Utility of Xpert Ultra on Different Respiratory Specimens in Children.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Jain S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7258649 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7258642 | 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
Project description:Merkel cell polyomavirus (MCPyV) DNA was detected in 7 (1.3%) of 526 respiratory tract samples from patients in Australia with upper or lower respiratory tract symptoms. Partial T antigen and major capsid protein sequences of MCPyV identified in respiratory secretions showed high homology (99%-100%) to those found in Merkel cell carcinoma.
| S-EPMC2681122 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8078545 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC6113491 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe WHO currently recommends stool testing using GeneXpert MTB/Rif (Xpert) for the diagnosis of paediatric tuberculosis (TB). The simple one-step (SOS) stool method enables processing for Xpert testing at the primary healthcare (PHC) level. We modelled the impact and cost-effectiveness of implementing the SOS stool method at PHC for the diagnosis of paediatric TB in Ethiopia and Indonesia, compared with the standard of care.SettingAll children (age <15 years) presenting with presumptive TB at primary healthcare or hospital level in Ethiopia and Indonesia.Primary outcomeCost-effectiveness estimated as incremental costs compared with incremental disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) saved.MethodsDecision tree modelling was used to represent pathways of patient care and referral. We based model parameters on ongoing studies and surveillance, systematic literature review, and expert opinion. We estimated costs using data available publicly and obtained through in-country expert consultations. Health outcomes were based on modelled mortality and discounted life-years lost.ResultsThe intervention increased the sensitivity of TB diagnosis by 19-25% in both countries leading to a 14-20% relative reduction in mortality. Under the intervention, fewer children seeking care at PHC were referred (or self-referred) to higher levels of care; the number of children initiating anti-TB treatment (ATT) increased by 18-25%; and more children (85%) initiated ATT at PHC level. Costs increased under the intervention compared with a base case using smear microscopy in the standard of care resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of US$132 and US$94 per DALY averted in Ethiopia and Indonesia, respectively. At a cost-effectiveness threshold of 0.5×gross domestic product per capita, the projected probability of the intervention being cost-effective in Ethiopia and Indonesia was 87% and 96%, respectively. The intervention remained cost-effective under sensitivity analyses.ConclusionsThe addition of the SOS stool method to national algorithms for diagnosing TB in children is likely to be cost-effective in both Ethiopia and Indonesia.
| S-EPMC9252203 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The determinants of Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity, a widely used PCR test for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) are poorly understood. We compared culture time-to-positivity (TTP; a surrogate of bacterial load), MTB/RIF TB-specific and internal positive control (IPC)-specific C(T) values, and clinical characteristics in patients with suspected TB who provided expectorated (n = 438) or induced sputum (n = 128), tracheal aspirates (n = 71), bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (n = 152), pleural fluid (n = 76), cerebral spinal fluid (CSF; n = 152), pericardial fluid (n = 131), or urine (n = 173) specimens. Median bacterial load (TTP in days) was the strongest associate of MTB/RIF positivity in each fluid. TTP correlated with C(T) values in pulmonary specimens but not extrapulmonary specimens (Spearman's coefficient 0.5043 versus 0.1437; p = 0.030). Inhibition affected a greater proportion of pulmonary specimens than extrapulmonary specimens (IPC C(T) > 34: 6% (47/731) versus 1% (4/381; p < 0.0001). Pulmonary specimens had greater load than extrapulmonary specimens [TTPs (interquartile range) of 11 (7-16) versus 22 (18-33.5) days; p < 0.0001]. HIV-infection was associated with a decreased likelihood of MTB/RIF-positivity in pulmonary specimens but an increased likelihood in extrapulmonary specimens. Mycobacterial load, which displays significant variation across different body compartments, is the main determinant of MTB/RIF-positivity rather than PCR inhibition. MTB/RIF C(T) is a poor surrogate of load in extrapulmonary specimens.
| S-EPMC5375978 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The global Covid-19 pandemic has limited access to molecular TB diagnostics and National Programmes are struggling to maintain essential services. The pooling method (testing several samples together) could reduce the number of cartridges and staff time needed for TB diagnosis but has not been tested within the pandemic. We conducted two independent cross-sectional surveys. Pools composed of four sputum samples were tested using either Xpert-MTB/RIF or Xpert-Ultra. Pooled and individual results were compared to determine the level of agreement. Each survey included 840 participants and 210 pools. In the Xpert MTB/RIF survey, 77/81 (sensitivity 95.1%, 95%CI 87.8%-98.6%) pools containing ≥1 positive sample tested MTB-positive and 4/81 (4.9%, 95%CI 1.4%-12.2%) tested MTB-negative. All 129/129 pools containing MTB-negative samples tested MTB-negative (specificity 100%, 95%CI 97.2%-100%), with 98.1% agreement (Kappa: 0.959). In the Xpert-Ultra survey, 70/70 (sensitivity 100%, 95%CI 94.9%-100%) pools containing ≥ 1 MTB-positive sample tested MTB-positive and 140/140 (specificity 100%, 95%CI 97.4%-100%) pools containing only MTB-negative samples tested MTB-negative, with 100% agreement (Kappa: 1). Pooled testing with Xpert-MTB/RIF and Xpert-Ultra saved 38.3% and 41.7% (322/840 and 350/840, respectively) in cartridge costs alone. The pooling method with Xpert-MTB/RIF and Xpert-Ultra has similar performance to individual testing and can reduce the number of cartridges needed. These efficiencies can facilitate maintenance of stocks and sustain essential services as countries face difficulties for laboratory procurement during the pandemic and will provide cost and time savings post-pandemic.
| S-EPMC10022270 | 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: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