Determinants of PCR performance (Xpert MTB/RIF), including bacterial load and inhibition, for TB diagnosis using specimens from different body compartments.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Theron G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5375978 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundIndia accounts for one-fifth of the global TB incidence. While the exact burden of childhood TB is not known, TB remains one of the leading causes of childhood mortality in India. Bacteriological confirmation of TB in children is challenging due to difficulty in obtaining quality specimens, in the absence of which diagnosis is largely based on clinical judgement. While testing multiple specimens can potentially contribute to higher proportion of laboratory confirmed paediatric TB cases, lack of high sensitivity tests adds to the diagnostic challenge. We describe here our experiences in piloting upfront Xpert MTB/RIF testing, for diagnosis of TB in paediatric population in respiratory and extra pulmonary specimens, as recently recommended by WHO.MethodXpert MTB/RIF testing was offered to all paediatric (0-14 years) presumptive TB cases (both pulmonary and extra-pulmonary) seeking care at public and private health facilities in the project areas covering 4 cities of India.ResultsUnder this pilot project, 8,370 paediatric presumptive TB & presumptive DR-TB cases were tested between April and-November 2014. Overall, 9,149 specimens were tested, of which 4,445 (48.6%) were non-sputum specimens. Xpert MTB/RIF gave 9,083 (99.2%, CI 99.0-99.4) valid results. Of the 8,143 presumptive TB cases enrolled, 517 (6.3%, CI 5.8-6.9) were bacteriologically confirmed. TB detection rates were two fold higher with Xpert MTB/RIF as compared to smear microscopy. Further, a total of 60 rifampicin resistant TB cases were detected, of which 38 were detected among 512 presumptive TB cases while 22 were detected amongst 227 presumptive DR-TB cases tested under the project.ConclusionXpert MTB/RIF with advantages of quick turnaround testing-time, high proportion of interpretable results and feasibility of rapid rollout, substantially improved the diagnosis of bacteriologically confirmed TB in children, while simultaneously detecting rifampicin resistance.
| S-EPMC4607299 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) compared with its predecessor, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), in the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) in a low TB incidence country. Retrospective analysis was performed on 689 clinical samples received between 2015 and 2018, on which Xpert was performed, and on 715 samples, received between 2018 and 2020, on which Ultra was performed. Samples were pulmonary (n = 830) and extrapulmonary (n = 574) in nature, and a total of 264 were culture positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC). The diagnostic performance of both assays was analyzed using culture as the reference standard. The sensitivity of Ultra for culture positive (smear positive and smear negative) MTBC samples, was 93.2% (110/118) compared with 82.2% (120/146) for Xpert (P = 0.0078). In smear negative-culture positive samples, Ultra had a sensitivity of 74.2% (23/31) versus 36.11% (13/36) for Xpert (P = 0.0018). Specificity of both assays was comparable at 94.8% (566/597) for Ultra and 95.8% (520/543) for Xpert (P = 0.4475). The sensitivity of Ultra and Xpert assays among exclusively pulmonary samples was 95.3% (82/86) and 90.3% (84/93), respectively (P = 0.1955), and 87.5% (28/32) and 67.9% (36/53), respectively, among extrapulmonary samples (P = 0.0426). Ultra showed improved performance compared with Xpert in a low TB incidence setting, particularly in smear negative and extrapulmonary MTBC disease. The specificity of Ultra was lower than Xpert, however, this was not statistically significant. IMPORTANCE The study demonstrates the improved sensitivity of the Ultra compared with the Xpert, particularly in smear negative TB disease, for both pulmonary and extrapulmonary samples in a low TB incidence setting. Cycle threshold (Ct) value for both assays was found to positively correlate with time to TB culture positivity, suggesting that Ct and semiquantitative results could be used as indicators of sample MTBC bacillary burden, and thus, perhaps, of transmission potential. This may have implications for the designation of patient isolation precautions.
| S-EPMC9241712 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8078545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background:The Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is an automated molecular test for the detection of tuberculosis and rifampin resistance (RIF-R), but it lacks sensitivity in smear-negative samples and some limitations in determination of RIF-R have also been reported. The new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) was developed to overcome these limitations. We aimed to compare Ultra and Xpert diagnostic accuracy setting culture and drug susceptibility testing as reference standards. Methods:A retrospective analysis was performed on 359 consecutive, respiratory (269) and extrapulmonary (90) specimens collected from 340 patients investigated for TB along a two-year period. Patients presenting at primary health-care centres and hospitals were recruited on the basis of symptoms and abnormal X-ray imaging. One-hundred seventy-four subjects were identified to have active tuberculosis by culture and 2 were MDR. Findings:Sensitivities of Ultra and Xpert were 87% and 75% for the 48 individuals with smear-negative and culture-positive respiratory TB (difference of 12%, 95% CI 3 to 21); 95% and 72% for the 40 individuals with smear-negative and culture-positive extrapulmonary disease (22%, 95% CI 10 to 34); and 95% and 86%, respectively, across all 174 individuals with culture-positive samples (8.5%, 95% CI 4.5 to 12.5). Specificities of Ultra and Xpert for tuberculosis case detection were 98% and 100% (-2.0%, 95% CI -4.3 to +0.3). Ultra and Xpert performed equal in detecting RIF-R. Interpretation:Sensitivity of Ultra was superior to that of Xpert in all categories of clinical samples. However, improved sensitivity was associated with a modest reduction in specificity.
| S-EPMC6830143 | 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
Project description:BACKGROUND:Diagnosis of TB in pediatric population poses several challenges. A novel initiative was implemented in several major cities of India aimed at providing upfront access to free-of-cost Xpert MTB/RIF to presumptive pediatric TB cases. This paper aims to describe the experience of implementing this large initiative and assess feasibility of the intervention in high TB burden settings. METHODS:Data were drawn from the pediatric TB project implemented in 10 major cities of India between April 2014 and March 2018. In each city, providers, both public and private, were engaged and linked with a high throughput Xpert MTB/RIF lab (established in that city) through rapid specimen transportation and electronic reporting system. Rates and proportions were estimated to describe the characteristics of this cohort. RESULTS:Of the total 94,415 presumptive pediatric TB cases tested in the project, 6,270 were diagnosed positive for MTB (6.6%) on Xpert MTB/RIF (vs 2% on smear microscopy). Among MTB positives, 545 cases were rifampicin resistant (8.7%). The median duration between collection of specimens and reporting of results was 0 days (same day) and >89% cases were initiated on treatment. Approximately 50% of the specimens tested were non-sputum. The number of providers/facilities engaged under the project increased >10-fold (from 124 in Q2'14 to 1416 in Q1'18). CONCLUSION:This project, which was one of the largest initiatives globally among pediatric population, demonstrated the feasibility of sustaining rapid and upfront access to free-of-cost Xpert MTB/RIF testing. The project underscores the efficiency of this rapid diagnostic assay in tackling several challenges in pediatric TB diagnosis, identifies opportunities for further interventions as well as brings to light scope for effective engagement with healthcare providers. The findings have facilitated a policy decision by National TB Programme mandating the use of Xpert MTB/RIF as a primary diagnostic tool for TB diagnosis in children, which is being scaled-up.
| S-EPMC7406076 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) might have higher sensitivity than its predecessor, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), but its role in tuberculous meningitis diagnosis is uncertain. We aimed to compare Xpert Ultra with Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected adults.MethodsIn this prospective, randomised, diagnostic accuracy study, adults (≥16 years) with suspected tuberculous meningitis from a single centre in Vietnam were randomly assigned to cerebrospinal fluid testing by either Xpert Ultra or Xpert at baseline and, if treated for tuberculous meningitis, after 3-4 weeks of treatment. Test performance (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values) was calculated for Xpert Ultra and Xpert and compared against clinical and mycobacterial culture reference standards. Analyses were done for all patients and by HIV status.FindingsBetween Oct 16, 2017, and Feb 10, 2019, 205 patients were randomly assigned to Xpert Ultra (n=103) or Xpert (n=102). The sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for tuberculous meningitis diagnosis against a reference standard of definite, probable, and possible tuberculous meningitis were 47·2% (95% CI 34·4-60·3; 25 of 53 patients) for Xpert Ultra and 39·6% (27·6-53·1; 21 of 53) for Xpert (p=0·56); specificities were 100·0% (95% CI 92·0-100·0; 44 of 44) and 100·0% (92·6-100·0; 48 of 48), respectively. In HIV-negative patients, the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was 38·9% (24·8-55·1; 14 of 36) versus 22·9% (12·1-39·0; eight of 35) by Xpert (p=0·23). In HIV co-infected patients, the sensitivities were 64·3% (38·8-83·7; nine of 14) for Xpert Ultra and 76·9% (49·7-91·8; ten of 13) for Xpert (p=0·77). Negative predictive values were 61·1% (49·6-71·5) for Xpert Ultra and 60·0% (49·0-70·0) for Xpert. Against a reference standard of mycobacterial culture, sensitivities were 90·9% (72·2-97·5; 20 of 22 patients) for Xpert Ultra and 81·8% (61·5-92·7; 18 of 22) for Xpert (p=0·66); specificities were 93·9% (85·4-97·6; 62 of 66) and 96·9% (89·5-91·2; 63 of 65), respectively. Six (22%) of 27 patients had a positive test by Xpert Ultra after 4 weeks of treatment versus two (9%) of 22 patients by Xpert.InterpretationXpert Ultra was not statistically superior to Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected adults. A negative Xpert Ultra or Xpert test does not rule out tuberculous meningitis. New diagnostic strategies are urgently required.FundingWellcome Trust and the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.
| S-EPMC7045088 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe compared diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) assays for diagnosing tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE), through systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.MethodsWe searched PubMed and Embase databases for publications reporting diagnostic accuracy of Xpert or Ultra for TPE. We used bivariate random-effects modeling to summarize diagnostic accuracy information from individual studies using either mycobacterial culture or composite criteria as reference standard. We performed meta-regression through hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) modeling to evaluate comparative performance of the two tests from studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of both in the same study population.ResultsWe retrieved 1097 publications, and included 74 for review. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity for Xpert were 0.52 (95% CI 0.43-0.60, I2 82.1%) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-0.99, I2 85.1%), respectively, using culture-based reference standard; and 0.21 (95% CI 0.17-0.26, I2 81.5%) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.99-1.00, I2 37.6%), respectively, using composite reference standard. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity for Ultra were 0.68 (95% CI 0.55-0.79, I2 80.0%) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.97-0.99, I2 92.1%), respectively, using culture-based reference standard; and 0.47 (95% CI 0.40-0.55, I2 64.1%) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-0.99, I2 54.8%), respectively, using composite reference standard. HSROC meta-regression yielded relative diagnostic odds ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 0.65-2.50) and 1.80 (95% CI 0.41-7.84) respectively in favor of Ultra, using culture and composite criteria as reference standard.ConclusionUltra provides superior diagnostic accuracy over Xpert for diagnosing TPE, mainly because of its higher sensitivity.
| S-EPMC9273090 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundClinical interpretation of trace results by Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Ultra) used as an initial diagnostic test for tuberculosis (TB) may be challenging. The aim of the study was to evaluate the frequency and epidemiology of trace readouts in routine clinical practice in a low TB prevalence setting and to propose guidance on how to manage patients with trace calls considering the data available (clinical, radiological, bacteriological etc.).Materials and methodsA retrospective, observational, monocentric study was conducted at IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, Italy between November 2017-December 2020. Presumptive TB patients with at least one Ultra trace result during diagnostic workup before treatment were included in the study. Patients with ongoing anti-TB treatment at the time of the trace call result or with no clinical data available were excluded from the study.ResultsFifty-nine presumptive TB patients with Ultra trace readouts were included in the study (mean age 37.0 years, 61% males). Four patients had a history of TB in the last 2 years. Twenty-five (42.4%) of the 59 samples with trace results were respiratory material. 57/59 (96.6%) patients started anti-TB treatment soon after obtaining trace results, based on clinical, radiological or other information available, while for two patients with a recent history of TB the trace result did not lead to anti-TB treatment. Culture was positive for M. tuberculosis for 31/59 (52.5%) samples with trace calls: 13/25 (52.0%) were respiratory samples and 18/33 (54.5%) non-respiratory samples. The clinical and/or radiological findings of 47/57 (82.4%) patients given anti-TB therapy improved during treatment.ConclusionIn low TB incidence settings, Ultra trace calls in presumptive TB patients should be considered as true-positive and treatment should be started promptly, except in cases of recent history of TB, where careful evaluation of other diagnostic criteria is necessary before starting anti-TB treatment. A decisional algorithm for clinical management is proposed.
| S-EPMC9374243 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:To eliminate preventable deaths, disease and suffering due to tuberculosis (TB), improved diagnostic capacity is critical. The Cepheid Xpert® MTB/RIF assay is recommended by the World Health Organization as the initial diagnostic test for people with suspected HIV-associated TB. However, despite high expectations, its scale-up in real-world settings has faced challenges, often due to the systems that support it. OPPORTUNITIES FOR SYSTEM STRENGTHENING:In this commentary we discuss needs and opportunities for systems strengthening to support widespread scale-up of Xpert® MTB/RIF as they relate to each step within the TB diagnostic cascade, from finding presumptive patients, to collecting, transporting and testing sputum specimens, to reporting and receiving results, to initiating and monitoring treatment and, ultimately, to ensuring successful and timely treatment and cure. Investments in evidence-based interventions at each step along the cascade and within the system as a whole will augment not only the utility of Xpert® MTB/RIF, but also the successful implementation of future diagnostic tests. CONCLUSION:Xpert® MTB/RIF will only improve patient outcomes if optimally implemented within the context of strong TB programs and systems. Roll-out of this technology to people living with HIV and others in resource-limited settings offers the opportunity to leverage current TB and HIV laboratory, diagnostic and programmatic investments, while also addressing challenges and strengthening coordination between laboratory systems, laboratory-program interfaces, and TB-HIV program interfaces. If successful, the benefits of this tool could extend beyond progress towards global End TB Strategy goals, to improve system-wide capacity for global disease detection and control.
| S-EPMC5523912 | biostudies-literature