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

Multi-centric evaluation of Truenat MTB and MTB-RIF Dx assays for diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis

Extra-pulmonary TB (EPTB) is difficult to diagnose due to paucibacillary nature of disease. Current study evaluated accuracy of Truenat MTB and MTB-Rif Dx (TN), for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and resistance to rifampicin. Samples were collected from 2103 treatment naive adults with presumptive EPTB, and tested by smear microscopy, liquid culture (LC) (MGIT-960) and GeneXpert MTB/RIF (GX) (Microbiological Reference Standards, MRS). TN results were compared to MRS and Composite Reference Standards (CRS, Microbiology, histopathology, radiology, clinical features prompting decision to treat, response to treatment). CRS grouped patients into 551 confirmed, 1096 unconfirmed, and 409 as unlikely TB. TN sensitivity and specificity was 73.7% and 90.4% against GX. Against LC, Overall sensitivity of GX was 67.6%, while that of TN was 62.3%. Highest sensitivity by TN was observed in pus samples (89%) and highest specificity (92%) in CSF samples, similar to GX. TN sensitivity was better in fluid and biopsy samples and slightly inferior for lymph node aspirates compared to GX. TN sensitivity for RIF resistance detection was slightly superior to GX. TN and GX results were further compared to Clinical Reference Standards. TN detected 170 TB patients initiated on treatment missed by GX, while GX detected 113 such patients missed by TN. Of 124 samples with RIF resistance discordance between GX and TN, GX reported 103/124 as sensitive, 3/124 as indeterminate and 18 as resistant (13/18 samples had low/very low DNA load) while TN reported RIF resistance indeterminate in 103/111 low/very low DNA load samples. Due to paucibacillary nature of EPTB samples, culture yield was poor and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing failed to resolve the discordance. The study establishes TN at par with GX and can be utilized for quick and accurate diagnosis of EPTB.

In-vivo expressed mycobacterial transcripts as diagnostic targets for pulmonary tuberculosis

The nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) such as Xpert MTB/RIF have transformed the TB diagnostic field by significantly increasing the case detection. However, newer improved diagnostic assays are still needed to meet the WHO targets to end TB. Present study is based on a novel approach of utilizing the in-vivo expressed specific mycobacterial transcriptomic biomarkers for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). Total 61 subjects were recruited including smear positive (smear+; n = 15), smear negative (smear-; n = 30) PTB patients and disease controls (n = 16). Transcripts of three mycobacterial genes Rv0986, Rv0971c and Rv3121 were analyzed using real time PCR (qRT-PCR) in sputum samples. qRT-PCR with Rv0986, Rv0971c and Rv3121 identified smear + PTB patients with 100 %, 78.6 % and 86.7 % sensitivity respectively. In smear- PTB patients, both Rv0986 and Rv0971c based qRT-PCR resulted in 63 %, sensitivity whereas Rv3121 identified these patients with ∼40 % sensitivity only. The sensitivity of the assay for smear-patients increased to 85 % when combinatorial analysis of qRT-PCR data for all the three genes was used. Thus, in-vivo expressed mycobacterial transcripts have promising potential as biomarkers for PTB diagnosis.

Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for the Diagnosis of Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis: A Retrospective Analysis in Saudi Arabia

The incidence of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) in low- and middle-income countries, as well as, high-income countries has increased over the last two decades. The acid-fast bacillus (AFB) smear test is easy to perform and cost-effective with a quick turnaround time but the test has low sensitivity. Culture remains the gold standard for detecting TB; however, it has low sensitivity and slow bacterial growth patterns, as it may take up to 6 to 8 weeks to grow. Therefore, a rapid detection tool is crucial for the early initiation of treatment and ensuring an improved therapeutic outcome. Here, the Xpert Ultra system was developed as a nucleic acid amplification technique to accelerate the detection of MTB in paucibacillary clinical samples and endorsed by the World Health Organization. From March 2020 to August 2021, Xpert Ultra was evaluated for its sensitivity and specificity against EPTB and compared with those of the routinely used Xpert, culture, and AFB tests in 845 clinical samples in Saudi Arabia. The results indicate the overall sensitivity and specificity of Xpert Ultra to be 91% and 95%, respectively, compared with the Xpert (82% and 99%, respectively) and AFB smear (18% and 100%, respectively) tests. The results also indicated that despite the low microbial loads that were categorized as trace, very low, or low on Xpert Ultra, yet, complete detection was achieved with some sample types (i.e., 100% detection). Consequently, Xpert Ultra has great potential to replace conventional diagnostic approaches as a standard detection method for EPTB.

Diagnostic value of nucleic acid amplification tests for tuberculous pleural effusion

Diagnosing tuberculous pleural effusion (TPE) is challenging for pulmonologists and laboratory scientists. The gold standards for TPE diagnosis are pleural fluid Ziehl-Neelsen staining, Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) culture and pleural biopsy. These tools have limitations, including low sensitivity, long turnaround time and invasiveness. The nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT) is a rapid and minimally invasive tool for diagnosing TPE. This review summarizes the diagnostic accuracy of available NAATs for TPE, with a focus on the evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The NAATs summarized in this review include in-house NAATs, GeneXpert-MTB/RIF, GeneXpert-MTB/RIF Ultra, simultaneous amplification and testing-tuberculosis, FluoroType MTB and loop-mediated isothermal amplification.

Molecular genetic tests GeneXpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF (Ultra) in the diagnosis of tuberculosis (review of literature)

In recent tuberculosis years is the main cause of morbidity and death among patients with HIV infection. Modern diagnostics of tuberculosis includes mass screening of the population: digital fluorography from the age of 15 and immunodiagnostics in children and adolescents. Detection of mycobacterium tuberculosis by microscopy occurs in forms of tuberculosis with the decay of lung tissue. Such patients represent a high epidemic risk. To improve the verification of diagnosis in the practice of a phthisiologist, molecular genetic methods for the search for mycobacteria are increasingly used, based on the identification of specific fragments of the DNA chain in the diagnostic material. The most widely used method is the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), which is based on directed DNA amplification. The latest innovation is fully automated systems using cartridge technology GeneXpert. The advantages of GeneXpert are high sensitivity, speed (result in 2 hours), real-time PCR detection, exclusion of sample contamination. The technique of cartridge technology is constantly being improved, various cartridges are used on its platform, which not only detect M. tuberculosis, but also determine the sensitivity to anti-tuberculosis drugs - rifampicin (MTB / RIF cartridge) or several anti-TB drugs (MTB / XDR). Cartridges have been developed that are able to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MBT) at an even lower concentration in the test material - MTB / RIF (Ultra). GeneXpert technology can be used to diagnose extrapulmonary tuberculosis by examining various biological materials, which are more effective in detecting tuberculosis in children and adolescents, in HIV-positive individuals.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The value of lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay and empirical treatment in Xpert MTB/RIF ultra negative patients with presumptive TB: a prospective cohort study

The value of Lateral Flow urine Lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) assay and the role of empiric tuberculosis (TB) treatment in the era of the highly sensitive Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) assay is unclear. This study aimed to assess the additional yield of LF-LAM assay when used in combination with Xpert Ultra, and the role of empiric TB treatment when Xpert Ultra used as the initial diagnostic in presumptive TB cases admitted to a tertiary hospital in Ethiopia. We performed a secondary analysis of a cohort of hospitalized Xpert MTB/RIF-negative patients. Sputum samples were examined for Mycobacterium tuberculosis by culture and Xpert Ultra. In HIV positive and severely ill patients, a urine sample was collected for the LF-LAM assay. Treatment outcome was assessed six months after enrollment. Logistic regression was used to identify factors predictive of deaths among Xpert Ultra negative patients. The Xpert Ultra assay diagnosed 31 of the 35 culture positive among the 250 hospitalized Xpert MTB/RIF-negative participants. The LF-LAM assay did not identify any case not detected by Xpert Ultra among the 52 (21.4%) participants living with HIV and the 16 patients with severe disease. Among Xpert Ultra negative patients, those who received empirical TB treatment had a similar odds of death (aOR 0.74, 95% CI: 0.1–2.7) as those not started on TB treatment. Low body mass index (≤ 18.5 kg/m²) was the only significant predictor of death in Xpert Ultra negative patients (aOR 4. 0, 95% CI: 1.08–14.6). In this prospective cohort, LF-LAM did not improve the diagnostic yield when used in combination with Xpert Ultra. Empiric TB treatment for Xpert Ultra negative presumptive TB cases was not associated with death at six months. Future studies in diverse settings should be to determine the optimal management of Xpert Ultra negative patients.

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.

The Evaluation and Validation of Blood-Derived Novel Biomarkers for Precise and Rapid Diagnosis of Tuberculosis in Areas With High-TB Burden

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a highly contagious public health threat. Precise and prompt diagnosis and monitoring of treatment responses are urgently needed for clinics. To pursue novel and satisfied host blood-derived biomarkers, we streamlined a bioinformatic pipeline by integrating differentially expressed genes, a gene co-expression network, and short time-series analysis to mine the published transcriptomes derived from whole blood of TB patients in the GEO database, followed by validating the diagnostic performance of biomarkers in both independent datasets and blood samples of Chinese patients using quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR). We found that four genes, namely UBE2L6 (Ubiquitin/ISG15-conjugating enzyme E2 L6), BATF2 (Basic leucine zipper transcriptional factor ATF-like), SERPING1 (Plasma protease C1 inhibitor), and VAMP5 (Vesicle-associated membrane protein 5), had high diagnostic value for active TB. The transcription levels of these four gene combinations can reach up to 88% sensitivity and 78% specificity (average) for the diagnosis of active TB; the highest sensitivity can achieve 100% by parallel of BATF2 and VAMP5, and the highest specificity can reach 89.5% through a combination of SERPIG1, UBE2L6, and VAMP5, which were significantly higher than 75.3% sensitivity and 69.1% specificity by T-SPOT.TB in the same patients. Quite unexpectedly, the gene set can assess the efficacy of anti-TB response and differentiate active TB from Latent TB infection. The data demonstrated these four biomarkers might have great potency and advantage over IGRAs in the diagnosis of 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.