A feasibility study of the Xpert MTB/RIF test at the peripheral level laboratory in China

Comparison of the MeltPro TB assay and whole-genome sequencing assay for rapid molecular diagnosis of drug resistant tuberculosis in guangdong province

BACKGROUND

Rifampicin (RIF) and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) are major public health threats. As conventional phenotypic drug susceptibility testing requires two-eight weeks, molecular diagnostic assays are widely used to determine drug resistance.

METHODS

Clinical Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates with consistent drug susceptibility results, tested using microbroth dilution and proportion methods in Löwenstein-Jensen medium from patients with TB in Guangdong province were utilized to evaluate MeltPro TB and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) assays in detecting resistance to RIF, isoniazid (INH), ethambutol (EMB), fluoroquinolones (FQ), and streptomycin (SM). Solid phenotypic drug susceptibility testing was used as the gold standard to evaluate the detection capacity of MeltPro TB on clinical sputum samples of patients with TB.

RESULTS

Similar to WGS, MeltPro TB successfully detected RIF, INH, and SM resistance with sensitivities of 86.3, 84.8, and 86.6 %, respectively. However, the resistant isolate detection rates were only 58.1 and 69.6 % for EMB and FQ-resistant strains. For clinical specimens, MeltPro TB still showed good detectable rates of RIF and INH resistance, with sensitivities of 82.4 % and 95.2 %, respectively. Detectable rates of FQ and EMB resistance were low: 77.8 % and 35.3 %, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

MeltPro TB can detect known DNA mutations associated with drug resistance in Mycobacterium tuberculosis strains with comparable efficacy to WGS. For FQ and EMB resistance testing, MeltPro TB requires optimization and is unsuitable for general use. MeltPro TB can be used for diagnosis of RIF and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis to rapidly initiate appropriate anti-TB drug therapy.

One- versus two-specimen Xpert strategy to discontinue airborne isolation in suspected pulmonary tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Evaluation of a patient with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) involves initiation of airborne infection isolation (AII). However, guidelines detailing discontinuation of AII utilizing the Xpert MTB/RIF provide little clarity between use of one-specimen (1-Xpert') versus two-specimens (2-Xpert').

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of one-Xpert versus two-Xpert strategy in guiding discontinuation of AII.

METHODS

Data sources: PubMed, Embase, and EBSCO databases.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies providing diagnostic accuracy data for one- versus two-Xperts in discontinuation of AII.

PARTICIPANTS

Adult patients with suspected TB.

TESTS

Xpert MTB/RIF on one- versus two-sputum specimens. Reference standard: Solid and liquid culture media. Assessment of risk of bias: Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies tool was used. Methods of data synthesis: Meta-analysis was performed to calculate the pooled sensitivities and specificities using Stata 17.2.

RESULTS

Four studies were included involving 1776 patients. A total of 68% were males, 36% were HIV positive, and 80% participants belonged to the United States. In patients with suspected pulmonary TB, 7% (95% CI, 6-9%) participants were found to have culture-positive MTB. For one-Xpert strategy, the pooled sensitivity was 86% (95% CI, 75-92%; I2, 1.05%) and specificity was 100% (95% CI, 99-100%; I2, 36%). Two-Xpert strategy had a pooled sensitivity of 92% (95% CI, 84-96%; I2, 16%) and a specificity of 100% (95% CI, 98-100%; I2, 27%). There was statistically significant difference between sensitivities of one-Xpert and two-Xpert strategies (p 0.05) with no statistically significant difference in their specificities.

DISCUSSION

The results of this review must be interpreted in the context of a predominantly low-TB prevalence setting. Two-Xpert strategy has an incrementally higher sensitivity when compared with one-Xpert strategy with similar specificities between the two. Obtaining a second Xpert is crucial for individuals with a continued high suspicion for TB or those at a high risk of morbidity/mortality from TB.

Assessing the utility of the Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis/rifampin assay for analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid in patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis

Background

There is limited research assessing the utility of the Xpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis/rifampin (MTB/RIF) assay for the analysis of bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) in Chinese patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). Thus, our objective was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay and evaluate its utility for the determination of rifampicin resistance.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed BALF from 214 patients with suspected PTB between January 2018 and March 2019. Using mycobacterial culture or final clinical diagnosis as the reference standard, the diagnostic accuracy of the smear microscopy (SM), tuberculosis bacillus DNA (TB‐DNA), Xpert MTB/RIF assay, and the determination of rifampicin resistance based on the Xpert MTB/RIF assay were compared.

Results

As compared to mycobacterial culture, the sensitivity of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay, SM, and TB‐DNA were 85.5% (74.2%–93.1%), 38.7% (26.6%–51.9%), and 67.7% (54.7%–79.1%), respectively. As compared to the final diagnosis, the specificity of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay, SM, and TB‐DNA were 100.0% (95.9%–100.0%), 94.3% (87.1%–98.1%), and 98.9% (93.8%–100.0%), respectively. The sensitivity and specificity of the rifampicin resistance detection using the Xpert MTB/RIF assay were 100% and 98.0%, respectively, with liquid culture as the reference.

Conclusions

This study demonstrates that the analysis of BALF with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay provides a rapid and accurate tool for the early diagnosis of PTB. The accuracy of diagnosis was superior compared with the SM and TB‐DNA. Moreover, Xpert is a quick and accurate method for the diagnosis of rifampicin‐resistant tuberculosis and can also provide more effective guidance for the treatment of PTB or multidrug‐resistant tuberculosis (MDR‐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.

Effect of the Xpert MTB/RIF on the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis cases and rifampicin resistance in Shanghai, China

Background

Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) is an automated molecular test recommended by World Health Organization (WHO) for diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). This study evaluated the effect of Xpert implementation on the detection of pulmonary TB (PTB) and rifampicin-resistant TB (RR-TB) cases in Shanghai, China.

Methods

Xpert was routinely implemented in 2018 for all presumptive PTB patients. All PTB patients above 15 years-old identified within the Provincial TB Control Program during the first half of each of 2017 and 2018, were enrolled to compare the difference in proportions of bacteriological confirmation, patients with drug susceptibility test (DST) results for rifampicin (ie, DST coverage) and RR-TB detection before and after Xpert’s implementation.

Results

A total of 6047 PTB patients were included in the analysis with 1691 tested by Xpert in 2018. Percentages of bacteriological confirmation, DST coverage and RR-TB detection in 2017 and 2018 were 50% vs. 59%, 36% vs. 49% and 2% vs. 3%, respectively (all p-values < 0.05). Among 1103 PTB patients who completed sputum smear, culture and Xpert testing in 2018, Xpert detected an additional 121 (11%) PTB patients who were negative by smear and culture, but missed 248 (23%) smear and/or culture positive patients. Besides, it accounted for an increase of 9% in DST coverage and 1% in RR-TB detection. The median time from first visit to a TB hospital to RR-TB detection was 62 days (interquartile range -IQR 48–84.2) in 2017 vs. 9 days (IQR 2–45.7) in 2018 (p-value < 0.001). In the multivariate model, using Xpert was associated with decreased time to RR-TB detection (adjusted hazard ratio = 4.62, 95% confidence interval: 3.18–6.71).

Conclusions

Integrating Xpert with smear, culture and culture-based DST in a routine setting significantly increased bacteriological confirmation, DST coverage and RR-TB detection with a dramatic reduction in the time to RR-TB diagnosis in Shanghai, China. Our findings can be useful for other regions that attempt to integrate Xpert into routine PTB and RR-TB case-finding cascade. Further study should focus on the identification and elimination of operational level challenges to fully utilize the benefit of rapid diagnosis by Xpert.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF in Sputum Smear-Negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis

Introduction

Tuberculosis is a major health problem in Pakistan. The prevalence of pulmonary as well as extrapulmonary tuberculosis is quite high. Tuberculin skin test, radiological imaging, and sputum smear microscopy have limitations in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF was recently approved for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis and has shown promising results. The aim of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF in sputum smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis using acid-fast bacilli (AFB) culture as the gold standard.

Materials and methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted at Iqbal Yad Chest Clinic and Nazimabad Chest Clinic of Ojha Institute of Chest Diseases, Dow University of Health Sciences. Patients of either gender aged 18-65 years suspected to have pulmonary tuberculosis with at least two sputum samples negative for AFB underwent Xpert MTB/RIF testing. Early morning sputum samples were obtained and sent for AFB smear microscopy, Xpert testing and also for culture analysis.

Results

Mean age of the patients was 37.48 ±17.49 years. There were 84 (37.3%) females and 141 (62.7%) males. Positive findings on Xpert MTB/RIF were found in 147 (65.3%) patients whereas AFB culture showed positive findings in 174 (77.3%) patients. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predicted value, negative predicted value and overall diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be 84.48%, 100%, 100%, 65.38%, and 88%, respectively.

Conclusion

Xpert MTB/RIF has high sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy in diagnosis of sputum smear-negative cases of pulmonary tuberculosis.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert MTB/RIF) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra), the newest version, are the only World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in persons with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis, at lower health system levels. A previous Cochrane Review found Xpert MTB/RIF sensitive and specific for tuberculosis (Steingart 2014). Since the previous review, new studies have been published. We performed a review update for an upcoming WHO policy review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for tuberculosis in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and for rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, to 11 October 2018, without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials, cross-sectional, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra, or both against the reference standard, culture for tuberculosis and culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus for rifampicin resistance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we also extracted data by smear and HIV status. We assessed study quality using QUADAS-2 and performed meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity separately for tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance. We investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. Most analyses used a bivariate random-effects model. For tuberculosis detection, we first estimated accuracy using all included studies and then only the subset of studies where participants were unselected, i.e. not selected based on prior microscopy testing.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified in total 95 studies (77 new studies since the previous review): 86 studies (42,091 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis and 57 studies (8287 participants) for rifampicin resistance. One study compared Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra on the same participant specimen.Tuberculosis detectionOf the total 86 studies, 45 took place in high tuberculosis burden and 50 in high TB/HIV burden countries. Most studies had low risk of bias.Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible Interval (CrI)) were 85% (82% to 88%) and 98% (97% to 98%), (70 studies, 37,237 unselected participants; high-certainty evidence). We found similar accuracy when we included all studies.For a population of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculosis on culture, 103 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 18 (17%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); 897 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 15 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives).Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 88% (85% to 91%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 83% (79% to 86%); Xpert Ultra specificity was 96% (94% to 97%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 98% (97% to 99%), (1 study, 1439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 98% (97% to 98%) in smear-positive and 67% (62% to 72%) in smear-negative, culture-positive participants, (45 studies). Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 88% (83% to 92%) in HIV-negative and 81% (75% to 86%) in HIV-positive participants; specificities were similar 98% (97% to 99%), (14 studies).Rifampicin resistance detectionXpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% Crl) were 96% (94% to 97%) and 98% (98% to 99%), (48 studies, 8020 participants; high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, 114 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and 18 (16%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); 886 would be would be negative for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and four (0.4%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% CI) was 95% (90% to 98%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 95% (91% to 98%); Xpert Ultra specificity was 98% (97% to 99%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 98% (96% to 99%), (1 study, 551 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found Xpert MTB/RIF to be sensitive and specific for diagnosing PTB and rifampicin resistance, consistent with findings reported previously. Xpert MTB/RIF was more sensitive for tuberculosis in smear-positive than smear-negative participants and HIV-negative than HIV-positive participants. Compared with Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity for tuberculosis and similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance (1 study). Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra provide accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Retrospective Analysis of False-Positive and Disputed Rifampin Resistance Xpert MTB/RIF Assay Results in Clinical Samples from a Referral Hospital in Hunan, China

Concerns about the specificity of the Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assay have arisen, as false-positive errors in the determination of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) infection and rifampin (RIF) resistance in clinical practice have been reported. Here, we investigated 33 cases where patients were determined to be RIF susceptible using the Bactec MGIT 960 (MGIT) culture system but RIF resistant using the Xpert assay. Isolates from two of these patients were found not to have any mutations in the rifampin resistance determining region (RRDR) region of rpoB and had good treatment outcomes with first-line antituberculosis (anti-TB) drugs. The remaining 31 patients included 5 new cases and 26 previously treated patients. A large number of well-documented disputed mutations, including Leu511Pro, Asp516Tyr, His526Asn, His526Leu, His526Cys, and Leu533Pro, were detected, and mutations, including a 508 to 509 deletion and His526Gly, were described here as disputed mutations for the first time. Twenty-one (81%) of the 26 previously treated patients had poor treatment outcomes, and isolates from 19 (90%) of these 21 patients were resistant to isoniazid (INH) as determined using the MGIT culture system. Twenty-seven of the 31 isolates with disputed rpoB mutations were phenotypically resistant to INH, 21 (78%) being predicted by GenoType MTBDRplus to have a high level of INH resistance. Most (77.4%) of the isolates with disputed mutations were of the Beijing lineage. These findings have implications for the interpretation of false-positive and disputed rifampin resistance Xpert MTB/RIF results in clinical samples and provide guidance on how clinicians should manage patients carrying isolates with disputed rpoB mutations.

Performance of Biochip system in detecting drug resistant and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis using sputum collected from multiple clinical settings in Zhejiang, China

The objective of the present study was to conduct a multicentre, prospective evaluation of the diagnostic performance of the Biochip system for the detection of drug-resistant tuberculosis using smear-positive sputum specimens. This prospective study evaluated the diagnostic performance of this new platform for drug resistant and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) using 1491 smear-positive sputum specimens collected from multiple clinical settings. Using conventional culture-based culturing and drug-susceptibility testing as reference standards, the biochip system had a sensitivity of 86.08% and a specificity of 97.7% for rifampicin (RIF) detection, in detecting isoniazid (INH) resistance, it had a sensitivity of 79.36% and a specificity of 98.71%. With respect to MDR-TB detection, the sensitivity was 78.01% and the specificity was 98.86%. The performance only varies among different sites for RIF resistance, and there are no other statistically difference in diagnostic performance for other variables considered. The Biochip system shows favourable sensitivity and specificity for RIF and INH resistance, along with MDR-TB detection, directly using clinical smear-positive sputum samples. It is an alternative to conventional drug-susceptibility testing (DST) for detecting drug resistance or MDR-TB and is a method worth expanding to clinical settings in China.

A Comprehensive Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF Assay With Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid as a Single Test or Combined With Conventional Assays for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in China: A Two-Center Prospective Study

Introduction: The Xpert MTB/RIF is recommended by the World Health Organization as a first line rapid test for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB); however, China does not routinely use this test, partially due to the lack of a sufficient number of systematic evaluations of this assay in local patients. The aims of this study were to comprehensively assess the diagnostic performance of Xpert MTB/RIF, either alone or in combination with conventional assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary TB in adult Chinese patients. Methods: Xpert MTB/RIF tests were performed in 190 adult patients with suspected pulmonary TB, using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) as test specimens. In parallel, conventional tests were carried out using the same BALF samples. Using two different reference standards, the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF, conventional assays and their combinations were evaluated. Results: Using mycobacterial culture as the reference comparator, Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be superior to smear-microscopy in detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis. When final diagnosis, based on clinical criteria, was employed as the reference standard, Xpert MTB/RIF showed an even higher accuracy of 72.1%, supported by a sensitivity of 61.1% and specificity of 96.6%. Xpert MTB/RIF also demonstrated a powerful capability to identify pulmonary TB cases undetected by culture or smear-microscopy. Combining smear-microscopy and Xpert MTB/RIF was found to be the most accurate early predictor for pulmonary TB. Rifampicin resistance reported by Xpert MTB/RIF slightly deviated from that by phenotypic antibiotic susceptibility testing and requires further study with a larger sample size. Conclusion: This two-center prospective study highlights the value of Xpert MTB/RIF with BALF in diagnosing pulmonary TB in adult Chinese patients. These findings might contribute to the optimization of current diagnostic algorithms for pulmonary TB in China.

Time to treatment for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

To reduce transmission and improve patient outcomes, rapid diagnosis and treatment of rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (RR-TB) is required.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis assessing time to treatment for RR-TB and variability using diagnostic testing methods and treatment delivery approach.

DESIGN

Studies from 2000 to 2015 reporting time to second-line treatment initiation were selected from PubMed and published conference abstracts.

RESULTS

From 53 studies, 83 cohorts (13 034 patients) were included. Overall weighted mean time to treatment from specimen collection was 81 days (95%CI 70-91), and was shorter with ambulatory (57 days, 95%CI 40-74) than hospital-based treatment (86 days, 95%CI 71-102). Time to treatment was shorter with genotypic susceptibility testing (38 days, 95%CI 27-49) than phenotypic testing (108 days, 95%CI 98-117). The mean percentage of diagnosed patients initiating treatment was 76% (95%CI 70-83, range 25-100).

CONCLUSION

Time to second-line anti-tuberculosis treatment initiation is extremely variable across studies, and often unnecessarily long. Reduced delays are associated with genotypic testing and ambulatory treatment settings. Routine monitoring of the proportion of diagnosed patients initiating treatment and time to treatment are necessary to identify areas for intervention.

Diagnostic dilemma of pulmonary tuberculosis among adults with severe mental illness in Beijing, China

Background

Although the prevalence of tuberculosis has decreased significantly over the past decades, the certain populations with mental illness are at increased risk for tuberculosis infection and transmission. However, no studies have examined the performance of different laboratory examination methods among people with severe mental illness in China.

Methods

In this study, we firstly performed a retrospective study to evaluate the feasibility of three routine laboratory methods, including sputum microscopy, solid culture and GeneXpert, to diagnose tuberculosis patients with mental illness.

Results

During August 2010 and March 2013, a total of 251 TB patients based on clinical and radiographic criteria with severe mental illness were enrolled in this study. The majority of patients was homeless (97/251, 38.6%), and the other 62 (24.7%) and 92 (36.7%) were from urban and rural region, respectively. The most frequently diagnosed mental illness was schizophrenia, accounting for 84.1% (211/251) of patients available for analysis. In addition, the laboratory received 753 sputum samples collected from these 251 TB patients, of which 76.0% (572/753) of samples were classified as salivary sputum, which were unqualified for microscopy and culture. When the test results were analyzed by patients, the positive numbers of TB patients detected by sputum microscopy, solid culture and GeneXpert were 3 (1.2%), 5 (2.0%) and 5 (2.0%), respectively.

Conclusions

In conclusion, our findings reveal that the current laboratory examinations based on sputum samples seem not to be suitable for the diagnosis of active TB in the persons with severe mental illness. The products using a non-invasive specimen such as urine deserve further evaluation, which may generate benefit for the early diagnosis of TB in this special population.

Rapid diagnosis of MDR and XDR tuberculosis with the MeltPro TB assay in China

New diagnostic methods have provided a promising solution for rapid and reliable detection of drug-resistant TB strains. The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of the MeltPro TB assay in identifying multidrug-resistant (MDR-) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) patients from sputum samples. The MeltPro TB assay was evaluated using sputum samples from 2057 smear-positive TB patients. Phenotypic Mycobacterial Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) 960 drug susceptibility testing served as a reference standard. The sensitivity of the MeltPro TB assay was 94.2% for detecting resistance to rifampicin and 84.9% for detecting resistance to isoniazid. For second-line drugs, the assay showed a sensitivity of 83.3% for ofloxacin resistance, 75.0% for amikacin resistance, and 63.5% for kanamycin resistance. However, there was a significant difference for detecting kanamycin resistance between the two pilot sites in sensitivity, which was 53.2% in Guangdong and 81.5% in Shandong (P = 0.015). Overall, the MeltPro TB assay demonstrated good performance for the detection of MDR- and XDR-TB, with a sensitivity of 86.7% and 71.4%, respectively. The MeltPro TB assay is an excellent alternative for the detection of MDR- and XDR-TB cases in China, with high accuracy, short testing turn-around time, and low unit price compared with other tests.