELISA) in such patients.

Methodology/Principal Findings

281 HIV-infected hospitalised patients with clinically suspected TB provided a spot urine sample. The reference standard was culture positivity for Mycobacterium tuberculosis on =1 sputum or extra-pulmonary sample. MTB/RIF was performed using 1 ml of both unprocessed and, when possible, concentrated urine. Each unconcentrated urine sample was also tested using the Clearview LAM ELISA and Alere LAM strip test. 42% (116/242) of patients had culture-proven TB. 18% (20/54) were sputum scarce. In sputum-scarce patients, the sensitivity of urine MTB/RIF and LAM ELISA was 40% (95%CI: 22–61) and 60% (95%CI: 39–78), respectively. Urine MTB/RIF specificity was 98% (95%CI: 95–100). Combined sensitivity of urine LAM ELISA and MTB/RIF was better than MTB/RIF alone [MTB/RIF and LAM: 70% (95%CI: 48–85) vs. MTB/RIF: 40% (95%CI: 22–61), p?=?0.03]. Significant predictors of urine MTB/RIF positivity were CD4<50 cells/ml (p?=?0.001), elevated protein-to-creatinine ratio (p<0.001) and LAM ELISA positivity (p<0.001). Urine centrifugation and pelleting significantly increased the sensitivity of MTB/RIF over unprocessed urine in paired samples [42% (95%CI: 26–58) vs. 8% (95%CI: 0–16), p<0.001]. Urine MTB/RIF-generated CT values correlated poorly with markers of bacillary burden (smear grade and time-to-positivity).


This preliminary study indicates that urine-based MTB/RIF, alone or in combination with LAM antigen detection, may potentially aid the diagnosis of TB in HIV-infected patients with advanced immunosuppression when sputum-based diagnosis is not possible. Concentration of urine prior to MTB/RIF-testing significantly improves sensitivity.