Dataset Information

A Comparative Evaluation of the New Genexpert MTB/RIF Ultra and other Rapid Diagnostic Assays for Detecting Tuberculosis in Pulmonary and Extra Pulmonary Specimens.

ABSTRACT: Studies evaluating the new GeneXpert Ultra with other rapid diagnostic assays are limited, particularly in different geographical settings. The performance of the GeneXpert Ultra, the GeneXpert G4, the Line probe assays (LPA) and auramine smear microscopy in detecting TB in pulmonary and extra-pulmonary samples were thus evaluated. Remnants (n?=?205 samples) of pulmonary (n?=?125 samples) and extra-pulmonary (n?=?80 samples) specimens from TB suspects were prospectively collected. Each sample was divided for diagnosis using microscopy, GeneXpert MTB/RIF assays, and LPA; these were all comparatively evaluated, using the MGIT 960 culture as a gold standard. The sensitivity and specificity of microscopy, Xpert Ultra, Xpert G4 and MTBDRplus (ver 2) in pulmonary samples were respectively: 82.00% and 90.28%; 88.00% and 58.57%; 79.59% and 90.28%; 80.00% and 11.11%. For extra-pulmonary specimen, the sensitivity and specificity were respectively: 53.85% and 98.51%; 69.23% and 49.25%; 50.00% and 97.01%; 69.23% and 25.37%. The new and improved GeneXpert Ultra assay was more sensitive than GeneXpert G4 and LPA in both pulmonary and extra pulmonary samples, albeit with lower specificity than the GeneXpert G4. The auramine and LPA tests were also highly sensitive, although the LPA was less specific.

SUBMITTER: Osei Sekyere J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6851384 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Comparative Evaluation of the New Genexpert MTB/RIF Ultra and other Rapid Diagnostic Assays for Detecting Tuberculosis in Pulmonary and Extra Pulmonary Specimens.

Osei Sekyere John J Maphalala Nontobeko N Malinga Lesibana A LA Mbelle Nontombi M NM Maningi Nontuthuko E NE

Scientific reports 20191112 1

Studies evaluating the new GeneXpert Ultra with other rapid diagnostic assays are limited, particularly in different geographical settings. The performance of the GeneXpert Ultra, the GeneXpert G4, the Line probe assays (LPA) and auramine smear microscopy in detecting TB in pulmonary and extra-pulmonary samples were thus evaluated. Remnants (n = 205 samples) of pulmonary (n = 125 samples) and extra-pulmonary (n = 80 samples) specimens from TB suspects were prospectively collected. Each sample wa ...[more]

PMID: 31719625

Similar Datasets

Project description:India has been engaged in tuberculosis (TB) control activities for over 50 years and yet TB continues to remain India's important public health problem. The present study was conducted to compare the performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF (GXpert) assay with composite reference standard in diagnosing cases of tubercular pleural effusion (TPE) and to evaluate the reliability of rifampicin resistance. A cross-sectional study was performed in a Department of Medicine of a rural teaching tertiary care hospital in central India. In all consecutive patients with pleural effusion on chest radiograph presenting to Department of Medicine, GXpert assay and composite reference standard was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of GXpert assay for detecting TPE in comparison to composite reference standard. Standard formulae were used to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), positive likelihood ratios (LR+) and negative likelihood ratios (LR-). Mc-Nemar's test was applied to compare variables. All comparisons were two-tailed. We considered the difference to be statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05. The sensitivity of the GXpert assay in diagnosing TPE was 16.6% among 158 study participants, the specificity was 100% and diagnostic accuracy was 52.5% which was statistically significant (p value < 0.05). It had a PPV of 100% (95%CI: 88.3% - 100%) and a NPV of 47.5% (95%CI: 39.3% - 55.7%). The LR+ and LR-were 23.5 (95%CI: 1.43-38.6) and 0.83 (95%CI: 0.76-0.91) respectively. GXpert assay has a very high specificity in diagnosing TPE but has a low sensitivity. In comparison to composite reference standard Thus its clinical utility is limited when used as a standalone test. A physician's clinical acumen in combination with routine pleural fluid analysis should be the key factor in the diagnosis of TPE in clinically and radiologically suspected patients, especially in high TB burden countries.

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:BackgroundIntroduction of GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assay has constituted a major breakthrough for tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics. Several patient factors may influence diagnostic performance of Xpert including sputum quality.ObjectiveWe carried out a prospective, observational, cross-sectional study to determine the effect of sputum quality on diagnostic performance of Xpert among presumed TB patients in Uganda.MethodsWe collected clinical and demographic information and two sputum samples from participants. Staff recorded sputum quality and performed LED fluorescence microscopy and mycobacterial culture on each sample. If both smear examinations were negative, Xpert testing was performed. We calculated diagnostic yield, sensitivity, specificity, and other indicators for Xpert for each stratum of sputum quality in reference to a standard of mycobacterial culture.ResultsPatients with salivary sputum showed a trend towards a substantially higher proportion of samples that were Xpert-positive (54/286, 19%, 95% CI 15-24) compared with those with all other sputum sample types (221/1496, 15%, 95% CI 13-17). Blood-stained sputum produced the lowest sensitivity (28%; 95% CI 12-49) and salivary sputum the highest (66%; 95% CI 53-77). Specificity didn't vary meaningfully by sample types. Salivary sputum was significantly more sensitive than mucoid sputum (+13%, 95% CI +1 to +26), while blood-stained sputum was significantly less sensitive (-24%, 95% CI -42 to -5).ConclusionsOur findings demonstrate the need to exercise caution in collecting sputum for Xpert and in interpreting results because sputum quality may impact test yield and sensitivity. In particular, it may be wise to pursue additional testing should blood-stained sputum test negative while salivary sputum should be readily accepted for Xpert testing given its higher sensitivity and potentially higher yield than other sample types. These findings challenge conventional recommendations against collecting salivary sputum for TB diagnosis and could inform new standards for sputum quality.

Project description:BackgroundMeningitis caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. We evaluated the performance of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing with the GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay versus traditional approaches for diagnosing tuberculosis meningitis (TBM).MethodsPatients were adults (n = 37) presenting with suspected TBM to the Hospital Nacional Dos de Mayo, Lima, Peru, during 12 months until 1st January 2015. Each participant had a single CSF specimen that was divided into aliquots that were concurrently tested for M. tuberculosis using GeneXpert, Ziehl-Neelsen smear and culture on solid and liquid media. Drug susceptibility testing used Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT 960) and the proportions method.Results81% (30/37) of patients received a final clinical diagnosis of TBM, of whom 63% (19/30, 95% confidence intervals, CI: 44-80%) were HIV-positive. 22% (8/37, 95%CI: 9.8-38%), of patients had definite TBM. Because definite TBM was defined by positivity in any laboratory test, all laboratory tests had 100% specificity. Considering the 30 patients who had a clinical diagnosis of TBM: diagnostic sensitivity was 23% (7/30, 95%CI: 9.9-42%) for GeneXpert and was the same for all culture results combined; considerably greater than 7% (2/30, 95%CI: 0.82-22%) for microscopy; whereas all laboratory tests had poor negative predictive values (20-23%). Considering only the 8 patients with definite TBM: diagnostic sensitivity was 88% (7/8, 95%CI: 47-100%) for GeneXpert; 75% (6/8, 95%CI: 35-97%) for MGIT culture or LJ culture; 50% (4/8, 95%CI 16-84) for Ogawa culture and 25% (2/8, 95%CI: 3.2-65%) for microscopy. GeneXpert and microscopy provided same-day results, whereas culture took 20-56 days. GeneXpert provided same-day rifampicin-susceptibility results, whereas culture-based testing took 32-71 days. 38% (3/8, 95%CI: 8.5-76%) of patients with definite TBM with data had evidence of drug-resistant TB, but 73% (22/30) of all clinically diagnosed TBM (definite, probable, and possible TBM) had no drug-susceptibility results available.ConclusionsCompared with traditional culture-based methods of CSF testing, GeneXpert had similar yield and faster results for both the detection of M. tuberculosis and drug-susceptibility testing. Including use of the GeneXpert has the capacity to improve the diagnosis of TBM cases.

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.

Dataset Information

A Comparative Evaluation of the New Genexpert MTB/RIF Ultra and other Rapid Diagnostic Assays for Detecting Tuberculosis in Pulmonary and Extra Pulmonary Specimens.

Publications

A Comparative Evaluation of the New Genexpert MTB/RIF Ultra and other Rapid Diagnostic Assays for Detecting Tuberculosis in Pulmonary and Extra Pulmonary Specimens.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure