The rapid initial diagnosis of an
M. tuberculosis infection is problematic if the techniques of direct visualization are negative. The definitive diagnosis depends on culture of the mycobacterium, a technique that is time-consuming and not always sensitive. PCR is a rapid, yet costly, alternative method for the diagnosis of
M. tuberculosis. It not only accelerates the diagnosis of
M. tuberculosis, but may also enhance the detection of mycobacteria in smear-negative patients. Studies on PCR have reported different sensitivity and specificity values. The present study compared the sensitivity of PCR with that of smear and culture in the diagnosis of
M. tuberculosis in HIV-positive and -negative patients. da Silva et al. (
19) reported the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and positive and negative predictive values of PCR in HIV-negative patients with PTB as 64%, 74%, 68%, 75%, and 63%, respectively.
The corresponding values in HIV-positive patients were 59%, 33%, 56%, 87%, and 10%. In contrast to our findings, da Silva et al. (
19) found PCR to have a better performance in HIV-negative patients than in HIV-positive individuals, but in our study there was no difference between HIV-positive and HIV-negative patients with PTB. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of PCR in HIV-positive and -negative patients with PTB were 35%, 76.5%, 26.8%, and 73.2%, respectively. In a study on pleural effusion, Montenegro et al. (
20) observed sensitivities of 84.2%, 72.2%, and 33.3%, respectively, when nested PCR was applied to (i) pleural fluid, blood, and/or urine samples; (ii) blood and/or urine samples without pleural fluid samples; and (iii) pleural fluid samples alone. They concluded that the sensitivity of the test could be improved by the use of different samples.
Considering the simplicity of urine sample collection, the present study used urine PCR analysis to test 100 patients with PTB and EPTB. The results indicated the applicability of PCR for the rapid detection of M. tuberculosis in urine from patients with or without HIV infection. In fact, by centrifugation of urine samples and DNA amplification, different concentrations of mycobacteria could be detected in individuals with PTB and EPTB. Nevertheless, this technique achieved the same performance in HIV-positive and -negative subjects. Due to its high sensitivity, PCR analysis of urine may be able to detect mycobacterial infections even before the clinical manifestation of the disease.
Studies on the use of urine samples for TB diagnoses among HIV-positive and -negative individuals are scarce. Although Torrea et al. (
18) attempted to examine the performance of nested PCR in the analysis of urine from individuals with suspected TB, they did not use any bacteriological measures to confirm the PCR results and determine the positive predictive value of urine samples compared to other types of specimens. According to available literature, the application of conventional microbiological tests on urine will not be beneficial for the detection of
M. tuberculosis, except in patients with genitourinary disease (
21,
22). In a previous study, DNA amplification suggested the presence of
M. tuberculosis in blood from 39 out of 41 patients with confirmed PTB. Therefore, since mycobacteria can enter the circulation even before the clinical manifestation of the infection, they may be excreted through the urine (
23).
Aceti et al. (
17) examined 13 HIV-positive patients with confirmed active PTB. While all subjects tested positive for
M. tuberculosis using urine-based nested PCR, cultures detected only two cases, and acid-fast staining yielded negative results for all samples. Hence, although
M. tuberculosis might exist in the urine of all TB patients, or at least those who are HIV-positive, its low concentration in urine may prevent conventional methods for its accurate detection. Torrea et al. (
18) calculated the overall sensitivity of PCR in HIV-positive and -negative patients with microbiologically-positive PTB, microbiologically-negative PTB, and EPTB as 40.5%, 66.7%, and 57.1%, respectively. They also reported a specificity of 98.2%. Our findings indicated lower sensitivity in patients with PTB (25.6%) and EPTB (42.3%). Consequently, while PCR may not be a favorable method for the routine detection of
M. tuberculosis in patients with new TB, it can be beneficial for confirming the presence of
M. tuberculosis in suspected cases of PTB or EPTB with negative microbiological test results and inconclusive clinical and bacteriological diagnoses.
Irrespective of the type of biological sample, nested PCR had the same sensitivity in HIV-positive and -negative individuals. Therefore, despite its fairly undesirable sensitivity in some cases, this rapid technique can serve as a beneficial tool, particularly in HIV-positive patients and those for whom the conventional diagnostic methods fail to yield a confirmatory diagnosis. Future studies are recommended to examine the performance of PCR-based techniques by using other types of biological specimens, such as blood and urine. The incorporation of nested PCR in the diagnostic approach to detecting M. tuberculosis will facilitate the early diagnosis and timely management of this bacterial infection.