Clinical and Imaging Characteristics of Smear Negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients: A Comparative Study

Alemayehu, Alem; Wassie, Liya; Neway, Sebsib; Ayele, Samuel; Assefa, Abraham; Bobosha, Kidist; Petros, Beyene; Howe, Rawleigh

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2182088

Pulmonary Medicine

On this page

Abstract Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusions Data Availability Disclosure Conflicts of Interest Authors’ Contributions Acknowledgments Supplementary Materials References Copyright Related Articles

Research Article | Open Access

Volume 2024 | Article ID 2182088 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2182088

Clinical and Imaging Characteristics of Smear Negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients: A Comparative Study

Alem Alemayehu,^1,2,3Liya Wassie,²Sebsib Neway,²Samuel Ayele,²Abraham Assefa,²Kidist Bobosha,²Beyene Petros,¹and Rawleigh Howe²

Academic Editor: Yongchun Shen

Received14 Jul 2023

Revised28 Oct 2023

Accepted12 Feb 2024

Published06 Mar 2024

Abstract

Background. Prevalence surveys in Ethiopia indicate smear negative pulmonary tuberculosis (SNPTB) taking the major share of the overall TB burden. It has also been a diagnostic dilemma worldwide leading to diagnostic delays and difficulty in monitoring treatment outcomes. This study determines and compares the clinical and imaging findings in SNPTB and smear positive PTB (SPPTB). Methodology. A case-control study was conducted on 313 PTB (173 SNPTB) patients. Data and sputum samples were collected from consented patients. Smear microscopy, GeneXpert, and culture analyses were performed on sputum samples. Data were analyzed using Stata version 17; a value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results. Of the 173 SNPTB patients, 42% were culture positive with discordances between test results reported by health facilities and Armauer Hansen Research Institute laboratory using concentrated smear microscopy. A previous history of TB and fewer cavitary lesions were significantly associated with SNPTB. Conclusions. Though overall clinical presentations of SNPTB patients resemble those seen in SPPTB patients, a prior history of TB was strongly associated with SNPTB. Subject to further investigations, the relatively higher discrepancies seen in TB diagnoses reflect the posed diagnostic challenges in SNPTB patients, as a higher proportion of these patients are also seen in Ethiopia.

1. Introduction

According to the World Health Organization (WHO), more than 40% of the 5.2 million pulmonary TB (PTB) patients were not bacteriologically confirmed but rather diagnosed based on signs and symptoms and chest imaging findings. Globally, only 33% of the 5.8 million newly diagnosed TB patients access the most sensitive molecular test particularly MTB/RIF assay (GeneXpert) as an initial diagnostic test. Moreover, SNPTB has been also a significant challenge in HIV-positive TB patient who requires earlier diagnosis and treatment [1]. Globally, Ethiopia has one of the highest proportions of smear negative pulmonary tuberculosis (SNPTB) among all patients with PTB. That may be attributed to the limited availability of reagents for routine TB laboratory diagnosis, lack of expertise, and poor adherence to WHO clinical algorithms for SNPTB diagnosis.

In Ethiopia, TB laboratory diagnosis mostly bases on direct acid-fast bacilli (AFB) smear microscopy, which is often insensitive and can only detect below 35% of TB patients [2]. Application of WHO-recommended rapid molecular tests is limited [1]. The rapid molecular test (GeneXpert) which was introduced in Ethiopia in 2012 detects only 63% of culture-positive SNPTB [3], and its full implementation has been hindered by different factors including limited cartridge supply and shelf life [4].

Clinical signs and symptoms and chest imaging findings remain the main PTB diagnostic tools for those PTB patients who are negative for sputum AFB or GeneXpert test [5, 6]. However, the nonspecificity of both clinical and chest imaging findings for PTB may often lead to incorrect diagnosis and result in inappropriate or delayed therapy [7–10]. Smear negative PTB remains less well studied, particularly in the current context in Ethiopia. In the present study, we evaluated clinical, radiological, and microbiological diagnostic information from SNPTB and SPPTB patients. Importantly, we compared microbiological assessment from health center (HC) laboratories where patients were initially diagnosed with analogous data obtained from the AHRI TB laboratory (AHRIL).

2. Methods

2.1. Study Setting

This is an unmatched case-control study conducted between August 2018 and August 2021. According to the national TB programmatic guideline (Figure S1) [11], a total of 313 newly diagnosed, adult ( years), PTB patients who attended TB clinics were enrolled in the study from selected HC in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Patients who were initiated on anti-TB treatment for more than 5 days prior to enrollment, those who relapsed or were on retreatment, or those who were unable to provide sputum samples at the time of enrollment were excluded. Of the 313 PTB patients, 181 (58%) were diagnosed in public health facilities, 117 (37%) were from private health facilities, and the remaining 15 (5%) were identified through the community TB outreach system.

To keep test accuracy and patient classification uniform, concentrated smear acid-fast staining was performed at Armauer Hansen Research Institute’s (AHRI) laboratory on all sputum samples, where a previous study on such method shown to enhance AFB detection by over 10% [12]. Cases (SNPTB patients) and controls (SPPTB patients) were defined based on the concentrated AFB (cAFB) findings of the AHRI laboratory (AHRIL). Briefly, SNPTB patients were defined as patients who have been clinically diagnosed as SNPTB at health institutions based on the Ethiopian TB diagnostic algorithm [11] and enrolled for anti-TB treatment and later were confirmed to be AFB negative at AHRIL. Similarly, SPPTB patients were defined as patients diagnosed as SPPTB at health institutions based on the Ethiopian TB diagnostic algorithm [11] and enrolled for anti-TB treatment and were also confirmed to be AFB positive at AHRIL.

Sociodemographic and clinical data were collected using structured questionnaires either as binary or continuous variables. Imaging findings were also recorded from patients’ chest radiography report sent from different health facilities. Imaging reports with a specific presentation were included and copied to a prespecified classification format on the questionnaire [13].

2.2. Sample Collection and Processing

Five to ten milliliters of sputum were collected from each patient and transported to the AHRIL using a cold box. Upon arrival, samples were decontaminated using N-acetyl L-cysteine-sodium hydroxide (NALC-NaOH) and subjected to AFS, GeneXpert, and Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) culture, and any leftover samples were refrigerated until further use. GeneXpert was performed for 109 consecutive samples according to the WHO implementation manual [14]. All mycobacteriology laboratory safety procedures were followed as described in the global laboratory initiative biosafety manual [15] and internal standard operating procedures.

2.3. M. tuberculosis Identification Using Lowenstein-Jensen Culture Growth Media

LJ culture analyses were performed following previously reported protocol [16]. Briefly, the NALC-NaOH-treated sputum samples were centrifuged, and the sediment was inoculated onto an egg-based LJ culture medium. Two LJ medium tubes, with 0.6 glycerol, were prepared for every sputum sample inoculation. All inoculated tubes were incubated at 37°C and growth of M. tuberculosis complex (MTBC) was checked weekly for a month. Typical MTBC colony morphology and subsequent AFS and Capilia neo-TB test (TANUS Laboratories, Japan) were used to confirm bacterial growth [17].

All data were captured onto SPSS version 25 (IBM, USA) and exported to Stata version 17 for analysis. Crude odds ratio (COR) and adjusted odds ratio (AOR) were determined for association between the study variables and PTB classification. Variables with value < 0.2 in COR analysis and the patient’s HIV status were included in the multivariable logistic regression analysis (MVA). Sensitivity and specificity with a 95% confidence interval of smear microscopy and GeneXpert test were also performed. In all analyses, a value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. The study was approved by the Institutional Research Ethics Review Board of the College of Natural and Computational Sciences, Addis Ababa University (IRB/030/2017) and the AHRI ethical review committee (PO44/17). All study participants provided written informed consent before enrollment in the study.

3. Results

A total of 173 and 140 participants were categorized as SNPTB and SPPTB patients, respectively, at AHRIL. Sixty-six of the SNPTB patients who were diagnosed as AFB negative at the health facilities were later diagnosed as AFB positive at AHRIL and were regrouped into the control. On the other hand, 33 patients (23 GeneXpert positive) who were diagnosed with SPPTB at the facilities were found to be negative following concentrated smear microscopy at AHRIL and were regrouped under the SNPTB (Table 1).

3.1. TB-Related Clinical Presentations among Smear Negative and Positive Patients

The clinical, imaging, and sociodemographic characteristics of the study population are summarized in Table 2. Almost all TB-related symptoms were present in both SNPTB and SPPTB patients in a similar proportion, except for the absence of fever, previous TB disease, and normal body mass index (BMI), which were more common among SNPTB patients compared to SPPTB patients and the odds of being SNPTB among patients with previous TB was nearly three times higher than those in SPPTB patients ( value < 0.05) (Table 2). Further accurate analysis of the study variables for patients with a concordant classification at the health centers and AHRI also exhibited a similar result (Table S1).

3.2. Imaging Findings among Smear Negative and Positive Patients

A total of 175 chest imaging findings were collected from all participants, and the proportion of patients with cavitary lesion was significantly lower among SNPTB (18%, ) compared to SPPTB (39%, ) () (Table 3). Imaging findings excluding cavitary lesions, pleural effusions, and infiltration/consolidation were three times higher among SNPTB than SPPTB patients () (Table 3).

Multivariate analysis of selected variables showed a positive association of older age, absence of fever, and prior TB illness with SNPTB, whereas the presence of cavitary lesions was negatively associated with SNPTB ( value < 0.05) (Table 4).

3.3. Mycobacterial Laboratory Analysis of Smear Negative and Positive TB Patients

The proportion of LJ culture positivity among SNPTB was 42% () and that of SPPTB was 82% (). GeneXpert was done for 109 patients (69 SNPTB and 40 SPPTB), and the overall sensitivity was 71.6%, where the specific sensitivities were 97% in SPPTB and 38% in SNPTB patients compared with LJ culture that was used as a gold standard (Table 5). GeneXpert MTB detection was increased by 20%, i.e., from 52% () at HCs to 71.2% () at AHRIL.

4. Discussion

Diagnosis of smear negative TB has been a challenge, contributing to treatment delay and inaccurate patient selection for anti-TB treatment. This study sought to evaluate the clinical, radiographic, and microbiologic characteristics of smear negative PTB in Ethiopia. A unique study design was applied, in which patients were recruited based on classifications defined in standard healthcare settings, who later were evaluated and regrouped based on the concentrated smear microscopy result performed at AHRIL.

The major findings are as follows: First, among the clinical and imaging findings of patients with concordant classification at HC and AHRI, we observed a statistically significant or borderline association between SNPTB and (a) increased prior history of TB, (b) decrease in cavitary lesions (or increase in other radiological findings), and (c) absence of fever; (d) however, there was no significant association between HIV and SNPTB. Secondly, there were significant inconsistencies in the diagnosis of SNPTB at HC and AHRIL. Although there was concordance between laboratory results in the majority of smear-positive and smear-negative patients, there were a surprising number of patients classified as smear-negative in HC and who were later identified as positive at AHRI lab, and vice versa. Furthermore, GeneXpert detected many patients who were found to be smear-negative; however, it still identified only about half of the SNPTB patients who were culture-positive. Also, many patients who started anti-TB treatment were observed to be negative for all microbial indices.

Evaluation of clinical findings revealed similarities in clinical presentation with some differences. SNPTB were more likely to have a prior history of TB, and this finding was consistent among culture-negative patients compared with culture positives. This has been noted in other studies [18, 19], although not commonly reported. The underlying reason for the association between SNPTB and previous TB is not clear though it was reported that patients with SNPTB had persistently activated TB-specific T cells after therapy [20], implying persistence of activating stimuli, which might conceivably predispose to future infections, yet, why this would be unique to SNPTB is not clear. Alternatively, it is possible that some of the SNPTB patients with prior history of TB had imaging findings misconstrued as active disease leading to misdiagnosis since, a clinical and radiological presentation similarity between patients with previous TB and had active TB and patients with previous TB and had no active TB [21]. Hence, further research will be required to determine if this finding is generalizable.

We also observed that SNPTB patients had significantly fewer cavitary lesions as it has been previously observed. Although the mechanism of cavitation in TB is still unclear, whether resulting from liquefication of caseation granulomas or following postobstructive tuberculous pneumonia, either scenario results in a large release of aerosolized bacilli both in other regions of the lung and its environment [22] resulting in a higher bacillary load in patients with cavitary lesions [23]. Why SNPTB has substantially reduced cavitary lesions implies either a distinct mechanism of pathogenesis or alternatively reflecting an earlier stage in the process where bacilli are less prominent.

Although SNPTB has been considered the peculiar characteristic of HIV-infected individuals as it was associated with sputum smear negativity by different reports [24], this was not the case in our study population, where the proportion of HIV positivity was fairly similar in both groups. Another study has also reported a similar observation [25]. The earlier study reports that increased SNPTB in HIV may be related to a reduced cavitary disease which depends on immunocompetence [26]. Contrarily, the policy of antiretroviral therapy initiation at high CD4+ counts and that our HIV-positive participants’ average is not as immunocompromised as early studies, our study ended up without a statistically significant difference between PTB classification and patients’ HIV status. Consistent with this possibility, we did not see a significant difference in cavitary disease in SNPTB and SPPTB in HIV patients.

Our finding that a significant number of PTB patients classified as smear negative TB were found to be smear positive at AHRIL with concentrated smear microscopy method partly related to differences in individual laboratory procedures affecting sensitivity and specificity. However, the sputum concentration procedure typically enhances about 10% [3] alone, which apparently does not account for the entire discrepancies, implying that additional reasons should be at play.

Currently in Addis Ababa, AFB tests on smears are being phased out and replaced by GeneXpert for initial diagnosis of TB. Although GeneXpert testing is free, in government clinics, it is not available in all diagnostic laboratories, and Ministry of Health diagnostic algorithms refer to the lack of availability of GeneXpert testing, hence implying AFB testing as an acceptable alternative. As a result, it is common for patients to visit multiple clinics, both public and private, thus complex continuity of care clouding diagnostic classifications. On top of this, it is possible that some clinicians confidently gave the diagnosis of TB without a smear test being done.

Although GeneXpert has been recommended because of its enhanced sensitivity for TB diagnosis, some studies have shown that it fails to detect a significant percentage of culture-proven TB [27, 28]. Our findings in this study clearly confirm this, showing that only 38% of culture-positive TB among SNPTB patients were GeneXpert-positive. This percentage is lower than other reports in Ethiopia that may reflect differences in lab approaches. Further studies should be done to examine in detail the actual practices of health clinics versus the recommended guidelines and probe reasons for divergence.

Our finding that a significant number of patients were diagnosed as SNPTB based on clinical and radiological findings only and were negative for all microbiological tests has also been observed in previous studies [29, 30]. In some cases, this may reflect the simple fact that even culture is not perfectly sensitive and may in part relate to ambiguities of obtaining consistent sputum samples. On the other hand, more comprehensive samples like bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) have been shown to detect over 80% of clinically diagnosed smears and GeneXpert-negative TB [31]. This reveals that part of the problem may be in obtaining an appropriate bacillus-containing specimen by routine sputum sampling method.

On the other hand, it is also a matter of concern that SNPTB is overdiagnosed. For instance, community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) elicited by bacteria not responsive to commonly used empiric antibiotics [32] is responsive to antibiotics used in conventional or MDR TB therapy and may be misdiagnosed as SNPTB which may be wrongly construed as SNPTB. Also, atypical bacteria, such as Chlamydophila pneumoniae, well studied in Western settings, characteristically treated with fluoroquinolones or macrolide antibiotics [33], are less responsive to commonly used empiric therapy in Ethiopia but potentially responsive to TB drugs like rifampicin [34] may imply for SNPTB. Such bacteria, as well as other standard pneumonia bacteria resistant to currently used empiric therapy but responsive to TB therapy, may result in misdiagnosis of SNPTB leading to unnecessarily prolonged therapy. Therefore, the exact answer needs further follow-up studies as well as investigations on other possible etiologies with more sensitive samples including BAL and induced sputum.

The absence of data from patient physical examination that will be similarly important as clinical symptoms for SNPTB diagnosis and interpersonal observer’s variation in interpreting imaging findings from various imaging technologies could be the limitations of this study. In addition, the classification of patients based on cAFB and inclusion of patients starting anti-TB drug treatment may decrease the number of patients with AFB-negative and culture-positive results. Though PTB patients larger than the calculated sample size were involved, the difference in the number of SNPTB (cases) and SPPTB (controls) may result in a false absence of statistical association in some of the variables.

5. Conclusions

SNPTB patients were more likely to have a history of prior TB, noncavitary lesions, normal BMI, and older age compared with SPPTB. We observed a significant discrepancy between the diagnosis of SNPTB in health facility settings and AHRI with concentrated smear microscopy. SNPTB remains a challenging diagnosis, and we recommend further operational research on SNPTB diagnosis.

Data Availability

Additional data used to support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Disclosure

The funders had no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Authors’ Contributions

AA conceived and designed the study, did the laboratory work, analyzed the data, and wrote the 1^st draft of the manuscript. SN did the laboratory work and analyzed the data. SA analyzed the data. AA and KB contributed to the conception of the study, edited the manuscript, and supervised the study. BP, LW, and RH contributed to the conception of the study and its design, analyzed the data, supervised the study, and edited the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version. Liya Wassie, Beyene Petros, and Rawleigh Howe contributed equally to this work.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the study participants and the nurses involved in the recruitment process and data collection. We are also very grateful to Mr. Alemayehu Kifle for his unreserved support in sample transportation from study sites to the AHRI. Finally, we would like to acknowledge Addis Ababa City Administration Health Bureau and participating health centers for facilitating the conduct of this study. This study was supported by core funds from the AHRI, received from Norad and Sida.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary 1. Figure S1. Diagnostic algorithm of presumptive pulmonary TB patients (adapted from the National TB Program Guideline, Ministry of Health, Ethiopia, 2017).

Supplementary 2. Table S1. Clinical and imaging findings of patients who had a concordant classification at Health Centers and AHRI, 2021, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

References

WHO, Global tuberculosis report 2022, World Health Organization, Geneva Swizerland, 2022, Report No.: 9240029435.
A. Sorsa and M. Kaso, “Diagnostic performance of GeneXpert in tuberculosis–HIV co–infected patients at Asella Teaching and Referral Hospital, southeastern Ethiopia: a cross sectional study,” PLoS One, vol. 16, no. 1, article e0242205, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Tadesse, D. Aragaw, L. Rigouts, and G. Abebe, “Increased detection of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis by GeneXpert MTB/RIF® assay after bleach concentration,” International Journal of Mycobacteriology, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 211–218, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Brown, J. E. Leavy, and J. Jancey, “Implementation of GeneXpert for TB testing in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review,” Global Health: Science and Practice, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 698–710, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Nakiyingi, J. M. Bwanika, W. Ssengooba et al., “Chest X-ray interpretation does not complement Xpert MTB/RIF in diagnosis of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis among TB-HIV co-infected adults in a resource-limited setting,” BMC Infectious Diseases, vol. 21, no. 1, p. 63, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ebrahimzadeh, M. Mohammadifard, and G. Naseh, “Comparison of chest X-ray findings of smear positive and smear negative patients with pulmonary tuberculosis,” Iranian Journal of Radiology, vol. 11, no. 4, article e13575, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Kebede, G. Abebe, E. K. Gudina, E. De Vos, E. Riviere, and A. Van Rie, “Role of empiric treatment in hospitalized patients with Xpert MTB/RIF-negative presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis: a prospective cohort study,” International Journal of Infectious Diseases, vol. 97, pp. 30–37, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. H. Kwak, J. S. Choi, E. H. Lee et al., “Characteristics and risk factors associated with missed diagnosis in patients with smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis,” The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine, vol. 36, Suppl 1, pp. S151–S159, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Irfan, A. Zahid, M. Vaqar, A. Sharif, K. Jabeen, and A. B. S. Zubairi, “Alternate diagnosis in clinically diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis patients treated at tertiary care hospital in a high TB burden country,” European Respiratory Journal, vol. 56, supplement 64, p. 514, 2020.
View at: Google Scholar
R. Piccazzo, F. Paparo, and G. Garlaschi, “Diagnostic accuracy of chest radiography for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) and its role in the detection of latent TB infection: a systematic review,” The Journal of rheumatology Supplement, vol. 91, pp. 32–40, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
MoH, Guidelines for management of TB, DR-TB and leprosy in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, sixth edition, 2017.
J. Bruchfeld, G. Aderaye, I. B. Palme, B. Bjorvatn, G. Källenius, and L. Lindquist, “Sputum concentration improves diagnosis of tuberculosis in a setting with a high prevalence of HIV,” Transactions of the Royal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene, vol. 94, no. 6, pp. 677–680, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. E. Dunlap, J. Bass, P. Fujiwara et al., “Diagnostic standards and classification of tuberculosis in adults and children,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 161, no. 4, pp. 1376–1395, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
WHO, Xpert MTB/RIF implementation manual: technical and operational ‘how-to’; practical considerations, World Health Organization, 2014, Report No.: 9241506709.
WHO, Tuberculosis laboratory biosafety manual, World Health Organization, 2012.
M. K. Uddin, M. R. Chowdhury, S. Ahmed et al., “Comparison of direct versus concentrated smear microscopy in detection of pulmonary tuberculosis,” BMC Research Notes, vol. 6, no. 1, p. 291, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Arora, R. Singhal, M. Bhalla et al., “Diagnostic utility of Capilia TB assay for identification of mycobacterium tuberculosis complex,” Current Research in Tuberculosis, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 13–18, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. B. Tiamiyu, G. Iliyasu, F. M. Dayyab et al., “A descriptive study of smear negative pulmonary tuberculosis in a high HIV burden patient’s population in North Central Nigeria,” PLoS One, vol. 15, no. 9, article e0238007, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Khadka, J. Thapaliya, R. B. Basnet, G. R. Ghimire, J. Amatya, and B. P. Rijal, “Diagnosis of tuberculosis from smear-negative presumptive TB cases using Xpert MTB/Rif assay: a cross-sectional study from Nepal,” BMC Infectious Diseases, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 1–7, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Esmael, A. Mihret, T. Abebe et al., “Persistent expression of activation markers on mycobacterium tuberculosis-specific CD4 T cells in smear negative TB patients,” PLoS One, vol. 17, no. 8, article e0271234, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. Mateyo, A. D. Kerkhoff, I. Dunn, M. S. Nteeni, and M. Muyoyeta, “Clinical and radiographic characteristics of presumptive tuberculosis patients previously treated for tuberculosis in Zambia,” PLoS One, vol. 17, no. 1, article e0263116, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. E. Urbanowski, A. A. Ordonez, C. A. Ruiz-Bedoya, S. K. Jain, and W. R. Bishai, “Cavitary tuberculosis: the gateway of disease transmission,” The Lancet Infectious Diseases, vol. 20, no. 6, pp. e117–e128, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. H. Kim, M. J. Kim, and S.-Y. Ham, “Clinical characteristics and chest computed tomography findings of smear-positive and smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis in hospitalized adult patients,” Medicine, vol. 98, no. 34, article e16921, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. C. Campos, M. V. V. Rocha, D. M. C. Willers, and D. R. Silva, “Characteristics of patients with smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in a region with high TB and HIV prevalence,” PLoS One, vol. 11, no. 1, article e0147933, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
W. Sinshaw, A. Kebede, A. Bitew et al., “Prevalence of tuberculosis, multidrug resistant tuberculosis and associated risk factors among smear negative presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis patients in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,” BMC Infectious Diseases, vol. 19, no. 1, p. 641, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. L. Hunter, C. Jagannath, and J. K. Actor, “Pathology of postprimary tuberculosis in humans and mice: contradiction of long-held beliefs,” Tuberculosis, vol. 87, no. 4, pp. 267–278, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Kiran, S. M. A. Naqvi, H. B. Arslan Iqbal, A. R. Z. Butt, and N. Shafi, “The diagnostic performance of fluorescent microscopy and MTB/RIF assay Gene Xpert in pulmonary tuberculosis at tertiary care hospital of Lahore,” Pakistan Journal of Medical & Health Sciences, vol. 16, no. 5, pp. 449–451, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Simieneh, M. Tadesse, W. Kebede, M. Gashaw, and G. Abebe, “Combination of Xpert® MTB/RIF and determine TM TB-LAM Ag improves the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis at Jimma University Medical Center, Oromia, Ethiopia,” Plos One, vol. 17, no. 2, article e0263172, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
E. A. Kendall, C. Kamoga, P. J. Kitonsa et al., “Empiric treatment of pulmonary TB in the Xpert era: correspondence of sputum culture, Xpert MTB/RIF, and clinical diagnoses,” PLoS One, vol. 14, no. 7, article e0220251, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M.-V. H. Nguyen, N. S. Levy, S. D. Ahuja, L. Trieu, D. C. Proops, and J. M. Achkar, “Factors associated with sputum culture-negative vs culture-positive diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis,” JAMA Network Open, vol. 2, no. 2, article e187617, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Imtiaz and E. M. Batubara, “Diagnostic value of bronchoscopy in sputum-negative pulmonary tuberculosis patients and its correlation with clinicoradiological features,” Annals of Thoracic Medicine, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 124–131, 2022.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. F. Berhe, G. T. Beyene, B. Seyoum et al., “Prevalence of antimicrobial resistance and its clinical implications in Ethiopia: a systematic review,” Antimicrobial Resistance & Infection Control, vol. 10, no. 1, p. 168, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. P. Metlay, G. W. Waterer, A. C. Long et al., “Diagnosis and treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia. An official clinical practice guideline of the American Thoracic Society and Infectious Diseases Society of America,” American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, vol. 200, no. 7, pp. e45–e67, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. A. Kohlhoff and M. R. Hammerschlag, “Treatment of chlamydial infections: 2014 update,” Expert Opinion on Pharmacotherapy, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 205–212, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Alem Alemayehu et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

131

Downloads

131

Citations