Dataset Information

Accuracy and incremental yield of urine Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra versus Determine TB-LAM for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Andama A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6906254 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy and incremental yield of urine Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra versus Determine TB-LAM for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Andama A A Jaganath D D Crowder R R Asege L L Nakaye M M Katumba D D Mwebe S S Semitala F F Worodria W W Joloba M M Mohanty S S Somoskovi A A Cattamanchi A A

Diagnostic microbiology and infectious disease 20190904 1

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 5 ...[more]

PMID: 31727376

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.

Project description:BackgroundClinical interpretation of trace results by Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Ultra) used as an initial diagnostic test for tuberculosis (TB) may be challenging. The aim of the study was to evaluate the frequency and epidemiology of trace readouts in routine clinical practice in a low TB prevalence setting and to propose guidance on how to manage patients with trace calls considering the data available (clinical, radiological, bacteriological etc.).Materials and methodsA retrospective, observational, monocentric study was conducted at IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria of Bologna, Italy between November 2017-December 2020. Presumptive TB patients with at least one Ultra trace result during diagnostic workup before treatment were included in the study. Patients with ongoing anti-TB treatment at the time of the trace call result or with no clinical data available were excluded from the study.ResultsFifty-nine presumptive TB patients with Ultra trace readouts were included in the study (mean age 37.0 years, 61% males). Four patients had a history of TB in the last 2 years. Twenty-five (42.4%) of the 59 samples with trace results were respiratory material. 57/59 (96.6%) patients started anti-TB treatment soon after obtaining trace results, based on clinical, radiological or other information available, while for two patients with a recent history of TB the trace result did not lead to anti-TB treatment. Culture was positive for M. tuberculosis for 31/59 (52.5%) samples with trace calls: 13/25 (52.0%) were respiratory samples and 18/33 (54.5%) non-respiratory samples. The clinical and/or radiological findings of 47/57 (82.4%) patients given anti-TB therapy improved during treatment.ConclusionIn low TB incidence settings, Ultra trace calls in presumptive TB patients should be considered as true-positive and treatment should be started promptly, except in cases of recent history of TB, where careful evaluation of other diagnostic criteria is necessary before starting anti-TB treatment. A decisional algorithm for clinical management is proposed.

Dataset Information

Accuracy and incremental yield of urine Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra versus Determine TB-LAM for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Publications

Accuracy and incremental yield of urine Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra versus Determine TB-LAM for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets