Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for tuberculous meningitis in HIV-infected adults: a prospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

WHO recommends Xpert MTB/RIF as initial diagnostic testing for tuberculous meningitis. However, diagnosis remains difficult, with Xpert sensitivity of about 50-70% and culture sensitivity of about 60%. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for tuberculous meningitis.

Methods

We prospectively obtained diagnostic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens during screening for a trial on the treatment of HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis in Mbarara, Uganda. HIV-infected adults with suspected meningitis (eg, headache, nuchal rigidity, altered mental status) were screened consecutively at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital. We centrifuged CSF, resuspended the pellet in 2 mL of CSF, and tested 0·5 mL with mycobacteria growth indicator tube culture, 1 mL with Xpert, and cryopreserved 0·5 mL, later tested with Xpert Ultra. We assessed diagnostic performance against uniform clinical case definition or a composite reference standard of any positive CSF tuberculous test.

Findings

From Feb 27, 2015, to Nov 7, 2016, we prospectively evaluated 129 HIV-infected adults with suspected meningitis for tuberculosis. 23 participants were classified as probable or definite tuberculous meningitis by uniform case definition, excluding Xpert Ultra results. Xpert Ultra sensitivity was 70% (95% CI 47-87; 16 of 23 cases) for probable or definite tuberculous meningitis compared with 43% (23-66; 10/23) for Xpert and 43% (23-66; 10/23) for culture. With composite standard, we detected tuberculous meningitis in 22 (17%) of 129 participants. Xpert Ultra had 95% sensitivity (95% CI 77-99; 21 of 22 cases) for tuberculous meningitis, which was higher than either Xpert (45% [24-68]; 10/22; p=0·0010) or culture (45% [24-68]; 10/22; p=0·0034). Of 21 participants positive by Xpert Ultra, 13 were positive by culture, Xpert, or both, and eight were only positive by Xpert Ultra. Of those eight, three were categorised as probable tuberculous meningitis, three as possible tuberculous meningitis, and two as not tuberculous meningitis. Testing 6 mL or more of CSF was associated with more frequent detection of tuberculosis than with less than 6 mL (26% vs 7%; p=0·014).

Interpretation

Xpert Ultra detected significantly more tuberculous meningitis than did either Xpert or culture. WHO now recommends the use of Xpert Ultra as the initial diagnostic test for suspected tuberculous meningitis.

Funding

National Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Stroke, Fogarty International Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, UK Medical Research Council/DfID/Wellcome Trust Global Health Trials, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.

SUBMITTER: Bahr NC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5739874 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundTuberculous meningitis (TBM) is difficult to diagnose promptly. The utility of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for the diagnosis of TBM remains unclear, and the effect of host- and sample-related factors on test performance is unknown. This study sought to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of TBM.Methods and findings235 South-African patients with a meningeal-like illness were categorised as having definite (culture or Amplicor PCR positive), probable (anti-TBM treatment initiated but microbiological confirmation lacking), or non-TBM. Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy was evaluated using 1 ml of uncentrifuged and, when available, 3 ml of centrifuged cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). To evaluate the incremental value of MTB/RIF over a clinically based diagnosis, test accuracy was compared to a clinical score (CS) derived using basic clinical and laboratory information. Of 204 evaluable patients (of whom 87% were HIV-infected), 59 had definite TBM, 64 probable TBM, and 81 non-TBM. Overall sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 62% (48%-75%) and 95% (87%-99%), respectively. The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF was significantly better than that of smear microscopy (62% versus 12%; p?=?0.001) and significantly better than that of the CS (62% versus 30%; p?=?0.001; C statistic 85% [79%-92%]). Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was higher when centrifuged versus uncentrifuged samples were used (82% [62%-94%] versus 47% [31%-61%]; p?=?0.004). The combination of CS and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert MTB/RIF performed if CS<8) performed as well as Xpert MTB/RIF alone but with a ?10% reduction in test usage. This overall pattern of results remained unchanged when the definite and probable TBM groups were combined. Xpert MTB/RIF was not useful in identifying TBM among HIV-uninfected individuals, although the sample was small. There was no evidence of PCR inhibition, and the limit of detection was ?80 colony forming units per millilitre. Study limitations included a predominantly HIV-infected cohort and the limited number of culture-positive CSF samples.ConclusionsXpert MTB/RIF may be a good rule-in test for the diagnosis of TBM in HIV-infected individuals from a tuberculosis-endemic setting, particularly when a centrifuged CSF pellet is used. Further studies are required to confirm these findings in different settings. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:IntroductionTuberculous meningitis accounts for 1-5% of tuberculosis cases. Diagnostic delay contributes to poor outcomes. We evaluated the performance of the new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for tuberculous meningitis diagnosis.MethodsIn this prospective validation study, we tested the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of adults presenting with suspected meningitis (ie, headache or altered mental status with clinical signs of meningism) to the Mulago National Referral Hospital and Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda. We centrifuged the CSF, resuspended the cell pellet in 2 mL CSF, and tested 0·5 mL aliquots with Xpert Ultra, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), and mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT) culture. We quantified diagnostic performance against the uniform case definition of probable or definite tuberculous meningitis and a composite microbiological reference standard.FindingsFrom Nov 25, 2016, to Jan 24, 2019, we screened 466 adults with suspected meningitis and tested 204 for tuberculous meningitis. Uniform clinical case definition classified 51 participants as having probable or definite tuberculous meningitis. Against this uniform case definition, Xpert Ultra had 76·5% sensitivity (95% CI 62·5-87·2; 39 of 51 patients) and a negative predictive value of 92·7% (87·6-96·2; 153 of 165), compared with 55·6% sensitivity (44·0-70·4; 25 of 45; p=0·0010) and a negative predictive value of 85·8% (78·9-91·1; 121 of 141) for Xpert and 61·4% sensitivity (45·5-75·6; 27 of 44; p=0·020) and negative predictive value of 85·2% (77·4-91·1; 98 of 115) for MGIT culture. Against the composite microbiological reference standard, Xpert Ultra had sensitivity of 92·9% (80·5-98·5; 39 of 42), higher than Xpert at 65·8% (48·6-80·4; 25 of 38; p=0·0063) and MGIT culture at 72·2% (55·9-86·2; 27 of 37; p=0·092). Xpert Ultra detected nine tuberculous meningitis cases missed by Xpert and MGIT culture.InterpretationXpert Ultra detected tuberculous meningitis with higher sensitivity than Xpert and MGIT culture in this HIV-positive population. However, with a negative predictive value of 93%, Xpert Ultra cannot be used as a rule-out test. Clinical judgment and novel highly sensitive point-of-care tests are still required.FundingWellcome Trust, National Institute of Health, National Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Stroke, Fogarty International Center, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Project description:BackgroundThe Xpert MTB/RIF assay is an automated molecular test that has improved the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance, but its sensitivity is inadequate in patients with paucibacillary disease or HIV. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) was developed to overcome this limitation. We compared the diagnostic performance of Xpert Ultra with that of Xpert for detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance.MethodsIn this prospective, multicentre, diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited adults with pulmonary tuberculosis symptoms presenting at primary health-care centres and hospitals in eight countries (South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, India, China, Georgia, Belarus, and Brazil). Participants were allocated to the case detection group if no drugs had been taken for tuberculosis in the past 6 months or to the multidrug-resistance risk group if drugs for tuberculosis had been taken in the past 6 months, but drug resistance was suspected. Demographic information, medical history, chest imaging results, and HIV test results were recorded at enrolment, and each participant gave at least three sputum specimen on 2 separate days. Xpert and Xpert Ultra diagnostic performance in the same sputum specimen was compared with culture tests and drug susceptibility testing as reference standards. The primary objectives were to estimate and compare the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra test with that of Xpert for detection of smear-negative tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance and to estimate and compare Xpert Ultra and Xpert specificities for detection of rifampicin resistance. Study participants in the case detection group were included in all analyses, whereas participants in the multidrug-resistance risk group were only included in analyses of rifampicin-resistance detection.FindingsBetween Feb 18, and Dec 24, 2016, we enrolled 2368 participants for sputum sampling. 248 participants were excluded from the analysis, and 1753 participants were distributed to the case detection group (n=1439) and the multidrug-resistance risk group (n=314). Sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert were 63% and 46%, respectively, for the 137 participants with smear-negative and culture-positive sputum (difference of 17%, 95% CI 10 to 24); 90% and 77%, respectively, for the 115 HIV-positive participants with culture-positive sputum (13%, 6·4 to 21); and 88% and 83%, respectively, across all 462 participants with culture-positive sputum (5·4%, 3·3 to 8·0). Specificities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for case detection were 96% and 98% (-2·7%, -3·9 to -1·7) overall, and 93% and 98% for patients with a history of tuberculosis. Xpert Ultra and Xpert performed similarly in detecting rifampicin resistance.InterpretationFor tuberculosis case detection, sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was superior to that of Xpert in patients with paucibacillary disease and in patients with HIV. However, this increase in sensitivity came at the expense of a decrease in specificity.FundingGovernment of Netherlands, Government of Australia, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Government of the UK, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.