Dataset Information

Correlation of Xpert MTB/RIF with measures to assess Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacillary burden in high HIV burden areas of Southern Africa.

ABSTRACT: Traditionally, smear microscopy has been used as a point-of-care measure of bacillary burden in tuberculosis patients to inform infection control and contact tracing. Xpert MTB/RIF has the potential to replace smear. However, data to support the use of its quantitative output [cycle threshold (CT)] as an alternate point-of-care measure of bacillary burden are limited. This study assessed the correlation (Spearman's) between CT, smear, culture time-to-positivity (TTP), and clinical factors in patients with Xpert-positive sputum from Mozambique (n?=?238) and South Africa (n?=?462). Mean CT and smear grade correlated well (?0.72); compared to TTP and smear (?0.61); and mean CT and TTP (?0.50). In multivariate analyses, lower CT (higher bacillary load) was associated with negative HIV serostatus and low BMI. A smear positivity rule-out (95% sensitivity) CT cut-off of 28.0 was identified, with 54.1% specificity, 2.07 positive likelihood ratio, 0.09 negative likelihood ratio and 79.0% correctly classified. Cut-offs were higher for HIV positive compared to HIV negative individuals for any set sensitivity level. This study suggests Xpert CT values correlate well with smear, both in HIV positive and negative individuals, and that CT cut-offs might be broadly applicable to multiple settings. Studies to directly assess the association of CT with infectiousness are needed.

SUBMITTER: Beynon F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5980110 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Correlation of Xpert MTB/RIF with measures to assess Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacillary burden in high HIV burden areas of Southern Africa.

Beynon Fenella F Theron Grant G Respeito Durval D Mambuque Edson E Saavedra Belen B Bulo Helder H Sanz Sergi S Dheda Keertan K Garcia-Basteiro Alberto L AL

Scientific reports 20180326 1

Traditionally, smear microscopy has been used as a point-of-care measure of bacillary burden in tuberculosis patients to inform infection control and contact tracing. Xpert MTB/RIF has the potential to replace smear. However, data to support the use of its quantitative output [cycle threshold (C<sub>T</sub>)] as an alternate point-of-care measure of bacillary burden are limited. This study assessed the correlation (Spearman's) between C<sub>T</sub>, smear, culture time-to-positivity (TTP), and c ...[more]

PMID: 29581435

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: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.

Project description:BackgroundXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a promising new rapid diagnostic technology for tuberculosis (TB) that has characteristics that suggest large-scale roll-out. However, because the test is expensive, there are concerns among TB program managers and policy makers regarding its affordability for low- and middle-income settings.Methods and findingsWe estimate the impact of the introduction of Xpert on the costs and cost-effectiveness of TB care using decision analytic modelling, comparing the introduction of Xpert to a base case of smear microscopy and clinical diagnosis in India, South Africa, and Uganda. The introduction of Xpert increases TB case finding in all three settings; from 72%-85% to 95%-99% of the cohort of individuals with suspected TB, compared to the base case. Diagnostic costs (including the costs of testing all individuals with suspected TB) also increase: from US$28-US$49 to US$133-US$146 and US$137-US$151 per TB case detected when Xpert is used "in addition to" and "as a replacement of" smear microscopy, respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for using Xpert "in addition to" smear microscopy, compared to the base case, range from US$41-$110 per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Likewise the ICERS for using Xpert "as a replacement of" smear microscopy range from US$52-$138 per DALY averted. These ICERs are below the World Health Organization (WHO) willingness to pay threshold.ConclusionsOur results suggest that Xpert is a cost-effective method of TB diagnosis, compared to a base case of smear microscopy and clinical diagnosis of smear-negative TB in low- and middle-income settings where, with its ability to substantially increase case finding, it has important potential for improving TB diagnosis and control. The extent of cost-effectiveness gain to TB programmes from deploying Xpert is primarily dependent on current TB diagnostic practices. Further work is required during scale-up to validate these findings.

Dataset Information

Correlation of Xpert MTB/RIF with measures to assess Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacillary burden in high HIV burden areas of Southern Africa.

Publications

Correlation of Xpert MTB/RIF with measures to assess Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacillary burden in high HIV burden areas of Southern Africa.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure