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...

More sensitive tests are needed for the diagnosis of smear-negative and HIV-associated tuberculosis. This study compares the sensitivities and specificities of three molecular tests, namely, the Xpert MTB/RIF test, the Xpert Ultra (Ultra), and RealTime MTB (RT-MTB), in a high HIV prevalence setting. Symptomatic adults were recruited from three outpatient sites, and each provided 4 sputum specimens. The diagnostic performance of Xpert MTB/RIF, Ultra, and RT-MTB was evaluated, with culture as a reference standard. HIV infection occurred in 62% of patients, with a median CD4 count of 220 cells/l. The Ultra test had the highest sensitivity of 89.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 78.1 to 96) compared to those of the Xpert MTB/RIF at 82.1% (95% CI, 69.6 to 91.1; P ϭ 0.12) and RT-MTB at 78.6% (95% CI, 65.6 to 88.4; P ϭ 0.68). The specificity was highest with the Xpert MTB/RIF at 100% (95% CI, 98 to 100), followed by RealTime MTB at 96.7% (95% CI, 92.9 to 98.8; P ϭ 0.03) and the Ultra at 95.6% (95% CI, 91.5 to 98.1; P ϭ 0.08). In patients with smear-negative disease, the Ultra was more sensitive than the Xpert MTB/RIF (64.7% [95% CI, 38.3 to 85.8] versus 41.2% [95% CI, 18.4 to 67.1], respectively; P ϭ 0.12), and RT-MTB performed equally to Xpert MTB/RIF. In a comparison of the Ultra and RT-MTB on the same sputum specimen pellets, the Ultra was more sensitive than RT-MTB in the overall cohort (88.9% [95% CI, 77.4 to 95.8] versus 77.8% [95% CI, 64.4 to 88], respectively; P ϭ 0.03) and among people with HIV (87.5% [95% CI, 71 to 96.5] versus 68.6% [95% CI, 50 to 83.9], respectively; P ϭ 0.03). Although these results did not reach statistical significance, they suggest that the Ultra is more sensitive than the Xpert MTB/RIF and RT-MTB, most prominently in smear-negative disease. This was accompanied by a loss of specificity.

No abstract

South Africa is a country with a high incidence of tuberculosis (TB), complicated by coinfection with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is used in South Africa as the test for the initial diagnosis of TB, and other molecular platforms such as the m2000 (Abbott Molecular, Des Plaines, IL, USA) are widely used for molecular monitoring of HIV load. The latter platform is now also equipped with the RealTime (RT) MTB and RealTime MTB RIF/INH assays for TB and first-line drug resistance screening but has not been evaluated in settings of HIV and TB coinfection. A prospective clinical validation study was conducted at a community health center in Johannesburg, South Africa, and consenting individuals with presumptive pulmonary TB were enrolled. The performance of the Abbott assays was compared with those of the Xpert MTB/RIF, liquid culture, drug susceptibility testing, and clinical case definitions. A statistical analysis was performed on 206 individuals (73% were HIV positive). The sensitivity and specificity of the RT MTB were 82.5% (confidence interval [CI], 67.2 to 92.7) and 93.1% (CI, 86.2 to 97.2) on raw sputum and 77.5% (CI, 61.5 to 89.2) and 95.1% (CI, 88.9 to 98.4) on concentrated sputum, respectively, compared with those from liquid culture. The RT MTB correctly identified 17/35 more smear-negative culture-positive specimens than the Xpert MTB/RIF. Both the RT MTB and the Xpert MTB/RIF displayed sensitivities Ͼ70% and specificities Ͼ90% in HIV-positive individuals. The available drug resistance results concurred with MTBDRplus and drug susceptibility profiles. The RT MTB assay has similar diagnostic performance to the Xpert MTB/RIF and is suited to testing presumptive TB patients coinfected with HIV. The existing laboratory information system connectivity, training, and technical support make this a viable polyvalent option to scale up TB alongside HIV laboratory testing services in South Africa.