Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra improved the diagnosis of paucibacillary tuberculosis: A prospective cohort study

Evaluation of Nanopore Sequencing for Diagnosing Pulmonary Tuberculosis Using Negative Smear Clinical Specimens

Purpose

This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of nanopore sequencing for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) using smear-negative clinical specimens.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study based on a review of patient medical records to assess the accuracy of nanopore sequencing as a diagnostic tool for smear-negative PTB. Compared with clinical diagnosis, we determined the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and area under the curve (AUC) of nanopore sequencing.

Results

A total of 647 patients were evaluated. Nanopore sequencing demonstrated an overall sensitivity of 91.7%, specificity of 85.3%, PPV of 95.1%, NPV of 76.4%, and AUC of 0.88. Notably, the overall diagnostic accuracy of nanopore sequencing was significantly higher than that of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) culture technique.

Conclusion

Nanopore sequencing exhibited satisfactory overall diagnostic accuracy for smear-negative PTB, regardless of MTB culture status. Therefore, if conditions permit, nanopore sequencing is recommended as a diagnostic method for smear-negative PTB.

Tuberculosis-targeted next-generation sequencing and machine learning: An ultrasensitive diagnostic strategy for paucibacillary pulmonary tuberculosis and tuberculous meningitis

BACKGROUND

Existing diagnostic approaches for paucibacillary tuberculosis (TB) are limited by the low sensitivity of testing methods and difficulty in obtaining suitable samples.

METHODS

An ultrasensitive TB diagnostic strategy was established, integrating efficient and specific TB targeted next-generation sequencing and machine learning models, and validated in clinical cohorts to test plasma cfDNA, cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) DNA collected from tuberculous meningitis (TBM) and pediatric pulmonary TB (PPTB) patients.

RESULTS

In the detection of 227 samples, application of the specific thresholds of CSF DNA (AUC = 0.974) and plasma cfDNA (AUC = 0.908) yielded sensitivity of 97.01 % and the specificity of 95.65 % in CSF samples and sensitivity of 82.61 % and specificity of 86.36 % in plasma samples, respectively. In the analysis of 44 paired samples from TBM patients, our strategy had a high concordance of 90.91 % (40/44) in plasma cfDNA and CSF DNA with both sensitivity of 95.45 % (42/44). In the PPTB patient, the sensitivity of the TB diagnostic strategy yielded higher sensitivity on plasma specimen than Xpert assay on gastric lavage (28.57 % VS. 15.38 %).

CONCLUSIONS

Our TB diagnostic strategy provides greater detection sensitivity for paucibacillary TB, while plasma cfDNA as an easily collected specimen, could be an appropriate sample type for PTB and TBM diagnosis.

Effect of mixed Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection on rapid molecular diagnostics among patients starting MDR-TB treatment in Uganda

BACKGROUND

Mixed M. tuberculosis (MTB) infection occurs when one is infected with more than one clonally distinct MTB strain. This form of infection can assist MTB strains to acquire additional mutations, facilitate the spread of drug-resistant strains, and boost the rate of treatment failure. Hence, the presence of mixed MTB infection could affect the performance of some rapid molecular diagnostic tests such as Line Probe Assay (LPA) and GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assays.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study that used sputum specimens collected from participants screened for STREAM 2 clinical trial between October 2017 and October 2019. Samples from 62 MTB smear-positive patients and rifampicin-resistant patients from peripheral health facilities were processed for Xpert and LPA as screening tests for eligibility in the trial. From November 2020, processed stored sputum samples were retrieved and genotyped to determine the presence of mixed-MTB strain infection using a standard 24-locus Mycobacterial Interspersed Repetitive Unit-Variable Number Tandem-Repeat (MIRU-VNTR). Samples with at least 20/24 MIRU-VNTR loci amplified were considered for analysis. Agar proportional Drug Susceptibility Test (DST) was performed on culture isolates of samples that had discordant results between LPA and Xpert. The impact of the presence of mixed-MTB strain on Xpert and LPA test interpretation was analyzed.

RESULTS

A total of 53/62 (85%) samples had analyzable results from MIRU-VNTR. The overall prevalence of mixed-MTB infection was 5/53 (9.4%). The prevalence was highest among male's 3/31 (9.7%) and among middle-aged adults, 4/30 (33.3%). Lineage 4 of MTB contributed 3/5 (60.0%) of the mixed-MTB infection prevalence. Having mixed MTB strain infection increased the odds of false susceptible Xpert test results (OR 7.556, 95% CI 0.88-64.44) but not for LPA. Being HIV-positive (P = 0.04) independently predicted the presence of mixed MTB infection.

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of mixed-MTB strain infection may affect the performance of the GeneXpert test but not for LPA. For patients with high pre-test probability of rifampicin resistance, an alternative rapid method such as LPA should be considered.

Performance of the MeltPro TB assay as initial test for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis with drug-resistance detection

BACKGROUND

The MeltPro TB assay (MeltPro) is a molecular rapid diagnostic test designed for detecting resistance to antituberculosis drugs. However, the performance of MeltPro as an initial diagnostic test for simultaneously detecting the presence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and drug resistance has not been evaluated. This study aims to assess the performance of MeltPro as initial diagnostic test for simultaneous detection of MTB and drug resistance in clinical samples from patients with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1283 patients with presumptive PTB from two clinical centers, out of which 875 were diagnosed with PTB. The diagnostic accuracy of MeltPro, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), and MGIT 960 for PTB detection was evaluated. Rifampicin (RIF), isoniazid (INH), ethambutol (EMB), streptomycin (STR), and fluoroquinolone (FQ) resistance were detected using MeltPro, with Xpert and/or the broth microdilution plate method (MYCOTB) results as references.

RESULTS

For the diagnosis of PTB, MeltPro showed a sensitivity of 69.0%, which was similar to Xpert (72.7%; P > 0.05) and higher than MGIT (58.1%; P < 0.001). The specificity of MeltPro was 97.1%, similar to Xpert (98.0%; P > 0.05). In smear-negative patients, MeltPro's sensitivity was 50.9%, similar to Xpert (56.5%; P > 0.05), and higher than MGIT (33.1%; P < 0.001). Based on Xpert and/or MYCOTB results, MeltPro exhibited a sensitivity and specificity of 98.3% and 99.2%, respectively, for detecting RIF resistance. Based on MYCOTB results, MeltPro's sensitivity for detecting resistance to INH, EMB, STR, and FQ was 96.4%, 89.1%, 97.5%, and 90.3%, respectively, with specificities of 96.0%, 96.0%, 95.2%, and 99.4%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The MeltPro TB assay could potentially be an effective alternative as the initial test for rapid diagnosis of PTB with drug-resistance detection in clinical practice.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for diagnosing tuberculous meningitis

Objective

The utility of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) in the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) remains uncertain. We performed a meta-analysis to comprehensively evaluate its diagnostic accuracy for the early diagnosis of TBM.

Methods

English (PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) and Chinese (CNKI, Wanfang, and CBM) databases were searched for relevant studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of mNGS for TBM. Review Manager was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies, and Stata was used to perform the statistical analysis.

Results

Of 495 relevant articles retrieved, eight studies involving 693 participants (348 with and 345 without TBM) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the summary receiver-operating characteristic curve of mNGS for diagnosing TBM were 62% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.76), 99% (95% CI: 0.94-1.00), 139.08 (95% CI: 8.54-2266), 0.38 (95% CI: 0.25-0.58), 364.89 (95% CI: 18.39-7239), and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.95-0.98), respectively.

Conclusions

mNGS showed good specificity but moderate sensitivity; therefore, a more sensitive test should be developed to assist in the diagnosis of TBM.

Recent advances in microbiological and molecular biological detection techniques of tuberculous meningitis

Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is the most common type of central nervous system tuberculosis (TB) and has the highest mortality and disability rate. Early diagnosis is key to improving the prognosis and survival rate of patients. However, laboratory diagnosis of TBM is often difficult due to its paucibacillary nature and sub optimal sensitivity of conventional microbiology and molecular tools which often fails to detect the pathogen. The gold standard for TBM diagnosis is the presence of MTB in the CSF. The recognised methods for the identification of MTB are acid-fast bacilli (AFB) detected under CSF smear microscopy, MTB cultured in CSF, and MTB detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Currently, many studies consider that all diagnostic techniques for TBM are not perfect, and no single technique is considered simple, fast, cheap, and efficient. A definite diagnosis of TBM is still difficult in current clinical practice. In this review, we summarise the current state of microbiological and molecular biological diagnostics for TBM, the latest advances in research, and discuss the advantages of these techniques, as well as the issues and challenges faced in terms of diagnostic effectiveness, laboratory infrastructure, testing costs, and clinical expertise, for clinicians to select appropriate testing methods.

Diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis by GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay

INTRODUCTION

Diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) is an arduous task owing to different anatomical locations, unusual clinical presentations, and sparse bacillary load in clinical specimens. Although GeneXpert® MTB/RIF is a windfall in TB diagnostics including EPTB, it yields low sensitivities but high specificities in many EPTB specimens. To further improve the sensitivity of GeneXpert®, GeneXpert® Ultra, a fully nested real-time PCR targeting IS6110, IS1081 and rpoB (Rv0664) has been endorsed by the WHO (2017), wherein melt curve analysis is utilized to detect rifampicin-resistance (RIF-R).

AREA COVERED

We described the assay chemistry/work design of Xpert Ultra and evaluated its performance in several EPTB types, that is, TB lymphadenitis, TB pleuritis, TB meningitis, and so on, against the microbiological reference standard or composite reference standard. Notably, Xpert Ultra exhibited better sensitivities than Xpert, but mostly at the compensation of specificity values. Moreover, Xpert Ultra exhibited low false-negative and false-positive RIF-R results, compared with Xpert. We also detailed other molecular tests, that is, Truenat MTBTM/TruPlus, commercial real-time PCR, line probe assay, and so on, for EPTB diagnosis.

EXPERT OPINION

A combination of clinical features, imaging, histopathological findings, and Xpert Ultra are adequate for definite EPTB diagnosis so as to initiate an early anti-tubercular therapy.

Efficacy of Xpert in tuberculosis diagnosis based on various specimens: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

The GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is a diagnostic tool that has been shown to significantly improve the accuracy of tuberculosis (TB) detection in clinical settings, with advanced sensitivity and specificity. Early detection of TB can be challenging, but Xpert has improved the efficacy of the diagnostic process. Nevertheless, the accuracy of Xpert varies according to different diagnostic specimens and TB infection sites. Therefore, the selection of adequate specimens is critical when using Xpert to identify suspected TB. As such, we have conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of Xpert for diagnosis of different TB types using several specimens.

Methods

We conducted a comprehensive search of several electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the World Health Organization clinical trials registry center, covering studies published from Jan 2008 to July 2022. Data were extracted using an adapted version of the Checklist for Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modeling Studies. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was performed using random-effects models. The risk of bias and level of evidence was assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool and a modified version of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. RStudio was utilized to analyze the results, employing the meta4diag, robvis, and metafor packages.

Results

After excluding duplicates, a total of 2163 studies were identified, and ultimately, 144 studies from 107 articles were included in the meta-analysis based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic accuracy were estimated for various specimens and TB types. In the case of pulmonary TB, Xpert using sputum (0.95 95%CI 0.91-0.98) and gastric juice (0.94 95%CI 0.84-0.99) demonstrated similarly high sensitivity, surpassing other specimen types. Additionally, Xpert exhibited high specificity for detecting TB across all specimen types. For bone and joint TB, Xpert, based on both biopsy and joint fluid specimens, demonstrated high accuracy in TB detection. Furthermore, Xpert effectively detected unclassified extrapulmonary TB and tuberculosis lymphadenitis. However, the Xpert accuracy was not satisfactory to distinguish TB meningitis, tuberculous pleuritis and unclassified TB.

Conclusions

Xpert has exhibited satisfactory diagnostic accuracy for most TB infections, but the efficacy of detection may vary depending on the specimens analyzed. Therefore, selecting appropriate specimens for Xpert analysis is essential, as using inadequate specimens can reduce the ability to distinguish TB.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=370111, identifier CRD42022370111.

Use of Pleural Fluid Digital PCR Analysis to Improve the Diagnosis of Pleural Tuberculosis

The diagnosis of pleural tuberculosis (TB) remains difficult due to the paucity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in pleural fluid (PF). This study aimed to improve pleural TB diagnosis using highly sensitive digital PCR (dPCR) technique. A total of 310 patients with evidence of PF were consecutively enrolled, 183 of whom suffered from pleural TB and 127 from non-TB. PF samples were prospectively collected and total DNA was extracted. The copy numbers of M. tuberculosis insertion sequence (IS) 6110 and IS1081 in DNA were quantified using dPCR. The overall area under the curve of IS6110-dPCR was greater than that of IS1081-dPCR (0.85 versus 0.79). PF IS6110 OR IS1081-dPCR (according to their cut-off values, "positive" was defined as either of them was positive, while "negative" was defined as both of them were negative) had higher sensitivity and equal specificity compared with single target-dPCR. The sensitivity of PF IS6110 OR IS1081-dPCR for total, definite, and probable pleural TB was 59.0% (95% CI = 51.5% to 66.2%), 72.8% (95% CI = 62.6% to 81.6%), and 45.1% (95% CI = 34.6% to 55.8%), respectively. Its specificity was 100% (95% CI = 97.1% to 100.0%). PF IS6110 OR IS1081-dPCR showed a higher sensitivity than smear microscopy (57.4% versus 7.1%), mycobacterial culture (55.3% versus 31.8%), and Xpert MTB/RIF (57.6% versus 23.0%). Long antituberculosis treatment time (>1 month) was found to be associated with negative dPCR results in pleural TB patients. This study indicates that PF IS6110 OR IS1081-dPCR is an accurate molecular assay, which is more sensitive than routine etiological tests and has the potential to enhance the definite diagnosis of pleural TB. IMPORTANCE Pleural TB is one of the most frequent causes of pleural effusion, especially in areas with high burden of TB. Due to the paucibacillary nature of the disease, the diagnostic sensitivities of all available bacteriological and molecular tests remain poor. There is an urgent need to develop new efficient methods. Digital PCR (dPCR) is the third generation of PCR that enables the exact quantification of trace nucleic acids in samples. This study evaluates the diagnostic performance of pleural fluid (PF) dPCR analysis for pleural TB, and shows that PF IS6110 OR IS1081-dPCR has a higher sensitivity than routine etiological tests such as smear microscopy, mycobacterial culture, and Xpert MTB/RIF. This work provides a new choice for improving the definite diagnosis of pleural TB.

The Practical Value of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in a High Tuberculosis Burden Setting: a Prospective Multicenter Diagnostic Accuracy Study

Due to the probability of decreased specificity, the practical value of performing the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) assay over the Xpert assay for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) and rifampicin (RIF) resistance in a high TB burden setting was evaluated. Participants were recruited consecutively in three tertiary hospitals in China and allocated to the TB case detection and/or rifampicin (RIF) resistance detection group. Each sputum specimen was subjected to smear, MGIT960 liquid culture, and Xpert, and Xpert Ultra assay in parallel. Drug susceptibility testing was conducted for all recovered isolates in the RIF resistance detection group. In total, 1,079 patients were recruited to the case detection group and 450 to the RIF resistance detection group. Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity than Xpert (92.26%, 322/349 versus 89.40%, 312/349; P = 0.006), whereas the most prominent increase was identified in the smear-negative patients (83.70% versus 78.52%; P = 0.039). The specificity of Xpert Ultra was slightly lower than that of Xpert (96.30%, 495/514 versus 98.25%, 505/514; P = 0.055). Reclassifying trace results as negative resulted in a 4.01% loss of sensitivity (from 92.26% to 88.25%) accompanied by a 1.37% gain in specificity (from 96.30% to 97.67%). Both the sensitivity (97.64% versus 99.21%, P = 0.313) and specificity (96.90% versus 97.21%, P = 0.816) of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for detection RIF resistance were comparable. In conclusion, Xpert Ultra could improve the diagnosis of smear-negative pulmonary TB in contrast to the Xpert assay. A high percentage of TB history did not significantly decrease the specificity of the test, which supports the potential role of Xpert Ultra as an initial diagnostic tool for TB. IMPORTANCE Xpert Ultra is more sensitive than Xpert, especially in smear-negative TB. A high percentage of TB history in the non-TB population did not significantly affect the reliability of the assay, which supports the potential role of Xpert Ultra as an initial diagnostic tool for TB.

A new droplet digital PCR assay: improving detection of paucibacillary smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

Smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) is difficult to diagnose. Current diagnosis and treatment monitoring methods have inherent limitations. Droplet digital PCR (ddPCR) is a new technique with high sensitivity. This study presents a novel ddPCR for rapid and sensitive identification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB).

METHODS

MTB DNA was detected in respiratory specimens from suspected PTB cases using ddPCR assay, which was directed at two different locations within IS6110. We, for the first time, evaluated the clinical diagnostic ability of this ddPCR for paucibacillary smear-negative PTB.

RESULTS

A total of 605 PTB suspects were recruited, including 263 confirmed PTB patients (84.03% from smear-negative PTB) and 342 non-PTB. The sensitivity and specificity of IS6110 ddPCR were 61.22% (95% confidence interval (CI), 55.00%-67.10%) and 95.03% (95% CI, 92.20%-97.10%) for total PTB, and 57.92% (95% CI, 51.10%-64.50%) and 94.57% (95% CI, 91.20%-96.90%) for smear-negative PTB. ddPCR assay outperformed Xpert MTB/RIF (53.08% vs. 28.46%, p = 0.020) in smear-negative PTB detection. Furthermore, effective anti-tuberculosis treatment was linked to significantly lower IS6110 copies detected by ddPCR.

CONCLUSIONS

Herein, we developed and validated a highly sensitive and robust ddPCR assay for MTB quantification in respiratory specimens, which improve diagnosis and therapeutic effect evaluation of smear-negative PTB.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for diagnosis of tuberculous pleural effusion: A systematic review and comparative meta-analysis

Objective

We compared diagnostic accuracy of pleural fluid Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) assays for diagnosing tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE), through systematic review and comparative meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched PubMed and Embase databases for publications reporting diagnostic accuracy of Xpert or Ultra for TPE. We used bivariate random-effects modeling to summarize diagnostic accuracy information from individual studies using either mycobacterial culture or composite criteria as reference standard. We performed meta-regression through hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) modeling to evaluate comparative performance of the two tests from studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of both in the same study population.

Results

We retrieved 1097 publications, and included 74 for review. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity for Xpert were 0.52 (95% CI 0.43–0.60, I² 82.1%) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–0.99, I² 85.1%), respectively, using culture-based reference standard; and 0.21 (95% CI 0.17–0.26, I² 81.5%) and 1.00 (95% CI 0.99–1.00, I² 37.6%), respectively, using composite reference standard. Summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity for Ultra were 0.68 (95% CI 0.55–0.79, I² 80.0%) and 0.97 (95% CI 0.97–0.99, I² 92.1%), respectively, using culture-based reference standard; and 0.47 (95% CI 0.40–0.55, I² 64.1%) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.95–0.99, I² 54.8%), respectively, using composite reference standard. HSROC meta-regression yielded relative diagnostic odds ratio of 1.28 (95% CI 0.65–2.50) and 1.80 (95% CI 0.41–7.84) respectively in favor of Ultra, using culture and composite criteria as reference standard.

Conclusion

Ultra provides superior diagnostic accuracy over Xpert for diagnosing TPE, mainly because of its higher sensitivity.

Gene-Based Diagnosis of Tuberculosis from Oral Swabs with a New Generation Pathogen Enrichment Technique

A rapid and sensitive diagnosis is crucial for the management of tuberculosis (TB). A simple and label-free approach via homobifunctional imidoesters with a microfluidic platform (SLIM) assay showed a higher sensitivity than the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in the diagnosis of pulmonary TB (PTB). Here, we evaluated the efficacy of the SLIM assay for oral swab samples from cases of suspected PTB. Patients with clinically suspected PTB were prospectively enrolled and oral swab samples were processed using the SLIM assay and the attending physicians were blinded to the results of the SLIM assay. TB cases were defined as those treated with anti-TB chemotherapy for at least 6 months at the discretion of the specialists based on their clinical features and conventional laboratory results, including the Xpert assay. A total of 272 patients (with TB, n = 128 [47.1%]; without TB, n = 144 [52.9%]; mean age, 59.8 years) were enrolled. Overall, the sensitivity of the oral swab-based SLIM assay (65.6%) was higher than that of the sputum-based Xpert assay (43.4%; P = 0.001). Specifically, the SLIM oral swab assay showed a notably higher sensitivity in culture-negative TB cases compared with the Xpert assay (69.0% [95% CI: 49.2 to 84.7%] versus 7.4% [95% CI: 0.9 to 24.3%]; P = 0.001). The specificity of the SLIM and the Xpert assays was 86.1% (95% CI: 79.3 to 91.3%) and 100% (95% CI: 97.2 to 100%), respectively. When only culture-confirmed cases were analyzed, the SLIM oral swab was comparable to sputum Xpert in sensitivity (64.7% versus 54.3%, P = 0.26). The oral swab-based SLIM assay showed a superior sensitivity for TB diagnosis over the sputum-based Xpert assay, especially for culture-negative cases. IMPORTANCE The development of a rapid, accessible, and highly sensitive diagnostic tool is a major challenge in the control and management of tuberculosis. Gene-based diagnostics is recommended for the rapid diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB), but its sensitivity, such as Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert), drops in cases with a low bacterial load. It can only be applied to sputum samples, and it is quite difficult for some patients to produce an adequate amount of sputum. We evaluated the clinical validity of an oral swab-based microfluidic system, i.e., the SLIM assay. The SLIM assay showed a significantly higher sensitivity than the Xpert assay, especially in smear-negative TB cases. This non-sputum-based SLIM assay can be a useful diagnostic test by overcoming the limitations of conventional sputum-based tests in pulmonary TB.

Rapid Molecular Diagnosis of Extra-Pulmonary Tuberculosis by Xpert/RIF Ultra

Rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and determination of drug resistance are essential for early diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis (TB). Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra), a molecular test that can simultaneously identify M. tuberculosis complex and resistance to rifampicin directly on clinical samples, is currently used. Xpert Ultra represents a helpful tool for rapid pulmonary TB diagnosis, especially in patients with paucibacillary infection. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the diagnostic performance of Xpert Ultra in detection of extra-pulmonary tuberculosis.

Evaluating the efficacy of stool sample on Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and its comparison with other sample types by meta-analysis for TB diagnostics

Precise and timely detection of tuberculosis (TB) is crucial to reduce transmission. This study aims to assess the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra on stool samples and systematically review the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra with different sample types by meta-analysis. Stool samples of smear-negative pulmonary TB (PTB), cervical lymph node TB, and abdominal TB patients were tested on the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra system. Meta-analysis was performed on a set of 44 studies. Data were grouped by sample type, and the pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra were calculated. The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra with stool samples was 100% for smear-negative PTB, 27.27% for cervical lymph node TB, and 50% for abdominal TB patients, with 100% specificity for all included TB groups. The summary estimate for all PTB samples showed 84.2% sensitivity and 94.5% specificity, and EPTB samples showed 88.6% sensitivity and 96.4% specificity. Among all sample types included in our meta-analysis, urine showed the best performance for EPTB diagnosis. This pilot study supports the use of stool as an alternative non-invasive sample on Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for rapid testing, suitable for both PTB and EPTB diagnosis.

Head-to-head comparison of the efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) for the diagnosis of tuberculous pleurisy (TBP) head-to-head using meta-analysis method.

METHODS

On May 12, 2021, we searched multiple databases for reports that used Xpert Ultra and Xpert for TBP diagnosis head-to-head and screened eligible studies for inclusion. Accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert were compared to that of the composite reference standard (CRS) and culture. When heterogeneity was evident, sources of heterogeneity were explored using subgroup analyses, sensitivity analysis, and meta-regression analyses.

RESULTS

Five articles met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis. When results from different specimens or different reference standards were reported in the same article, we analyzed them as separate studies. Thus, 6 studies compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert with CRS, 5 studies compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert with culture. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert Ultra were 52% and 98% compared to CRS, and 82% and 77% compared to culture. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert were 22% and 99% compared to CRS, and 48% and 94% compared to culture. Significant heterogeneity in sensitivity was observed compared to CRS.

CONCLUSION

The sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was moderate but better than that of the Xpert; however, its specificity was lower. The role of Xpert Ultra and Xpert in the early and rapid diagnosis of TBP was limited.

Tuberculous meningitis: progress and remaining questions

Tuberculous meningitis is a devastating brain infection that is caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis and is notoriously difficult to diagnose and treat. New technologies characterising the transcriptome, proteome, and metabolome have identified new molecules and pathways associated with tuberculous meningitis severity and poor outcomes that could offer novel diagnostic and therapeutic targets. The next-generation GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay, when used on CSF, offers diagnostic sensitivity for tuberculous meningitis of approximately 70%, although it is not widely available and a negative result cannot rule out tuberculous meningitis. Small trials indicate that clinical outcomes might be improved with increased doses of rifampicin, the addition of linezolid or fluoroquinolones to standard antituberculosis therapy, or treatment with adjunctive aspirin combined with corticosteroids. Large phase 3 clinical trials are underway worldwide to address these and other questions concerning the optimal management of tuberculous meningitis; these studies also form a platform for studying pathogenesis and identifying novel diagnostic and treatment strategies, by allowing the implementation of new genomic, transcriptomic, proteomic, and metabolomic technologies in nested substudies.

Use of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay on stool and gastric aspirate samples to diagnose pulmonary tuberculosis in children in a high-tuberculosis burden but resource-limited area of China: Diagnosis of Childhood TB using Stool

OBJECTIVES

We analyzed the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) on stool and gastric aspirate (GA) samples for the diagnosis of pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis in a high burden area in China.

METHODS

Children with presumptive TB were enrolled in two hospitals in Sichuan Province (July 2019-Oct 2020). Because of the unavailable sputum for etiological tests, GA samples were aspirated and tested by bacterial culture, acid-fast bacillus microscopy and Ultra. Stool samples were tested simultaneously using Ultra and Xpert.

RESULTS

Finally, 141 children with active TB and 34 with non-TB respiratory tract infections were enrolled. Ultra-stool (60.3%, 85/141) and Ultra-GA (52.5%, 74/141) were similarly sensitive (P=0.187). Among the subset of 48 children with confirmed TB, Ultra testing was equally sensitive on stool and GA samples (85.4%, 41/48). The agreement between Ultra-stool and Ultra-GA was moderate in children with active TB (kappa value = 0.527). After integrating Ultra-GA and Ultra-stool outcomes, 70.9% (100/141) of the children were considered to have confirmed TB. The specificities of Ultra-stool and Ultra-GA were 97.1% (33/34) and 100% (34/34), respectively (P=0.314).

CONCLUSIONS

In children, stools can be used as alternative samples to GAs for Ultra tests. Stool- and GA-based Ultra are appropriate tests for bacteriological TB confirmation.

Detection of pulmonary tuberculosis in children using the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay on sputum: a multicenter study

Microbiological confirmation is rare in children with active tuberculosis; therefore, a more accurate test is needed to detect pulmonary tuberculosis in children. In this multicenter study, we evaluated the utility of the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) on sputum, an assay recommended by the World Health Organization to test for childhood tuberculosis in high-burden settings. Children with symptoms suggestive of tuberculosis were enrolled at three hospitals in China and categorized as having active tuberculosis or nontuberculosis. The sensitivity and specificity of Ultra were 42.1% (48/114) and 99.0% (208/210), respectively. Using three MTB culture results as the reference, the sensitivity of Ultra in the subset of 38 children with culture-positive and 76 children with culture-negative was 68.4% (26/38) and 28.9% (22/76), respectively(p < 0.001). A single MTB culture combined with a single Ultra could detect 54 (54/114,47.4%) cases with active TB, while repeated MTB culture combined with a single Ultra detected 60 (60/114, 52.6%) cases with active TB(p = 0.427). Among 155 children (58 with TB and 97 with RTIs) simultaneously tested with the Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), the sensitivity of the Xpert (24.1%, 14/58) was lower than that of the Ultra (41.4%, 24/58; p = 0.048). Eight children were found to have rifampin-resistant MTB strains. The Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay should be implemented to test for pulmonary tuberculosis in children to achieve higher confirmation rates.

EasyNAT MTC assay: A simple, rapid, and low-cost cross-priming amplification method for the detection of mycobacterium tuberculosis suitable for point-of-care testing

More sensitive, rapid, and affordable diagnostic tools for pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) are urgently needed. This study aimed to assess the performance of EasyNAT MTC (abbreviation: EasyNAT) (Ustar Biotechnologies, China), a novel isothermal amplification method with a turnaround time of less than two hours that requires a few manual steps to process the sputum. Sputum samples from 249 patients with suspected PTB were subjected to smear, culture, Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid, USA) and EasyNAT assay testing. Of the 169 PTB patients, EasyNAT detected more PTB patients than Xpert (72.19% vs. 61.54%, P < 0.05, χ²= 4.326). Both the Xpert assay and EasyNAT assay detected almost all the culture-positive sputa successfully, but EasyNAT yielded more positive results among the smear-negative and culture-negative PTB cases (44.59% (33/74) vs. 22.97% (17/74), P < 0.01, χ²= 7.732). Although the specificity of EasyNAT was lower in contrast to Xpert [95.00% (76/80) vs. 98.75% (79/80)], the difference was not significant (P = 0.363, χ²= 0.826). EasyNAT could be used as an initial test for PTB diagnosis due to its simplicity, rapid turnaround time, high sensitivity, and low cost.

Efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra in diagnosing tuberculosis meningitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess whether Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) can effectively diagnose tuberculosis meningitis (TBM) and to simultaneously compare its effectiveness with Xpert in diagnosing TBM in the same population.

METHODS

On August 12, 2020, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed were searched for studies evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra for TBM. Then, we assessed the efficacy of Xpert Ultra against a composite reference standard and culture. If applicable, we also examined the diagnostic efficacy of Xpert in the same population. Heterogeneity was then explored by meta-regression, subgroup, and sensitivity analyses.

RESULTS

Six studies containing 601 specimens reported the diagnostic efficacy of Xpert Ultra for TBM, with a composite reference standard. No study had compared the efficacy between Xpert Ultra and culture. The pooled sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was 64% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 45-80), and the I2 value was 86% (95% CI: 76-96); its specificity for TBM was consistently 100%. In the same population, 5 studies compared the diagnostic efficacy between Xpert Ultra and Xpert for TBM. The pooled sensitivity of Xpert Ultra and Xpert was 68% (95% CI: 46-84; I2 = 87%) and 37% (95% CI: 25-50; I2 = 72%), respectively. The studies were significantly heterogeneous in terms of sensitivity but not heterogeneous in specificity.

CONCLUSIONS

Xpert Ultra was more sensitive than Xpert, but both were specific (100%). Therefore, Xpert Ultra had an excellent diagnostic efficacy for TBM, and it could be the preferred initial test for TBM.

Lymphocyte-Related Immunological Indicators for Stratifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infection

Background

Easily accessible tools that reliably stratify Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) infection are needed to facilitate the improvement of clinical management. The current study attempts to reveal lymphocyte-related immune characteristics of active tuberculosis (ATB) patients and establish immunodiagnostic model for discriminating ATB from latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and healthy controls (HC).

Methods

A total of 171 subjects consisted of 54 ATB, 57 LTBI, and 60 HC were consecutively recruited at Tongji hospital from January 2019 to January 2021. All participants were tested for lymphocyte subsets, phenotype, and function. Other examination including T-SPOT and microbiological detection for MTB were performed simultaneously.

Results

Compared with LTBI and HC, ATB patients exhibited significantly lower number and function of lymphocytes including CD4⁺ T cells, CD8⁺ T cells and NK cells, and significantly higher T cell activation represented by HLA-DR and proportion of immunosuppressive cells represented by Treg. An immunodiagnostic model based on the combination of NK cell number, HLA-DR⁺CD3⁺ T cells, Treg, CD4⁺ T cell function, and NK cell function was built using logistic regression. Based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis, the area under the curve (AUC) of the diagnostic model was 0.920 (95% CI, 0.867-0.973) in distinguishing ATB from LTBI, while the cut-off value of 0.676 produced a sensitivity of 81.48% (95% CI, 69.16%-89.62%) and specificity of 91.23% (95% CI, 81.06%-96.20%). Meanwhile, AUC analysis between ATB and HC according to the diagnostic model was 0.911 (95% CI, 0.855-0.967), with a sensitivity of 81.48% (95% CI, 69.16%-89.62%) and a specificity of 90.00% (95% CI, 79.85%-95.34%).

Conclusions

Our study demonstrated that the immunodiagnostic model established by the combination of lymphocyte-related indicators could facilitate the status differentiation of MTB infection.

Performances of single tube nested polymerase chain reaction and GeneXpert ultra on Formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues in the diagnosis of tuberculous spondylodiscitis

INTRODUCTION

Tuberculous Spondylodiscitis is the most common form of musculoskeletal tuberculosis. Molecular techniques on fresh tissues are proved to improve the diagnosis of tuberculous spondylodiscitis and to allow a rapid diagnosis to initiate the treatment and prevent neurological complications.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the present study was to assess the diagnostic performances of single tube nested PCR and GeneXpert ultra in the diagnosis of tuberculous spondylodiscitis on formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues.

METHODS

This study included 63 tuberculous spondylodiscitis cases collected from June 2014 to January 2020 and corresponding to 27 definite tuberculous spondylodiscitis with positive microbiology, and 36 probable tuberculous spondylodiscitis, with histopathological, clinical and radiological findings consistent with tuberculous spondylodiscitis but with negative microbiology. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of nested PCR and GeneXpert ultra were determined with reference to microbiology.

RESULTS

Nested PCR was positive in 47 (75%) cases: 26/27 definite tuberculous spondylodiscitis and 21/36 probable tuberculous spondylodiscitis. GeneXpert ultra was positive in only 6 (10%) cases corresponding to definite tuberculous spondylodiscitis. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of nested PCR on formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues were 96%, 100%, 100%, 83% respectively. For GeneXpert ultra, these rates were 22%, 100%, 100% and 25% respectively.

CONCLUSION

Nested PCR and GeneXpert ultra on formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues are useful tools for the diagnosis of tuberculous spondylodiscitis, especially for cases where microbiological investigations were not carried out. Both techniques have excellent specificity but single tube nested PCR is more sensitive. Key Points • Molecular techniques are routinely performed on fresh tissues • GeneXpert and nested PCR on formalin fixed paraffin embedded tissues are reliable for the diagnosis of tuberculous spondylodiscitis • Nested PCR is more sensitive than Genexpert for diagnosing tuberculous spondylodiscitis.

Tuberculous meningitis: where to from here?

Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is associated with significant mortality and morbidity yet is difficult to diagnose and treat. We reviewed original research published in the last 2 years, since 1 January 2018, which we considered to have a major impact in advancing diagnosis, treatment and understanding of the pathophysiology of TBM meningitis in children and adults.

Factors associated with differential T cell responses to antigens ESAT-6 and CFP-10 in pulmonary tuberculosis patients

The T-SPOT.TB assay detects cellular immune responses to 2 core Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens, early secreted antigenic target of 6-kDa protein (ESAT-6) and culture filtrate protein-10 (CFP-10). T-SPOT.TB has been recently used for auxiliary diagnosis of active pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). However, testing can produce inconsistent results due to differential PTB patient immune responses to these antigens, prompting us to identify factors underlying inconsistent results.Data were retrospectively analyzed from 1225 confirmed PTB patients who underwent T-SPOT.TB testing at 5 specialized tuberculosis hospitals in China between December 2012 and November 2015. Numbers of spot-forming cells (SFCs) reflecting T cell responses to ESAT-6 and CFP-10 antigens were recorded then analyzed via multivariable logistic regression to reveal factors underlying discordant T cell responses to these antigens.The agreement rate of 84.98% (82.85%-86.94%) between PTB patient ESAT-6 and CFP-10 responses demonstrated high concordance. Additionally, positivity rates were higher for ESAT-6 than for CFP-10 (84.8% vs 80.7%, P < .001), with ESAT-6 and CFP-10 microwell SFC numbers for each single positive group not differing significantly (P > .99), while spot numbers of the single positive group were lower than numbers for the double positive group (P < .001). Elderly patients (aged ≥66 years) and patients receiving retreatment were most likely to have discordance results.ESAT-6 promoted significantly more positive T-SPOT.TB results than did CFP-10 in PTB patients. Advanced age and retreatment status were correlated with discordant ESAT-6 and CFP-10 results. Assessment of factors underlying discordance may lead to improved PTB diagnosis using T-SPOT.TB.

Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in people with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. This review builds on our recent extensive Cochrane Review of Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and detection of rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis. For pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance, we also investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. We also summarized the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace-positive results, and estimated the accuracy of Xpert Ultra after repeat testing in those with trace-positive results.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, the WHO ICTRP, the ISRCTN registry, and ProQuest to 28 January 2020 with no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies using respiratory specimens in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis that directly compared the index tests. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, the reference standards were culture and a composite reference standard. For rifampicin resistance, the reference standards were culture-based drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form, including data by smear and HIV status. We assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. We performed meta-analyses comparing pooled sensitivities and specificities, separately for pulmonary tuberculosis detection and rifampicin resistance detection, and separately by reference standard. Most analyses used a bivariate random-effects model. For tuberculosis detection, we estimated accuracy in studies in participants who were not selected based on prior microscopy testing or history of tuberculosis. We performed subgroup analyses by smear status, HIV status, and history of tuberculosis. We summarized Xpert Ultra trace results.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies (3500 participants): seven had unselected participants (2834 participants). All compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis detection; seven studies used a paired comparative accuracy design, and two studies used a randomized design. Five studies compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection; four studies used a paired design, and one study used a randomized design. Of the nine included studies, seven (78%) were mainly or exclusively in high tuberculosis burden countries. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, most studies had low risk of bias in all domains. Pulmonary tuberculosis detection Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval) against culture were 90.9% (86.2 to 94.7) and 95.6% (93.0 to 97.4) (7 studies, 2834 participants; high-certainty evidence) versus Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity of 84.7% (78.6 to 89.9) and 98.4% (97.0 to 99.3) (7 studies, 2835 participants; high-certainty evidence). The difference in the accuracy of Xpert Ultra minus Xpert MTB/RIF was estimated at 6.3% (0.1 to 12.8) for sensitivity and -2.7% (-5.7 to -0.5) for specificity. If the point estimates for Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, where 10% of those presenting with symptoms have pulmonary tuberculosis, Xpert Ultra will miss 9 cases, and Xpert MTB/RIF will miss 15 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis would be 40 with Xpert Ultra and 14 with Xpert MTB/RIF. In smear-negative, culture-positive participants, pooled sensitivity was 77.5% (67.6 to 85.6) for Xpert Ultra versus 60.6% (48.4 to 71.7) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 95.8% (92.9 to 97.7) for Xpert Ultra versus 98.8% (97.7 to 99.5) for Xpert MTB/RIF (6 studies). In people living with HIV, pooled sensitivity was 87.6% (75.4 to 94.1) for Xpert Ultra versus 74.9% (58.7 to 86.2) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 92.8% (82.3 to 97.0) for Xpert Ultra versus 99.7% (98.6 to 100.0) for Xpert MTB/RIF (3 studies). In participants with a history of tuberculosis, pooled sensitivity was 84.2% (72.5 to 91.7) for Xpert Ultra versus 81.8% (68.7 to 90.0) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 88.2% (70.5 to 96.6) for Xpert Ultra versus 97.4% (91.7 to 99.5) for Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies). The proportion of Ultra trace-positive results ranged from 3.0% to 30.4%. Data were insufficient to estimate the accuracy of Xpert Ultra repeat testing in individuals with initial trace-positive results. Rifampicin resistance detection Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 94.9% (88.9 to 97.9) and 99.1% (97.7 to 99.8) (5 studies, 921 participants; high-certainty evidence) for Xpert Ultra versus 95.3% (90.0 to 98.1) and 98.8% (97.2 to 99.6) (5 studies, 930 participants; high-certainty evidence) for Xpert MTB/RIF. The difference in the accuracy of Xpert Ultra minus Xpert MTB/RIF was estimated at -0.3% (-6.9 to 5.7) for sensitivity and 0.3% (-1.2 to 2.0) for specificity. If the point estimates for Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, where 10% of those presenting with symptoms have rifampicin resistance, Xpert Ultra will miss 5 cases, and Xpert MTB/RIF will miss 5 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with rifampicin resistance would be 8 with Xpert Ultra and 11 with Xpert MTB/RIF. We identified a higher number of rifampicin resistance indeterminate results with Xpert Ultra, pooled proportion 7.6% (2.4 to 21.0) compared to Xpert MTB/RIF pooled proportion 0.8% (0.2 to 2.4). The estimated difference in the pooled proportion of indeterminate rifampicin resistance results for Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF was 6.7% (1.4 to 20.1).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Xpert Ultra has higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in smear-negative participants and people living with HIV. Xpert Ultra specificity was lower than that of Xpert MTB/RIF in participants with a history of tuberculosis. The sensitivity and specificity trade-off would be expected to vary by setting. For detection of rifampicin resistance, Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity. Ultra trace-positive results were common. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF provide accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of treatment for rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

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.

Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for tuberculous meningitis in a clinical practice setting of China

A comparative performance evaluation of the novel Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and MTB/RIF Xpert (Xpert) for tuberculous meningitis (TBM) diagnosis was performed. The cerebrospinal fluids of suspected TBM patients were collected consecutively and subjected to smear microscopy, culture, Xpert, and Xpert Ultra. In total, 160 patients were recruited. Xpert Ultra produced a higher sensitivity (45%, 34 of 76) than Xpert (28%, 21 of 76; P = 0.001) and culture (18%, 14 of 76; P < 0.001), respectively. Inclusion of Xpert Ultra outcomes increased the percentage of definite TBM case from 36% (27 of 76) to 51% (39 of 76). Both Xpert Ultra and Xpert accurately identified the one rifampicin (RIF)-resistant and the 5 RIF-sensitive cases defined by phenotypic drug sensitivity test. The specificities of all of the culture, Xpert and Xpert Ultra were 100% (45 of 45). Xpert Ultra outperformed both Xpert and culture for TBM diagnosis, which may speed up the appropriate treatment of patients in clinical practice.

Improving tuberculosis management in prisons: Impact of a rapid molecular point-of-care test

OBJECTIVE

To improve tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis in prison, we evaluate the value of the Xpert^ⓇMTB/RIF Ultra assay (Xpert) as point-of-care (POC) in a French prison hospital.

METHODS

We first validated Xpert use on raw sputum at the referent laboratory. Secondly, trained physicians at the prison hospital performed Xpert tests for each patient presenting TB symptoms. The results were compared with Xpert, microscopic examination, culture and drug susceptibility testing on the corresponding decontaminated specimens.

RESULTS

76 inmates were included in 15 months and 21 were diagnosed with TB. The overall sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values of Xpert were respectively: 92.3%, 100%, 100% and 98.7% on raw sputum. The efficiency of the molecular POC was confirmed by a concordance of 97% between Xpert findings from the prison hospital and culture results. Delay of microbiological diagnosis was reduced by about 18 days for 13 inmates with smear-negative sputum that avoid the mobilization of major means (escort, transport) to perform fibroscopic samples. Repeated Xpert negative results helped to speed the lifting of inmate isolation.

CONCLUSIONS

The implementation of Xpert in prison could optimize the management of incarcerated patients and thus limit the spread of TB among inmates, carers and other staff.

Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculous meningitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF to detect tuberculous meningitis (TBM).

METHODS

PubMed and five other databases were systematically searched through March 2019. All studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were included. Reference standards were definitive or definite plus probable TBM. The quality of studies was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and calculated summary diagnostic statistics.

RESULTS

We identified 30 studies (n = 3972 participants), including 5 cohort studies and 25 cross-sectional studies. Reference standards were definite TB (n = 28 studies) or definite plus probable TBM (n = 6 studies). The pooled Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was 85% (95% CI, 70-93%), and specificity was 98% (95% CI, 97-99%) with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.04-0.27) for definite TBM. For probable TBM cases, pooled sensitivity was 81% (95% CI, 66-90%), and specificity was 99% (95% CI, 97-99%). For both reference standard types, meta-analyses showed a C-statistic area under the curve of 0.98. The QUADAS-2 tool revealed low risk of bias as well as low concerns regarding applicability. Methodological heterogeneity was high among studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Xpert MTB/RIF showed high accuracy for TBM diagnosis, but a negative Xpert MTB/RIF test does not rule out TBM. Repeat Xpert testing may be necessary. In clinical practice, Xpert MTB/RIF adds speed and sensitivity when compared to classic TBM diagnostic methods or previous commercial nucleic acid amplification techniques. More studies and better strategies for rapidly confirming a diagnosis of TBM in children are urgently needed.

Clinical efficacy of metagenomic next-generation sequencing for rapid detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in smear-negative extrapulmonary specimens in a high tuberculosis burden area

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical utility of metagenomic next-generation sequencing (mNGS) on smear-negative extrapulmonary specimens collected in China.

METHODS

Specimens were tested by mNGS and other routine tests for tuberculosis (TB). The diagnostic accuracy of mNGS was calculated and compared with the final clinical diagnosis.

RESULTS

The sensitivity of mNGS was found to be significantly higher than the sensitivities of the other routine TB tests. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis showed that mNGS achieved the highest area under the curve (AUC) value of 0.79. The mNGS positive rate was highest for tuberculous meningitis. All non-tuberculous extrapulmonary pathogens were directly and simultaneously detected.

CONCLUSIONS

mNGS appeared to be superior to all previous etiological tests for TB on smear-negative extrapulmonary specimens and could identify all possible pathogens at once within 48 h.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for the Diagnosis of Tuberculous Meningitis: A Small Step Forward

The delayed diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) leads to poor outcomes, yet the current diagnostic methods for identifying Mycobacterium tuberculosis in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) are inadequate. The first comparative study of the new GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for TBM diagnosis suggested increased sensitivity of Xpert Ultra. Two subsequent studies have shown Xpert Ultra has improved sensitivity, but has insufficient negative predictive value to exclude TBM. Collecting and processing large volumes of CSF for mycobacterial testing are important for optimal diagnostic test performance. But clinical, radiological, and laboratory parameters remain essential for TBM diagnosis and empiric therapy is often needed. We therefore caution against the use of Xpert Ultra as a single diagnostic test for TBM; it cannot be used to "rule out" TBM.

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.

Xpert MTB/RIF ultra for rapid diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis in a high-income low-tuberculosis prevalence setting

The diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) is often challenging due to paucibacillary nature of the disease. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) has been developed to improve detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTC) in paucibacillary specimens. The objective of the study was to assess the performance of Ultra for the diagnosis of EPTB in a high-income low TB prevalence country. Extrapulmonary samples received for TB diagnostics at two hospitals in Norway between January 2015 and January 2016 were prospectively and consecutively included. Defrosted samples were subjected to Ultra. Culture and routine PCR tests were used as reference standard. A total of 82 samples, 10 culture and/or routine PCR positive (confirmed TB) samples and 72 culture and routine PCR negative samples were included in analysis. The overall sensitivity and specificity of Ultra were 90% (9/10, 95% CI 56-100) and 99% (71/72, 95% CI 93-100), respectively. Ultra was positive in 6/7 smear negative confirmed TB samples. To conclude, Ultra showed a high sensitivity and specificity in extrapulmonary specimens and may contribute to a rapid diagnosis of EPTB in a low TB prevalence setting.

Combination of Percutaneous Lung Biopsy and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Enhances the Differential Diagnosis of Tuberculosis: A Prospective Cohort Study

Introduction

To evaluate the value of the combination of computed tomography (CT)-guided percutaneous lung biopsy and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert-Ultra) in enhancing the differential diagnosis of tuberculosis.

Methods

Patients with lesions in the lungs for whom the differential diagnosis was difficult were prospectively and consecutively enrolled. Specimens collected by percutaneous lung biopsy were subject to Xpert-Ultra and histopathologic examination, respectively.

Results

Biopsy was successfully performed for 147 patients who were eligible for analysis, including 65 TB, 55 lung cancer and 27 other chronic infection cases. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value and negative predictive value of Xpert-Ultra for TB diagnosis were 75.38% (49/65) and 95.12% (78/82), 92.45% (49/53) and 82.98% (78/94), respectively. Among patients with strong evidence for TB diagnosis (categorized as confirmed or probable TB cases), the overall positive rate of the Xpert-Ultra assay was 83.63% (46/55), which was much higher than for any reported sample type with negative smear test outcomes to date. Five rifampicin (RIF)-resistant cases were identified using the biopsy tissues. However, “trace” positive did not seem reliable for TB diagnosis with lung biopsy specimens; a 25.61% (21/82) “trace”-positive rate was acquired in the non-TB group.

Conclusion

Percutaneous lung biopsy combined with Xpert-Ultra produced high sensitivity for culture-negative pulmonary TB patient diagnosis. “Trace” outcome might not be a reliable positive category for lung biopsy specimens.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, ChiCTR1900026412. Retrospectively registered on Oct 8th, 2019).

Head-to-head comparison of the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for tuberculosis: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis has significantly improved since the introduction of the automated molecular test Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and the new version Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) that detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Due to the rapidly widespread use of Xpert and Ultra, we conducted a meta-analysis to compare the performances of Xpert and Ultra in diagnosing TB and discuss the advantages and limitations of these two tests.

METHODS

Web of Science, Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via OvidSP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Google Scholar (up to April 2020) were searched for relevant studies. The diagnostic performance of Xpert and Ultra for TB was determined using a bivariate random-effects regression model. The sources of heterogeneity were explored via meta-regression and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Of 19 studies that examined a total of 5855 samples, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert in TB diagnosis were 0.69 (95% CI: 0.57-0.78) and 0.99 (95% CI: 0.98-0.99), respectively. However, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of Ultra in TB diagnosis were 0.84 (95% CI: 0.76-0.90) and 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96-0.98), respectively. Regardless of whether the comparisons were indirect or direct, Ultra was consistently found to be more sensitive, but with slightly lower specificity than Xpert in diagnosing TB.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with Xpert, Ultra had higher sensitivity but slightly lower specificity for the diagnosis of TB disease. The excellent upgrade in sensitivity of the Ultra test was particularly relevant in subjects with paucibacillary TB including tuberculous pleurisy, tuberculous meningitis and paediatric TB.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for the diagnosis of HIV-associated tuberculous meningitis: a prospective validation study

INTRODUCTION

Tuberculous meningitis accounts for 1-5% of tuberculosis cases. Diagnostic delay contributes to poor outcomes. We evaluated the performance of the new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for tuberculous meningitis diagnosis.

METHODS

In this prospective validation study, we tested the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of adults presenting with suspected meningitis (ie, headache or altered mental status with clinical signs of meningism) to the Mulago National Referral Hospital and Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda. We centrifuged the CSF, resuspended the cell pellet in 2 mL CSF, and tested 0·5 mL aliquots with Xpert Ultra, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), and mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT) culture. We quantified diagnostic performance against the uniform case definition of probable or definite tuberculous meningitis and a composite microbiological reference standard.

FINDINGS

From Nov 25, 2016, to Jan 24, 2019, we screened 466 adults with suspected meningitis and tested 204 for tuberculous meningitis. Uniform clinical case definition classified 51 participants as having probable or definite tuberculous meningitis. Against this uniform case definition, Xpert Ultra had 76·5% sensitivity (95% CI 62·5-87·2; 39 of 51 patients) and a negative predictive value of 92·7% (87·6-96·2; 153 of 165), compared with 55·6% sensitivity (44·0-70·4; 25 of 45; p=0·0010) and a negative predictive value of 85·8% (78·9-91·1; 121 of 141) for Xpert and 61·4% sensitivity (45·5-75·6; 27 of 44; p=0·020) and negative predictive value of 85·2% (77·4-91·1; 98 of 115) for MGIT culture. Against the composite microbiological reference standard, Xpert Ultra had sensitivity of 92·9% (80·5-98·5; 39 of 42), higher than Xpert at 65·8% (48·6-80·4; 25 of 38; p=0·0063) and MGIT culture at 72·2% (55·9-86·2; 27 of 37; p=0·092). Xpert Ultra detected nine tuberculous meningitis cases missed by Xpert and MGIT culture.

INTERPRETATION

Xpert Ultra detected tuberculous meningitis with higher sensitivity than Xpert and MGIT culture in this HIV-positive population. However, with a negative predictive value of 93%, Xpert Ultra cannot be used as a rule-out test. Clinical judgment and novel highly sensitive point-of-care tests are still required.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust, National Institute of Health, National Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Stroke, Fogarty International Center, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis: a prospective, randomised, diagnostic accuracy study

BACKGROUND

Xpert 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.

METHODS

In 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.

FINDINGS

Between 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.

INTERPRETATION

Xpert 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.

FUNDING

Wellcome Trust and the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.

Knowledge gaps and research priorities in tuberculous meningitis

Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is the most severe and disabling form of tuberculosis (TB), accounting for around 1-5% of the global TB caseload, with mortality of approximately 20% in children and up to 60% in persons co-infected with human immunodeficiency virus even in those treated. Relatively few centres of excellence in TBM research exist and the field would therefore benefit from greater co-ordination, advocacy, collaboration and early data sharing. To this end, in 2009, 2015 and 2019 we convened the TBM International Research Consortium, bringing together approximately 50 researchers from five continents. The most recent meeting took place on 1 st and 2 nd March 2019 in Lucknow, India. During the meeting, researchers and clinicians presented updates in their areas of expertise, and additionally presented on the knowledge gaps and research priorities in that field. Discussion during the meeting was followed by the development, by a core writing group, of a synthesis of knowledge gaps and research priorities within seven domains, namely epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, antimicrobial therapy, host-directed therapy, critical care and implementation science. These were circulated to the whole consortium for written input and feedback. Further cycles of discussion between the writing group took place to arrive at a consensus series of priorities. This article summarises the consensus reached by the consortium concerning the unmet needs and priorities for future research for this neglected and often fatal disease.

The current global situation for tuberculous meningitis: epidemiology, diagnostics, treatment and outcomes

Tuberculous meningitis (TBM) results from dissemination of M. tuberculosis to the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) and meninges. Ischaemia, hydrocephalus and raised intracranial pressure frequently result, leading to extensive brain injury and neurodisability. The global burden of TBM is unclear and it is likely that many cases are undiagnosed, with many treated cases unreported. Untreated, TBM is uniformly fatal, and even if treated, mortality and morbidity are high. Young age and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection are potent risk factors for TBM, while Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination is protective, particularly in young children. Diagnosis of TBM usually relies on characteristic clinical symptoms and signs, together with consistent neuroimaging and CSF parameters. The ability to confirm the TBM diagnosis via CSF isolation of M. tuberculosis depends on the type of diagnostic tests available. In most cases, the diagnosis remains unconfirmed. GeneXpert MTB/RIF and the next generation Xpert Ultra offer improved sensitivity and rapid turnaround times, and while roll-out has scaled up, availability remains limited. Many locations rely only on acid fast bacilli smear, which is insensitive. Treatment regimens for TBM are based on evidence for pulmonary tuberculosis treatment, with little consideration to CSF penetration or mode of drug action required. The World Health Organization recommends a 12-month treatment course, although data on which to base this duration is lacking. New treatment regimens and drug dosages are under evaluation, with much higher dosages of rifampicin and the inclusion of fluoroquinolones and linezolid identified as promising innovations. The inclusion of corticosteroids at the start of treatment has been demonstrated to reduce mortality in HIV-negative individuals but whether they are universally beneficial is unclear. Other host-directed therapies show promise but evidence for widespread use is lacking. Finally, the management of TBM within health systems is sub-optimal, with drop-offs at every stage in the care cascade.

Diagnostic accuracy of the new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for tuberculosis disease: A preliminary systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

The re-engineered Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) assay was developed due to the poor sensitivity of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the detection of tuberculosis (TB) in some conditions. This new assay has been recommended by the World Health Organization since 2017. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of Xpert Ultra for the detection of TB and rifampicin (RIF) resistance.

METHODS

The Medline (via PubMed), Embase (via OvidSP), ISI Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus databases were screened for original articles. Summary sensitivity and specificity were calculated with a bivariate mixed-effects model. A Fagan nomogram was used to assess the clinical utility. The sources of heterogeneity were investigated by meta-regression and subgroup analyses.

RESULTS

Sixteen studies were identified. The summary diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra for the diagnosis of TB were as follows: sensitivity 87.2% (95% confidence interval (CI) 82.5-90.8%) and specificity 96.5% (95% CI 95.1-97.5%). For the detection of RIF resistance, sensitivity was 95.1% (95% CI 91.6-97.2%) and specificity was 98.9% (95% CI 97.6-99.5%). Meta-regression showed that the category of population, TB prevalence, reference standard, sample state, sample type, and study design attributed to the heterogeneity. Subgroup analyses found good performance of Xpert Ultra in settings with a low TB burden.

CONCLUSIONS

As a rapid and highly sensitive test for the detection of TB and simultaneous detection of RIF resistance, Xpert Ultra exhibits a viable alternative in sensitivities in both pulmonary TB (PTB) and extrapulmonary TB (EPTB), which was proved to be higher than Xpert in the comparative analysis, and also shows a good performance in the detection of RIF resistance. Additional studies with comparative consistency tests are needed to precisely describe this finding for more forms of EPTB.

Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of rifampicin resistance in different regions: a meta-analysis

Background

To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance in different regions, a meta-analysis was carried out.

Methods

Several databases were searched for relevant studies up to March 3, 2019. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate the diagnostic accuracy.

Results

We identified 97 studies involving 26,037 samples for the diagnosis of rifampicin resistance. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection were 0.93 (95% CI 0.90–0.95), 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–0.99), respectively. For different regions, the pooled sensitivity were 0.94(95% CI 0.89–0.97) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.94), the pooled specificity were 0.98 (95% CI 0.94–1.00) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99), and the AUC were 0.99 (95% CI 0.98–1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–0.99) in high and middle/low income countries, respectively. The pooled sensitivity were 0.91 (95% CI 0.87–0.94) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.86–0.94), the pooled specificity were 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99), and the AUC were 0.98 (95% CI 0.97–0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–0.99) in high TB burden and middle/low prevalence countries, respectively.

Conclusions

The diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection was excellent.