SummaryBackgroundThe Xpert MTB/RIF assay is an automated molecular test that has improved the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance, but its sensitivity is inadequate in patients with paucibacillary disease or HIV. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) was developed to overcome this limitation. We compared the diagnostic performance of Xpert Ultra with that of Xpert for detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance.MethodsIn this prospective, multicentre, diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited adults with pulmonary tuberculosis symptoms presenting at primary health-care centres and hospitals in eight countries (South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, India, China, Georgia, Belarus, and Brazil). Participants were allocated to the case detection group if no drugs had been taken for tuberculosis in the past 6 months or to the multidrug-resistance risk group if drugs for tuberculosis had been taken in the past 6 months, but drug resistance was suspected. Demographic information, medical history, chest imaging results, and HIV test results were recorded at enrolment, and each participant gave at least three sputum specimen on 2 separate days. Xpert and Xpert Ultra diagnostic performance in the same sputum specimen was compared with culture tests and drug susceptibility testing as reference standards. The primary objectives were to estimate and compare the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra test with that of Xpert for detection of smear-negative tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance and to estimate and compare Xpert Ultra and Xpert specificities for detection of rifampicin resistance. Study participants in the case detection group were included in all analyses, whereas participants in the multidrug-resistance risk group were only included in analyses of rifampicin-resistance detection.FindingsBetween Feb 18, and Dec 24, 2016, we enrolled 2368 participants for sputum sampling. 248 participants were excluded from the analysis, and 1753 participants were distributed to the case detection group (n=1439) and the multidrug-resistance risk group (n=314). Sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert were 63% and 46%, respectively, for the 137 participants with smear-negative and culture-positive sputum (difference of 17%, 95% CI 10 to 24); 90% and 77%, respectively, for the 115 HIV-positive participants with culture-positive sputum (13%, 6·4 to 21); and 88% and 83%, respectively, across all 462 participants with culture-positive sputum (5·4%, 3·3 to 8·0). Specificities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for case detection were 96% and 98% (−2·7%, −3·9 to −1·7) overall, and 93% and 98% for patients with a history of tuberculosis. Xpert Ultra and Xpert performed similarly in detecting rifampicin resistance.InterpretationFor tuberculosis case detection, sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was superior to that of Xpert in patients with paucibacillary disease and in patients with HIV. However, this increase in sensitivity came at the expense of a decrease in specificity.FundingGovernment of Netherlands, Government of Australia, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundati...

The Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is a rapid test for tuberculosis (TB) and rifampin resistance (RIF-R) suitable for point-of-care testing. However, it has decreased sensitivity in smear-negative sputum, and false identification of RIF-R occasionally occurs. We developed the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Ultra) to improve performance. Ultra and Xpert limits of detection (LOD), dynamic ranges, and RIF-R rpoB mutation detection were tested on Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA or sputum samples spiked with known numbers of M. tuberculosis H37Rv or Mycobacterium bovis BCG CFU. Frozen and prospectively collected clinical samples from patients suspected of having TB, with and without culture-confirmed TB, were also tested. For M. tuberculosis H37Rv, the LOD was 15.6 CFU/ml of sputum for Ultra versus 112.6 CFU/ml of sputum for Xpert, and for M. bovis BCG, it was 143.4 CFU/ml of sputum for Ultra versus 344 CFU/ml of sputum for Xpert. Ultra resulted in no false-positive RIF-R specimens, while Xpert resulted in two false-positive RIF-R specimens. All RIF-R-associated M. tuberculosis rpoB mutations tested were identified by Ultra. Testing on clinical sputum samples, Ultra versus Xpert, resulted in an overall sensitivity of 87.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.1, 91.7) versus 81.0% (95% CI, 74.9, 86.2) and a sensitivity on sputum smear-negative samples of 78.9% (95% CI, 70.0, 86.1) versus 66.1% (95% CI, 56.4, 74.9). Both tests had a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI, 93.0, 100), and both had comparable accuracies for detection of RIF-R in these samples. Ultra should significantly improve TB detection, especially in patients with paucibacillary disease, and may provide more-reliable RIF-R detection.

BackgroundThe WHO has recommended the implementation of rapid diagnostic tests to detect and help combat M/XDR tuberculosis (TB). There are limited data on the performance and impact of these tests in field settings.MethodsThe performance of the commercially available Genotype MTBDRplus molecular assay was compared to conventional methods including AFB smear, culture and drug susceptibility testing (DST) using both an absolute concentration method on Löwenstein-Jensen media and broth-based method using the MGIT 960 system. Sputum specimens were obtained from TB suspects in the country of Georgia who received care through the National TB Program.ResultsAmong 500 AFB smear-positive sputum specimens, 458 (91.6%) had both a positive sputum culture for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and a valid MTBDRplus assay result. The MTBDRplus assay detected isoniazid (INH) resistance directly from the sputum specimen in 159 (89.8%) of 177 specimens and MDR-TB in 109 (95.6%) of 114 specimens compared to conventional methods. There was high agreement between the MTBDRplus assay and conventional DST results in detecting MDR-TB (kappa = 0.95, p<0.01). The most prevalent INH resistance mutation was S315T (78%) in the katG codon and the most common rifampicin resistance mutation was S531L (68%) in the rpoB codon. Among 13 specimens from TB suspects with negative sputum cultures, 7 had a positive MTBDRplus assay (3 with MDR-TB). The time to detection of MDR-TB was significantly less using the MTBDRplus assay (4.2 days) compared to the use of standard phenotypic tests (67.3 days with solid media and 21.6 days with broth-based media).ConclusionsCompared to conventional methods, the MTBDRplus assay had high accuracy and significantly reduced time to detection of MDR-TB in an area with high MDR-TB prevalence. The use of rapid molecular diagnostic tests for TB and drug resistance should increase the proportion of patients promptly placed on appropriate therapy.

No abstract

No abstract