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

  • Wang G
  • Huang M
  • Jing H
  • et al.
4Citations
Citations of this article
18Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

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. 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.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Wang, G., Huang, M., Jing, H., Jia, J., Dong, L., Zhao, L., … Huang, H. (2022). 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. Microbiology Spectrum, 10(4). https://doi.org/10.1128/spectrum.00949-22

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free