Limited value of whole blood Xpert(®) MTB/RIF for diagnosing tuberculosis in children

Performance of stool-based Xpert MTB/RIF assay in the diagnosis of presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis in adults unable to expectorate sputum

This study aimed to compare the performance of stool-based Xpert MTB/RIF(Xpert) assay (Cepheid, USA) against that of smear, culture, and Xpert using respiratory tract specimens (RTS) and stool samples in the diagnosis of adult pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). This prospective study of patients with presumptive PTB was conducted at the Beijing Chest Hospital from January 2021 to December 2021. The smear test by fluorescence microscope, MGIT 960 liquid culture, and Xpert MTB/RIF assay was performed simultaneously on the RTS and stool samples. Patients were grouped based on the RTS examination results and clinical diagnosis. A total of 434 eligible patients were enrolled. Among these, 351 patients were diagnosed as PTB, while 83 patients were diagnosed as non-TB patients. Using RTS as standard sample, the sensitivity of smear on stool, culture on stool, Xpert on stool, and Xpert on RTS was 13.39% (47/351), 22.22% (78/351), 45.30% (159/351), and 66.10% (232/351), respectively. Furthermore, the specificity of Xpert on RTS and stool was 100% (83/83) for both specimens. Among the 48 patients with PTB confirmed by bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) examination, 16 had stool specimens with positive Xpert results. Similarly, among 200 patients diagnosed through sputum examination, 133 had positive Xpert results on stool specimens. Thus, Xpert on stool specimens may be a promising and practical strategy to improve PTB diagnosis, particularly among patients unable to expectorate sputum.IMPORTANCEThis study aimed to assess the value of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) for diagnosing PTB using stool samples from adults in low HIV prevalence settings. Although the diagnostic yield of Xpert on stool samples is inferior to that of Xpert on RTS, stool-based Xpert may be useful in diagnosing patients with presumptive PTB who cannot expectorate sputum and do not opt for BALF collection.

Current updates in diagnosis of male urogenital tuberculosis

Introduction: Urogenital tuberculosis (UGTB) is a common manifestation of extrapulmonary TB (EPTB), which affects both men and women in a ratio of 2:1. Similar to other EPTB types, diagnosis of UGTB is quite challenging owing to atypical clinical presentation and paucibacillary nature of specimens. This review is primarily focused on the current updates developed in the diagnosis of male UGTB.Area covered: Smear/culture, imaging, histopathology, and interferon-γ release assays are the main modalities employed for detecting male UGTB cases. Moreover, we described the utility of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs), including loop-mediated isothermal amplification, PCR, nested-PCR, and GeneXpert (MTB/RIF) assays. The possibility of using other novel modalities, such as immuno-PCR (I-PCR), aptamer-linked immobilized sorbent assay (ALISA), and identification of circulating cell-free DNA (cfDNA) by NAATs were also discussed.Expert opinion: The current methods used for the diagnosis of male UGTB are not adequate. Therefore, the latest molecular/immunological tools, i.e. Xpert Ultra, Truenat MTB^TM, I-PCR, ALISA, and cfDNA detection employed for the diagnosis of other EPTB forms and pulmonary TB may also be exploited for UGTB diagnosis. Reliable and timely diagnosis of male UGTB may initiate an early start of anti-tubercular therapy that would reduce infertility and other complications associated with disease.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults

BACKGROUND

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum. To extend our previous review on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (Kohli 2018), we performed this update to inform updated WHO policy (WHO Consolidated Guidelines (Module 3) 2020).

OBJECTIVES

To estimate diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, 2 August 2019 and 28 January 2020 (Xpert Ultra studies), without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional and cohort studies using non-respiratory specimens. Forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: tuberculous meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, disseminated tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture and a study-defined composite reference standard (tuberculosis detection); phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays (rifampicin resistance detection).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. For tuberculosis detection, we performed separate analyses by specimen type and reference standard using the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We applied a latent class meta-analysis model to three forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

69 studies: 67 evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and 11 evaluated Xpert Ultra, of which nine evaluated both tests. Most studies were conducted in China, India, South Africa, and Uganda. Overall, risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains, and low (49%) or unclear (43%) for the reference standard domain. Applicability for the patient selection domain was unclear for most studies because we were unsure of the clinical settings. Cerebrospinal fluid Xpert Ultra (6 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 89.4% (79.1 to 95.6) (89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 91.2% (83.2 to 95.7) (386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 168 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 79 (47%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives) and 832 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 11 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). Xpert MTB/RIF (30 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 71.1% (62.8 to 79.1) (571 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 96.9% (95.4 to 98.0) (2824 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 99 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 28 (28%) would not have tuberculosis; and 901 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Pleural fluid Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 75.0% (58.0 to 86.4) (158 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 87.0% (63.1 to 97.9) (240 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 192 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 117 (61%) would not have tuberculosis; and 808 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (25 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 49.5% (39.8 to 59.9) (644 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.9% (97.6 to 99.7) (2421 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 60 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 10 (17%) would not have tuberculosis; and 940 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 50 (5%) would have tuberculosis. Lymph node aspirate Xpert Ultra (1 study) Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) against composite reference standard were 70% (51 to 85) (30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 100% (92 to 100) (43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 70 would be Xpert Ultra-positive and 0 (0%) would not have tuberculosis; 930 would be Xpert Ultra-negative and 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against composite reference standard were 81.6% (61.9 to 93.3) (377 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 96.4% (91.3 to 98.6) (302 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 118 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 37 (31%) would not have tuberculosis; 882 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis. In lymph node aspirate, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity against culture was 86.2% (78.0 to 92.3), lower than that against a composite reference standard. Using the latent class model, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity was 99.5% (99.1 to 99.7), similar to that observed with a composite reference standard. Rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95.1 to 100.0), (24 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 100.0% (99.0 to 100.0) (105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 100 would be Xpert Ultra-positive (resistant): of these, zero (0%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 900 would be Xpert Ultra-negative (susceptible): of these, zero (0%) would have rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF (19 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 96.5% (91.9 to 98.8) (148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 99.1% (98.0 to 99.7) (822 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 105 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive (resistant): of these, 8 (8%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 895 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative (susceptible): of these, 3 (0.3%) would have rifampicin resistance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF may be helpful in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens: while for most specimens specificity is high, the tests rarely yield a positive result for people without tuberculosis. For tuberculous meningitis, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF against culture. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance. Future research should acknowledge the concern associated with culture as a reference standard in paucibacillary specimens and consider ways to address this limitation.

Use of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra in extrapulmonary tuberculosis

INTRODUCTION

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major global health burden. There still remains a large gap between the notified and estimated incident cases. Extrapulmonary (EP) TB represents 15% of all TB cases and the diagnosis is more challenging due to the paucity of the organism. Smear microscopy is often insensitive and culture methods are prolonged. With the introduction of Xpert MTB/RIF and more recently Xpert Ultra, this has changed TB diagnostics by providing a rapid accessible platform to diagnose TB and identify rifampicin resistance within 2 h.

AREAS COVERED

The diagnostic accuracy and the clinical role of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra in the different forms of EPTB.

EXPERT OPINION

Whilst significant advances have been made in TB diagnostics, there is still a need to optimize the diagnostic yield of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra in EPTB samples. Research is needed to facilitate standardization and optimal preparation of samples as well as understanding the role of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra in different burden settings. Alongside the current GeneXpert platform, the launch of rapid second-line drug resistance polymerase chain reactions and whole genome sequencing may help tackle the global health burden with a more comprehensive diagnostic approach and appropriate treatment.

Sensitive electrochemiluminescence (ECL) immunoassays for detecting lipoarabinomannan (LAM) and ESAT-6 in urine and serum from tuberculosis patients

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) infection was responsible for an estimated 1.3 million deaths in 2017. Better diagnostic tools are urgently needed. We sought to determine whether accurate TB antigen detection in blood or urine has the potential to meet the WHO target product profiles for detection of active TB.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed Electrochemiluminescence (ECL) immunoassays for Lipoarabinomannan (LAM) and ESAT-6 detection with detection limits in the pg/ml range and used them to compare the concentrations of the two antigens in the urine and serum of 81 HIV-negative and -positive individuals with presumptive TB enrolled across diverse geographic sites.

RESULTS

LAM and ESAT-6 overall sensitivities in urine were 93% and 65% respectively. LAM and ESAT-6 overall sensitivities in serum were 55% and 46% respectively. Overall specificity was ≥97% in all assays. Sensitivities were higher in HIV-positive compared to HIV-negative patients for both antigens and both sample types, with signals roughly 10-fold higher on average in urine than in serum. The two antigens showed similar concentration ranges within the same sample type and correlated.

CONCLUSIONS

LAM and ESAT-6 can be detected in the urine and serum of TB patients, regardless of the HIV status and further gains in clinical sensitivity may be achievable through assay and reagent optimization. Accuracy in urine was higher with current methods and has the potential to meet the WHO accuracy target if the findings can be transferred to a point-of-care TB test.

Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) is the world's leading infectious cause of death. Extrapulmonary TB accounts for 15% of TB cases, but the proportion is increasing, and over half a million people were newly diagnosed with rifampicin-resistant TB in 2016. Xpert^® MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended, rapid, automated, nucleic acid amplification assay that is used widely for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum specimens. This Cochrane Review assessed the accuracy of Xpert in extrapulmonary specimens.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert a) for extrapulmonary TB by site of disease in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB; and b) for rifampicin resistance in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry, and ProQuest up to 7 August 2017 without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of Xpert in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. We included TB meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, and disseminated TB. We used culture as the reference standard. For pleural TB, we also included a composite reference standard, which defined a positive result as the presence of granulomatous inflammation or a positive culture result. For rifampicin resistance, we used culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus as the reference standard.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. We determined pooled predicted sensitivity and specificity for TB, grouped by type of extrapulmonary specimen, and for rifampicin resistance. For TB detection, we used a bivariate random-effects model. Recognizing that use of culture may lead to misclassification of cases of extrapulmonary TB as 'not TB' owing to the paucibacillary nature of the disease, we adjusted accuracy estimates by applying a latent class meta-analysis model. For rifampicin resistance detection, we performed univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected. We used theoretical populations with an assumed prevalence to provide illustrative numbers of patients with false positive and false negative results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 unique studies that evaluated 16,213 specimens for detection of extrapulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance. We identified only one study that evaluated the newest test version, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), for TB meningitis. Fifty studies (76%) took place in low- or middle-income countries. Risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains and was high or unclear for the reference standard domain (most of these studies decontaminated sterile specimens before culture inoculation). Regarding applicability, in the patient selection domain, we scored high or unclear concern for most studies because either patients were evaluated exclusively as inpatients at tertiary care centres, or we were not sure about the clinical settings.Pooled Xpert sensitivity (defined by culture) varied across different types of specimens (31% in pleural tissue to 97% in bone or joint fluid); Xpert sensitivity was > 80% in urine and bone or joint fluid and tissue. Pooled Xpert specificity (defined by culture) varied less than sensitivity (82% in bone or joint tissue to 99% in pleural fluid and urine). Xpert specificity was ≥ 98% in cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, urine, and peritoneal fluid.Xpert testing in cerebrospinal fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval (CrI)) against culture were 71.1% (60.9% to 80.4%) and 98.0% (97.0% to 98.8%), respectively (29 studies, 3774 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have TB meningitis on culture, 89 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 18 (20%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 911 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have TB (false-negatives).For TB meningitis, ultra sensitivity and specificity against culture (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 90% (55% to 100%) and 90% (83% to 95%), respectively (one study, 129 participants).Xpert testing in pleural fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 50.9% (39.7% to 62.8%) and 99.2% (98.2% to 99.7%), respectively (27 studies, 4006 specimens; low-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 150 have pleural TB on culture, 83 would be Xpert-positive: of these, seven (8%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 917 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 74 (8%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing in urineXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 82.7% (69.6% to 91.1%) and 98.7% (94.8% to 99.7%), respectively (13 studies, 1199 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 70 have genitourinary TB on culture, 70 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 12 (17%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 930 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 12 (1%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing for rifampicin resistanceXpert pooled sensitivity (20 studies, 148 specimens) and specificity (39 studies, 1088 specimens) were 95.0% (89.7% to 97.9%) and 98.7% (97.8% to 99.4%), respectively (high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 120 have rifampicin-resistant TB, 125 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 11 (9%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); and 875 would be negative for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 6 (1%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).For lymph node TB, the accuracy of culture, the reference standard used, presented a greater concern for bias than in other forms of extrapulmonary TB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB, Xpert may be helpful in confirming the diagnosis. Xpert sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens, while for most specimens, specificity is high, the test rarely yielding a positive result for people without TB (defined by culture). Xpert is accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. For people with presumed TB meningitis, treatment should be based on clinical judgement, and not withheld solely on an Xpert result, as is common practice when culture results are negative.