The use of an automated quantitative polymerase chain reaction (Xpert MTB/RIF) to predict the sputum smear status of tuberculosis patients.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Theron G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC3258275 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6794109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiagnosis of pulmonary (PTB) and extra-pulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) in smear-negative patients can be difficult. We assessed retrospectively the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF system (Xpert, Cepheid) in diagnosing smear-negative tuberculosis (TB), which represents the most common form of TB in a low incidence setting.MethodsPerformance of Xpert was compared to acid-fast microscopic examination using Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) stain in patients with culture-confirmed TB.Results386 Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) culture-positive samples were detected out of 5170 specimens tested with smear microscopy, Xpert and culture: 323 were both culture- and Xpert-positive, and 63 culture-positive only. Of these, 234 (60.6%) were smear-negative. In addition Xpert detected 40 probable TB cases, based on clinical findings, which were culture-negative. Compared to culture, Xpert showed an overall sensitivity of 83.7% and a specificity of 99.1%; sensitivity was higher for respiratory samples (86.5%) than for non-respiratory samples (76.8%). Xpert sensitivity for smear-negative culture-confirmed TB was 73.1% and was not influenced by TB localization. As sensitivity of microscopy alone was poor (39.4%), Xpert improved both diagnosis of pulmonary TB (Δ = 36.5%) and extra-pulmonary TB (Δ = 63.4%).ConclusionsXpert MTB/RIF is a sensitive method for rapid diagnosis of TB compared to the conventional ZN staining. Xpert can serve as a sensitive and time-saving diagnostic method for microbiological diagnosis of smear-negative TB in countries with a low TB prevalence.
| S-EPMC5400262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe World Health Organization endorsed (2010) the use of Xpert MTB/RIF and countries are shifting from smear microscopy (smear)-based to Xpert MTB/RIF-based tuberculosis (TB) diagnostic algorithms. As with smear, sputum quality may predict the likelihood of obtaining a bacteriologically-confirmed TB when using Xpert MTB/RIF.MethodsFrom 08/12-11/2014, all people living with HIV were recruited at 22 clinics. For patients screened positive using the four TB symptoms their sputa were tested by Xpert MTB/RIF and smear. Laboratorians assessed and recorded sputum appearance and volume. The yield of bacteriologically-positive sputum evaluated using Xpert MTB/RIF and smear, likelihood-ratios were calculated.ResultsAmong 6,041 patients enrolled 2,296 were presumptive TB, 1,305 (56.8%) had > 1 sputa collected and 644/1,305 (49.3%) had both Xpert MTB/RIF and smear results. Since >1 sputa collected from 644 patients 954 sputa were tested by Xpert MTB/RIF and smear. Bacteriologically-positive sputum was two-fold higher with Xpert MTB/RIF 11.4% versus smear 5.3%, p < 0.001. Sputum appearance and quantity were not predictive of bacteriologically-positive results, except volume of 2ml to < 3ml, tested by Xpert MTB/RIF LR+= 1.26 (95% CI, 1.05-1.50).ConclusionXpert MTB/RIF test yield to bacteriologically-positive sputum was superior to smear. Sputum quality and quantity, however, were not consistently predictive of bacteriologically-positive results by Xpert MTB/RIF or smear.
| S-EPMC6711687 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The accuracy and impact of new tuberculosis (TB) tests, such as Xpert MTB/RIF, when performed on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) obtained from patients with sputum-scarce or smear-negative TB is unclear.South African patients with suspected pulmonary TB (n=160) who were sputum-scarce or smear-negative underwent bronchoscopy. MTB/RIF was performed on uncentrifuged BALF (1 ml) and/or a resuspended pellet of centrifuged BALF (?10 ml). Time to TB detection and anti-TB treatment initiation were compared between phase one, when MTB/RIF was performed as a research tool, and phase two, when it was used for patient management.27 of 154 patients with complete data had culture-confirmed TB. Of these, a significantly lower proportion were detected by smear microscopy compared with MTB/RIF (58%, 95% CI 39% to 75% versus 93%, 77% to 98%; p<0.001). Of the 127 patients who were culture negative, 96% (91% to 98%) were MTB/RIF negative. When phase two was compared with phase one, MTB/RIF reduced the median days to TB detection (29 (18-41) to 0 (0-0); p<0.001). However, more patients initiated empirical therapy (absence of a positive test in those commencing treatment) in phase one versus phase two (79% (11/14) versus 28% (10/25); p=0.026). Consequently, there was no detectable difference in the overall proportion of patients initiating treatment (26% (17/67; 17% to 37%) versus 36% (26/73; 26% to 47%); p=0.196) or the days to treatment initiation (10 (1-49) versus 7 (0-21); p=0.330). BALF centrifugation, HIV coinfection and a second MTB/RIF did not result in detectable changes in accuracy.MTB/RIF detected TB cases more accurately and more rapidly than smear microscopy and significantly reduced the rate of empirical treatment.
| S-EPMC5523966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWith the introduction of Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert), its incorporation into tuberculosis (TB) diagnostic algorithm has become an important issue. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the Xpert assay in comparison with a commercial polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay.MethodsMedical records of patients having results of both Xpert and AdvanSure TB/NTM real-time PCR (AdvanSure) assays using the same bronchial washing specimens were retrospectively reviewed.ResultsOf the 1,297 patients included in this study, 205 (15.8%) were diagnosed with pulmonary TB. Using mycobacterial culture as the reference method, sensitivity of the Xpert assay using smear-positive specimens was 97.5%, which was comparable to that of the AdvanSure assay (96.3%, p=0.193). However, the sensitivity of the Xpert assay using smear-negative specimens was 70.6%, which was significantly higher than that of the AdvanSure assay (52.9%, p=0.018). Usng phenotypic drug susceptibility testing as the reference method, sensitivity and specificity for detecting rifampicin resistance were 100% and 99.1%, respectively. Moreover, a median turnaround time of the Xpert assay was 1 day, which was significantly shorter than 3 days of the AdvanSure assay (p<0.001).ConclusionIn comparison with the AdvanSure assay, the Xpert assay had a higher sensitivity using smear-negative specimens, a shorter turnaround time, and could reliably predict rifampin resistance. Therefore, the Xpert assay might be preferentially recommended over TB-PCR in Korean TB diagnostic algorithm.
| S-EPMC8743642 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8078545 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6794118 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study investigated the diagnostic performance of endobronchial ultrasound with Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) for detecting smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (TB).Methods143 patients suspected of sputum smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis were enrolled in this study in Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, China. These patients underwent endobronchial ultrasound with a guide sheath (EBUS-GS) or endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) based on their chest CT manifestations. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of tissue specimens with Ultra in the TB group and non-TB group. Culture and clinical diagnosis were used as gold-standard for TB.ResultsAmong these 143 patients, 11 patients were culture-positive TB, 85 patients were diagnosed with culture-negative TB and 47 were with the non-TB diseases. Direct testing with microscopy (Acid-Fast Bacilli smear, AFB), liquid culture, pathology, Xpert MTB/RIF(Xpert) test and Ultra had a sensitivity of 8.3%, 11.5%, 42.7%, 64.6%, and 78.1% individually among all the TB patients. Ultra had a higher sensitivity than Xpert (P = 0.011). But Ultra had a specificity of 59.6% (95% CI 44.3-73.3), lower than that of Xpert (89.4%, 95% CI 76.1-96.0, P = 0.001). Ultra had the same sensitivity on specimens from EBUS-TBNA and EBUS-GS (P = 0.975). Ultra's positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 79.8% and 57.1% respectively.ConclusionsTissue specimens from interventional bronchoscopy combined with Ultra provide a sensitive method for diagnosing smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis, but its specificity was lower than Xpert.
| S-EPMC9945607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Xpert® MTB/RIF (Xpert) has high sensitivity for diagnosing tuberculosis (TB) compared to sputum-smear microscopy (smear) and can reduce time-to-diagnosis, time-to-treatment and potentially unfavorable patient-level treatment outcome. METHODS:People living with HIV (PLHIV) initiating antiretroviral therapy at 22 HIV clinics were enrolled and underwent systematic screening for TB (August 2012-November 2014). GeneXpert instruments were deployed following a stepped-wedge design at 13 centers from October 2012-June 2013. Treatment outcomes classified as an unfavorable outcome (died, treatment failure or loss-to-follow-up) or favorable outcome (cured and treatment completed). To determine outcome, smear was performed at month 5 or 6. Empiric treatment was defined as initiating treatment without/before receiving TB-positive results. Adjusting for intra-facility correlation, we compared patient-level treatment outcomes between patients screened using smear (smear arm)- and Xpert-based algorithms (Xpert arm). RESULTS:Among 6041 patients enrolled (smear arm, 1816; Xpert arm, 4225), 256 (199 per 2985 and 57 per 1582 person-years of follow-up in Xpert and smear arms, respectively; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 9.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.70-17.48; p?<?0.001) received TB diagnosis and were treated. TB treatment outcomes were available for 203 patients (79.3%; Xpert, 157; smear, 46). Unfavorable outcomes were reported for 21.7% (10/46) in the smear and 13.4% (21/157) in Xpert arm (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI: 0.75-2.26; p?=?0.268). Compared to smear, in Xpert arm median days from sputum collection to TB treatment was 6?days (interquartile range [IQR] 2-17 versus 22?days [IQR] 3-51), p?=?0.005; patients with available sputum test result had microbiologically confirmed TB in 59.0% (102/173) versus 41.9% (18/43), adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], 2.00, 95% CI: 1.01-3.96, p?=?0.048). In smear arm empiric treatment was 68.4% (39/57) versus 48.7% (97/199), aOR, 2.28, 95% CI: 1.24-4.20, p?=?0.011), compared to Xpert arm. CONCLUSIONS:TB treatment outcomes were similar between the smear and Xpert arms. However, compared to the smear arm, more patients in the Xpert arm received a TB diagnosis, had a microbiologically confirmed TB, and had a shorter time-to-treatment, and had a lower empiric treatment. Further research is recommended to identify potential gaps in the Botswana health system and similar settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02538952. Retrospectively registered on 2 September 2015.
| S-EPMC6915885 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical tuberculosis diagnosis and empiric treatment have traditionally been common among patients with negative bacteriologic test results. Increasing availability of rapid molecular diagnostic tests, including Xpert MTB/RIF and the new Xpert Ultra cartridge, may alter the role of empiric treatment.MethodsWe prospectively enrolled outpatients age > = 15 who were evaluated for pulmonary tuberculosis at three health facilities in Kampala, Uganda. Using sputum mycobacterial culture, interviews, and clinical record abstraction, we estimated the accuracy of clinical diagnosis relative to Xpert and sputum culture and assessed the contribution of clinical diagnosis to case detection.ResultsOver a period of 9 months, 99 patients were diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis and subsequently completed sputum culture; they were matched to 196 patients receiving negative tuberculosis evaluations in the same facilities. Xpert was included in the evaluation of 291 (99%) patients. Compared to culture, Xpert had a sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval 83-97%) and specificity of 95% (92-98%). Twenty patients with negative Xpert were clinically diagnosed with tuberculosis and subsequently had their culture status determined; two (10%) were culture-positive. Considering all treated patients regardless of Xpert and culture data completeness, and considering treatment initiations before a positive Xpert (N = 4) to be empiric, 26/101 (26%) tuberculosis treatment courses were started empirically. Compared to sputum smear- or Xpert-positive patients with positive cultures, empirically-treated, Xpert-negative patients with negative cultures had higher prevalence of HIV (67% versus 37%), shorter duration of cough (median 4 versus 8 weeks), and lower inflammatory markers (median CRP 7 versus 101 mg/L).ConclusionJudged against sputum culture in a routine care setting of high HIV prevalence, the accuracy of Xpert was high. Clinical judgment identified a small number of additional culture-positive cases, but with poor specificity. Although clinicians should continue to prescribe tuberculosis treatment for Xpert-negative patients whose clinical presentations strongly suggest pulmonary tuberculosis, they should also carefully consider alternative diagnoses.
| S-EPMC6655770 | biostudies-literature