Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF with microscopy and culture for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in a referral laboratory in Nepal

Antibodies as clinical tools for tuberculosis

Tuberculosis (TB) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. Global research efforts to improve TB control are hindered by insufficient understanding of the role that antibodies play in protective immunity and pathogenesis. This impacts knowledge of rational and optimal vaccine design, appropriate diagnostic biomarkers, and development of therapeutics. Traditional approaches for the prevention and diagnosis of TB may be less efficacious in high prevalence, remote, and resource-poor settings. An improved understanding of the immune response to the causative agent of TB, Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), will be crucial for developing better vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics. While memory CD4+ T cells and cells and cytokine interferon gamma (IFN-g) have been the main identified correlates of protection in TB, mounting evidence suggests that other types of immunity may also have important roles. TB serology has identified antibodies and functional characteristics that may help diagnose Mtb infection and distinguish between different TB disease states. To date, no serological tests meet the World Health Organization (WHO) requirements for TB diagnosis, but multiplex assays show promise for improving the sensitivity and specificity of TB serodiagnosis. Monoclonal antibody (mAb) therapies and serum passive infusion studies in murine models of TB have also demonstrated some protective outcomes. However, animal models that better reflect the human immune response to Mtb are necessary to fully assess the clinical utility of antibody-based TB prophylactics and therapeutics. Candidate TB vaccines are not designed to elicit an Mtb-specific antibody response, but evidence suggests BCG and novel TB vaccines may induce protective Mtb antibodies. The potential of the humoral immune response in TB monitoring and control is being investigated and these studies provide important insight into the functional role of antibody-mediated immunity against TB. In this review, we describe the current state of development of antibody-based clinical tools for TB, with a focus on diagnostic, therapeutic, and vaccine-based applications.

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.