Dataset Information

Comparative evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF and the new Xpert MTB/RIF ultra with respiratory and extra-pulmonary specimens for tuberculosis case detection in a low incidence setting.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Piersimoni C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6830143 | biostudies-literature | 2019 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF and the new Xpert MTB/RIF ultra with respiratory and extra-pulmonary specimens for tuberculosis case detection in a low incidence setting.

Piersimoni Claudio C Gherardi Giancarlo G Gracciotti Natascia N Pocognoli Antonella A

Journal of clinical tuberculosis and other mycobacterial diseases 20190312

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>A re ...[more]

PMID: 31720421

Similar Datasets

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 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.

Dataset Information

Comparative evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF and the new Xpert MTB/RIF ultra with respiratory and extra-pulmonary specimens for tuberculosis case detection in a low incidence setting.

Publications

Comparative evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF and the new Xpert MTB/RIF ultra with respiratory and extra-pulmonary specimens for tuberculosis case detection in a low incidence setting.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure