Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in urine by Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra: A useful adjunctive diagnostic tool in HIV-associated tuberculosis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Atherton RR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6170999 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8078545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Tuberculosis is the leading infectious cause of death globally and extra-pulmonary disease occurs in 15% of incident cases annually. Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is arguably the most lethal form of tuberculosis and requires prompt diagnosis and initiation of treatment to prevent death and serious neurological disability. The development of rapid diagnostic tests using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) technology for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB), including the World Health Organization (WHO) - endorsed Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay, has allowed earlier definite diagnosis of TBM than conventional culture methods which usually take two weeks or longer for positive identification of MTB. Detection of MTB in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) using PCR assays requires special attention to the collection, handling, and processing of CSF. Herein we present best practices guidance to maximize the detection rate of MTB in CSF using Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra.
| S-EPMC6830139 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6168783 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The performance of urine Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for pulmonary TB diagnosis is unknown. HIV-positive and HIV-negative adults were enrolled at two health facilities in Kampala, Uganda. We compared the accuracy of urine Xpert Ultra and Determine TB-LAM in reference to sputum-based testing (positive Xpert MTB/RIF or culture), and assessed incremental yield. Urine Xpert Ultra had low sensitivity (17.2%, 95% CI 12.3-23.2) but high specificity (98.1%, 95% CI 94.4-99.6). Sensitivity reached 50.0% (95% CI 28.2-71.8) among HIV-positive patients with CD4 <100 cells/?L. Compared to Determine TB-LAM, urine Xpert Ultra was 9.4% (95% CI 3.8-14.9, P?=?0.01) more sensitive, and 17.2% (95% CI 4.5-29.8, P?=?0.01) more sensitive among HIV-positive patients. However, the incremental sensitivity of urine Xpert Ultra relative to sputum Xpert MTB/RIF was only 1% (95% CI -0.9 to 2.8). Urine Xpert Ultra could be an alternative for patients with advanced HIV infection unable to produce sputum.
| S-EPMC6906254 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) has improved the sensitivity to detect pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in adults. However, there have been limited prospective evaluations of its diagnostic accuracy in children.MethodsWe enrolled children undergoing assessment for pulmonary TB in Kampala, Uganda, over a 12-month period. Children received a complete TB evaluation and were classified as Confirmed, Unconfirmed, or Unlikely TB. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert Ultra among children with Confirmed vs Unlikely TB. We also determined the diagnostic accuracy with clinical, microbiological, and extended microbiological reference standards (MRSs).ResultsOf the 213 children included, 23 (10.8%) had Confirmed TB, 88 (41.3%) had Unconfirmed TB, and 102 (47.9%) had Unlikely TB. The median age was 3.9 years, 13% were HIV-positive, and 61.5% were underweight. Xpert Ultra sensitivity was 69.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 47.1-86.8) among children with Confirmed TB and decreased to 23.4% (95% CI: 15.9-32.4) with the clinical reference standard. Specificity was 100% (95% CI: 96.4-100) among children with Unlikely TB and decreased to 94.7% (95% CI: 90.5-97.4) with a MRS. Sensitivity was 52.9% (95% CI: 35.1-70.2) and specificity 95.5% (95% CI: 91.4-98.1) with the extended MRS. Of the 26 positive Xpert Ultra results, 6 (23.1%) were "Trace-positive," with most (5/6) occurring in children with Unconfirmed TB.ConclusionsXpert Ultra is a useful tool for diagnosing pulmonary TB in children, but there remains a need for more sensitive tests to detect culture-negative TB.
| S-EPMC8163061 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) remains a challenging diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to assess the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Cepheid, USA) for rapid diagnosis of EPTB in Tunisia. Eight hundred and forty-seven extrapulmonary samples collected from 2017 to 2021, were subjected to Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra. Microscopy and culture were performed for all the specimens. The accuracy of Xpert Ultra was evaluated in comparison to the culture. Xpert Ultra diagnosed EPTB with a global sensitivity of 80.66% (74.3-85.75) and specificity of 70.87% (67.31-74.20). The molecular test was most accurate when performed in cerebrospinal fluids, bones and joints and cutaneous specimens showing a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity ranging from 70.60 to 91.11%. In lymph node samples comprising aspirates and biopsies, the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was high 87.50% (77.23-93.53), however, the specificity was 51.08% (44.67-57.46). For pleural samples, the Xpert Ultra sensitivity was 77.50% (68.34-84.68) ranging from 71.43 to 80% in pleural biopsies and fluids respectively. The specificity in all pleural specimens was 79.56% (74.40-83.91). Xpert Ultra showed promise in the diagnosis of EPTB. The performances varied according to the site of the disease. The test may be more valuable if used in combination with other diagnostic modalities.
| S-EPMC10817909 | 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:More sensitive tests are needed for the diagnosis of smear-negative and HIV-associated tuberculosis. This study compares the sensitivities and specificities of three molecular tests, namely, the Xpert MTB/RIF test, the Xpert Ultra (Ultra), and RealTime MTB (RT-MTB), in a high HIV prevalence setting. Symptomatic adults were recruited from three outpatient sites, and each provided 4 sputum specimens. The diagnostic performance of Xpert MTB/RIF, Ultra, and RT-MTB was evaluated, with culture as a reference standard. HIV infection occurred in 62% of patients, with a median CD4 count of 220 cells/µl. The Ultra test had the highest sensitivity of 89.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.1 to 96) compared to those of the Xpert MTB/RIF at 82.1% (95% CI, 69.6 to 91.1; P?=?0.12) and RT-MTB at 78.6% (95% CI, 65.6 to 88.4; P?=?0.68). The specificity was highest with the Xpert MTB/RIF at 100% (95% CI, 98 to 100), followed by RealTime MTB at 96.7% (95% CI, 92.9 to 98.8; P?=?0.03) and the Ultra at 95.6% (95% CI, 91.5 to 98.1; P?=?0.08). In patients with smear-negative disease, the Ultra was more sensitive than the Xpert MTB/RIF (64.7% [95% CI, 38.3 to 85.8] versus 41.2% [95% CI, 18.4 to 67.1], respectively; P?=?0.12), and RT-MTB performed equally to Xpert MTB/RIF. In a comparison of the Ultra and RT-MTB on the same sputum specimen pellets, the Ultra was more sensitive than RT-MTB in the overall cohort (88.9% [95% CI, 77.4 to 95.8] versus 77.8% [95% CI, 64.4 to 88], respectively; P?=?0.03) and among people with HIV (87.5% [95% CI, 71 to 96.5] versus 68.6% [95% CI, 50 to 83.9], respectively; P?=?0.03). Although these results did not reach statistical significance, they suggest that the Ultra is more sensitive than the Xpert MTB/RIF and RT-MTB, most prominently in smear-negative disease. This was accompanied by a loss of specificity.
| S-EPMC6258835 | 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: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