153
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance: a prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study

      research-article
      , Prof, MD a , , , PhD b , , , Prof, MD c , , MD b , , MHS a , , MHS a , , MPH d , , PhD c , , MD e , , MD f , , PhD f , , Prof, MBBCh g , , PhD g , , MD h , , MTech-Biotech h , , Prof, PhD i , , PhD j , , Prof, PhD k , l , , BSc k , l , , BSN m , , BS m , , Prof, MD n , , PhD n , , MD o , , MD o , , MD p , , PhD p , , MD q , , Prof, MD q , , MD b , , Prof, MD d , , MD b , * , study team
      The Lancet. Infectious Diseases
      Elsevier Science ;, The Lancet Pub. Group

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          The 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.

          Methods

          In 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.

          Findings

          Between 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.

          Interpretation

          For 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.

          Funding

          Government of Netherlands, Government of Australia, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Government of the UK, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Robust Locally Weighted Regression and Smoothing Scatterplots

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Do high rates of empirical treatment undermine the potential effect of new diagnostic tests for tuberculosis in high-burden settings?

            In tuberculosis-endemic settings, patients are often treated empirically, meaning that they are placed on treatment based on clinical symptoms or tests that do not provide a microbiological diagnosis (eg, chest radiography). New tests for tuberculosis, such as the Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), are being implemented at substantial cost. To inform policy and rationally drive implementation, data are needed for how these tests affect morbidity, mortality, transmission, and population-level tuberculosis burden. If people diagnosed by use of new diagnostics would have received empirical treatment a few days later anyway, then the incremental benefit might be small. Will new diagnostics substantially improve outcomes and disease burden, or simply displace empirical treatment? Will the extent and accuracy of empirical treatment change with the introduction of a new test? In this Personal View, we review emerging data for how empirical treatment is frequently same-day, and might still be the predominant form of treatment in high-burden settings, even after Xpert implementation; and how Xpert might displace so-called true-positive, rather than false-positive, empirical treatment. We suggest types of studies needed to accurately assess the effect of new tuberculosis tests and the role of empirical treatment in real-world settings. Until such questions can be addressed, and empirical treatment is appropriately characterised, we postulate that the estimated population-level effect of new tests such as Xpert might be substantially overestimated. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Xpert MTB/RIF Results in Patients With Previous Tuberculosis: Can We Distinguish True From False Positive Results?

              Patients with previous tuberculosis may have residual DNA in sputum that confounds nucleic acid amplification tests such as Xpert MTB/RIF. Little is known about the frequency of Xpert-positive, culture-negative ("false positive") results in retreatment patients, whether these are distinguishable from true positives, and whether Xpert's automated filter-based wash step reduces false positivity by removing residual DNA associated with nonintact cells.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet Infect Dis
                Lancet Infect Dis
                The Lancet. Infectious Diseases
                Elsevier Science ;, The Lancet Pub. Group
                1473-3099
                1474-4457
                1 January 2018
                January 2018
                : 18
                : 1
                : 76-84
                Affiliations
                [a ]Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
                [b ]FIND, Geneva, Switzerland
                [c ]Division of Infectious Diseases, Rutgers-New Jersey Medical School, Newark, NJ, USA
                [d ]Boston Medical Center and Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA
                [e ]IRCCS San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy
                [f ]National Center for Tuberculosis and Lung Diseases, Tbilisi, Georgia
                [g ]Department of Molecular Medicine and Haematology, Faculty of Health Science, School of Pathology and the National Priority Program of the National Health Laboratory Service, Johannesburg, South Africa
                [h ]PD Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre, Mumbai, India
                [i ]Mycobacteriology Laboratory, Department of Microbiology, School of Biomedical Sciences, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
                [j ]Infectious Disease Institute, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda
                [k ]Division of Medical Microbiology and Institute for Infectious Diseases and Molecular Medicine, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa
                [l ]National Health Laboratory Service, Groote Schuur Hospital, Cape Town, South Africa
                [m ]Kenya Medical Research Institute, Center for Global Health Research, Kisumu, Kenya
                [n ]Universidade Federal do Espirito Santo, Vitoria, Brazil
                [o ]National Reference Laboratory, Republican Scientific and Practical Centre for Pulmonology and Tuberculosis, Minsk, Belarus
                [p ]State TB Training & Demonstration Centre, New Delhi, India
                [q ]Henan Provincial Chest Hospital, Zhengzhou, Henan Province, China
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Claudia M Denkinger, FIND, 1202 Geneva, Switzerland claudia.denkinger@ 123456finddx.org
                [*]

                Contributed equally

                [†]

                Listed at the end of this paper

                Article
                S1473-3099(17)30691-6
                10.1016/S1473-3099(17)30691-6
                6168783
                29198911
                0a85d16d-1029-429e-86c3-08c9a8fda9db
                © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Infectious disease & Microbiology
                Infectious disease & Microbiology

                Comments

                Comment on this article