Impact of the diagnostic test Xpert MTB/RIF on patient outcomes for tuberculosis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Haraka F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8208889 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8078545 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC9241712 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RationaleThe clinical impact of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis in high HIV-prevalence settings is unknown.ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy and impact of Xpert MTB/RIF among high-risk TB suspects.MethodsWE PROSPECTIVELY ENROLLED CONSECUTIVE, HOSPITALIZED, UGANDAN TB SUSPECTS IN TWO PHASES: baseline phase in which Xpert MTB/RIF results were not reported to clinicians and an implementation phase in which results were reported. We determined the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF in reference to culture (solid and liquid) and compared patient outcomes by study phase.Results477 patients were included (baseline phase 287, implementation phase 190). Xpert MTB/RIF had high sensitivity (187/237, 79%, 95% CI: 73-84%) and specificity (190/199, 96%, 95% CI: 92-98%) for culture-positive TB overall, but sensitivity was lower (34/81, 42%, 95% CI: 31-54%) among smear-negative TB cases. Xpert MTB/RIF reduced median days-to-TB detection for all TB cases (1 [IQR 0-26] vs. 0 [IQR 0-1], p<0.001), and for smear-negative TB (35 [IQR 22-55] vs. 22 [IQR 0-33], p=0.001). However, median days-to-TB treatment was similar for all TB cases (1 [IQR 0-5] vs. 0 [IQR 0-2], p=0.06) and for smear-negative TB (7 [IQR 3-53] vs. 6 [IQR 1-61], p=0.78). Two-month mortality was also similar between study phases among 252 TB cases (17% vs. 14%, difference +3%, 95% CI: -21% to +27%, p=0.80), and among 87 smear-negative TB cases (28% vs. 22%, difference +6%, 95% CI: -34 to +46%, p=0.77).ConclusionsXpert MTB/RIF facilitated more accurate and earlier TB diagnosis, leading to a higher proportion of TB suspects with a confirmed TB diagnosis prior to hospital discharge in a high HIV/low MDR TB prevalence setting. However, our study did not detect a decrease in two-month mortality following implementation of Xpert MTB/RIF possibly because of insufficient powering, differences in empiric TB treatment rates, and disease severity between study phases.
| S-EPMC3490868 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundXpert MTB/RIF ("Xpert") is a molecular test for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) in sputum. Performance characteristics have been established for its use during passive tuberculosis (TB) case detection in symptomatic TB suspects, but Xpert performance has not been assessed in other settings. Objectives were to determine Xpert performance and costs in the context of a TB prevalence survey.Methodology/principal findingsThis was a diagnostic sub-study of a TB prevalence survey conducted in gold mining companies in South Africa. Sputa (one per participant) were tested using smear microscopy, liquid culture (reference comparator), and Xpert. Costs were collected using an ingredients approach and analyzed using a public health program perspective. 6893 participants provided a sputum specimen. 187/6893 (2.7%) were positive for MTB in culture, 144/6893 (2.1%) were positive for MTB by Xpert, and 91/6893 (1.3%) were positive for acid fast bacilli by microsocopy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for detection of MTB by Xpert were 62.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 55.2, 69.5), 99.6% (99.4, 99.7), 81.3% (73.9, 87.3), and 98.9 (98.6, 98.8); agreement between Xpert and culture was 98.5% (98.2, 98.8). Sensitivity of microscopy was 17.6% (12.5, 23.9). When individuals with a history of TB treatment were excluded from the analysis, Xpert specificity was 99.8 (99.7, 99.9) and PPV was 90.6 (83.3, 95.4) for detection of MTB. For the testing scenario of 7000 specimens with 2.7% of specimens culture positive for MTB, costs were $165,690 for Xpert and $115,360 for the package of microscopy plus culture.ConclusionIn the context of a TB prevalence survey, the Xpert diagnostic yield was substantially higher than that of microscopy yet lower than that of liquid culture. Xpert may be useful as a sole test for TB case detection in prevalence surveys, particularly in settings lacking capacity for liquid culture.
| S-EPMC3419700 | 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:Introduction: Xpert MTB/RIF is a rapid diagnostic instrument for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). However, studies reported varied accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF in detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pericardial effusion. Methods: We performed a systematic review of literature in PubMed, published up to February 1, 2020, according to PRISMA guidelines. We screened cross-sectional studies, observational cohort studies, and randomized control trials that evaluated the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF in diagnosing TB pericarditis. Papers with noninterpretable results of sensitivity and specificity, non-English articles, and unpublished studies were excluded. The primary outcomes were the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF. We conducted a quality assessment using QUADAS-2 to evaluate the quality of the studies. A bivariate model pooled the overall sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratios (PLRs), and negative likelihood ratios (NLRs) of included studies. Results: In total, 581 subjects from nine studies were analyzed in this meta-analysis. Our pooled analysis showed that the overall sensitivity, specificity, PLRs and NLRs of included studies were 0.676 (95% CI: 0.580-0.759), 0.994 (95% CI: 0.919-1.000), 110.11 (95% CI: 7.65-1584.57) and 0.326 (95% CI: 0.246-0.433), respectively. Conclusions: Xpert MTB/RIF had a robust specificity but unsatisfactory sensitivity in diagnosing TB pericarditis. These findings indicated that although positive Xpert MTB/RIF test results might be valuable in swiftly distinguishing the diagnosis of TB pericarditis, negative test results might not be able to rule out TB pericarditis. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020167480 28/04/2020.
| S-EPMC7417956 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of bone and joint tuberculosis. METHODS:We searched databases from their inception to May 7, 2019 for published articles and reviewed them to assess the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF with respect to a composite reference standard (CRS) and mycobacterial culture. Meta-analyses were performed using a bivariate random-effects model, and the sources of heterogeneity were assessed via subgroup analysis and meta-regression. RESULTS:Nineteen independent (9 prospective, 5 retrospective, and 5 case-control) studies that compared Xpert MTB/RIF with the CRS and 14 (6 prospective, 7 retrospective, and 1 case-control) studies that compared it with culture were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF were 81% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77-84) and 99% (95% CI, 97-100) compared to the CRS, respectively, and 96% (95% CI, 90-98) and 85% (95% CI, 57-96) compared to culture, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity using pus samples vs. the CRS were 82% (95% CI, 76-86) and 99% (95% CI, 95-100), respectively. The proportions obtained while working with tissue samples vs. the CRS were 84% (95% CI, 76-90) and 98% (95% CI, 94-99), respectively. There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy among the types of specimens. CONCLUSIONS:Xpert MTB/RIF demonstrates good diagnostic accuracy for bone and joint tuberculosis, the results of which are not related to the type of specimen.
| S-EPMC6705841 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study investigated the diagnostic performance of endobronchial ultrasound with Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) for detecting smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (TB).Methods143 patients suspected of sputum smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis were enrolled in this study in Shanghai Pulmonary Hospital, China. These patients underwent endobronchial ultrasound with a guide sheath (EBUS-GS) or endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) based on their chest CT manifestations. We assessed the sensitivity and specificity of tissue specimens with Ultra in the TB group and non-TB group. Culture and clinical diagnosis were used as gold-standard for TB.ResultsAmong these 143 patients, 11 patients were culture-positive TB, 85 patients were diagnosed with culture-negative TB and 47 were with the non-TB diseases. Direct testing with microscopy (Acid-Fast Bacilli smear, AFB), liquid culture, pathology, Xpert MTB/RIF(Xpert) test and Ultra had a sensitivity of 8.3%, 11.5%, 42.7%, 64.6%, and 78.1% individually among all the TB patients. Ultra had a higher sensitivity than Xpert (P = 0.011). But Ultra had a specificity of 59.6% (95% CI 44.3-73.3), lower than that of Xpert (89.4%, 95% CI 76.1-96.0, P = 0.001). Ultra had the same sensitivity on specimens from EBUS-TBNA and EBUS-GS (P = 0.975). Ultra's positive predictive value and negative predictive value were 79.8% and 57.1% respectively.ConclusionsTissue specimens from interventional bronchoscopy combined with Ultra provide a sensitive method for diagnosing smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis, but its specificity was lower than Xpert.
| S-EPMC9945607 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in patients with smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) and to assess clinical and CT characteristics of Xpert-negative pulmonary TB.Material and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of 1,400 patients with suspected pulmonary TB for whom the sputum Xpert MTB/RIF assay was performed between September 1, 2014 and February 28, 2020. Clinical and CT characteristics of smear-negative pulmonary TB patients with negative Xpert MTB/RIF results were compared with positive results.ResultsOf 1,400 patients, 365 (26.1%) were diagnosed with pulmonary TB and 190 of 365 patients (52.1%) were negative for sputum acid-fast bacilli. The diagnosis of pulmonary TB was based on a positive culture, positive Xpert MTB/RIF or the clinical diagnoses of patients treated with an anti-TB medication. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values of sputum Xpert MTB/RIF for smear-negative pulmonary TB were 41.1%, 100%, 100%, and 90.1%, respectively. Finally, 172 patients with smear-negative pulmonary TB who underwent chest CT within 2 weeks of diagnosis were included to compare Xpert-positive (n = 66) and Xpert- negative (n = 106) groups. Patients with sputum Xpert-negative TB showed lower positive rates for sputum culture (33.0% vs. 81.8%, p<0.001) and bronchoalveolar lavage culture (53.3% vs. 84.6%, p = 0.042) than in Xpert-positive TB. Time to start TB medication was longer in patients with Xpert-negative TB than in Xpert-positive TB (11.3±16.4 days vs. 5.0±8.7 days, p = 0.001). On chest CT, sputum Xpert-negative TB showed significantly lower frequency of consolidation (21.7% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.012), cavitation (23.6% vs. 37.9%, p = 0.045), more frequent peripheral location (50.9% vs. 21.2 p = 0.001) with lower area of involvement (4.3±4.3 vs. 7.6±6.4, p<0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed peripheral location (odds ratios, 2.565; 95% confidence interval: 1.157-5.687; p = 0.020) and higher total extent of the involved lobe (odds ratios, 0.928; 95% confidence interval: 0.865-0.995; p = 0.037) were significant factors associated with Xpert MTB/RIF-negative TB. Regardless of Xpert positivity, more than 80% of all cases were diagnosed of TB on chest CT by radiologists.ConclusionThe detection rate of sputum Xpert MTB/RIF assay was relatively low for smear negative pulmonary TB. Chest CT image interpretation may play an important role in early diagnosis and treatment of Xpert MTB/RIF-negative pulmonary TB.
| S-EPMC8092799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:GeneXpert MTB/RIF, a tool widely used for diagnosing tuberculosis, has limitations for detecting rifampin resistance in certain variants. We report transmission of a pre-extensively drug-resistant variant in Botswana that went undetected by GeneXpert. The public health impact of misdiagnosis emphasizes the need for comprehensive molecular testing to identify resistance and guide treatment.
| S-EPMC10617350 | biostudies-literature