Evaluation of the GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay on extrapulmonary and respiratory samples other than sputum: a low burden country experience

The haunting diagnosis of malignancy in women with treatable reproductive system tuberculosis

This study reports a case of female genital tuberculosis in a 46-year-old woman who presented to emergency department with abdominal pain and progressive abdominal distension. The patient was initially thought to have ovarian cancer based on clinical diagnosis and elevated cancer antigen-125 (CA-125) levels. Intra-operatively, no obvious ovarian tumor was encountered instead; disseminated creamy white patches on the uterus and left adnexa were seen. About 4500-mL straw-colored ascitic fluid and disseminated creamy white patches were also found on the bowels and omentum giving an impression of carcinomatosis. However, histopathology of the fallopian tube and ovary confirmed the diagnosis of female genital tuberculosis as the underlying cause. Female genital tuberculosis often mimics tumors in its clinical appearance and symptoms, leading to misdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment. The key to diagnosing female genital tuberculosis is being suspicious as it is challenging to diagnose through laboratory tests or radiology. The mainstay of treatment for female genital tuberculosis is a combination of four antituberculosis drugs. Consideration of female genital tuberculosis as a differential diagnosis in women presenting with symptoms mimicking reproductive tumors is highly recommended as highlighted in this case report.

Use of light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy to detect acid-fast bacilli in sputum as proficient alternative tool in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in countries with limited resource settings

Background

Despite recent advances in the development of more sensitive technologies for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB), in resource-limited settings, the diagnosis continues to rely on sputum smear microscopy. This is because smear microscopy is simple, cost-efficient and the most accessible tool for the diagnosis of TB. Our study evaluated the performance of light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy (LED-FM) using auramine/rhodamine (auramine) and the fluorescein di-acetate (FDA) vital stain in the diagnostic of pulmonary TB in Bamako, Mali.

Methods

Sputum smear microscopy was conducted using the FDA and auramine/rhodamine staining procedures on fresh samples using LED-FM to evaluate the Mycobacterium TB (MTB) metabolic activity and to predict contagiousness. Mycobacterial culture assay was utilized as a gold standard method.

Results

Out of 1401 TB suspected patients, 1354 (96.65%) were retrieved from database, which were MTB complex culture positive, and 47 (3.40%) were culture negative (no mycobacterial growth observed). Out of the 1354 included patients, 1343 (95.86%), were acid-fast bacillus (AFB) positive after direct FDA staining, 1352 (96.50%) AFB positive after direct Auramine, and 1354 (96.65%) AFB positive with indirect auramine after digestion and centrifugation. Overall, the FDA staining method has a sensitivity of 98.82%, while the sensitivity of Auramine with direct observation was 99.48%, and 99.56% with the indirect examination.

Conclusion

This study showed that, using fresh sputum both auramine/rhodamine and FDA are highly sensitive methods in diagnosing pulmonary TB and could be easily used in countries with limited resource settings.

Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex detection in rural goat herds in South Africa using Bayesian latent class analysis

Animal tuberculosis affects a wide range of domestic and wild animal species, including goats (Capra hircus). In South Africa, Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) testing and surveillance in domestic goats is not widely applied, potentially leading to under recognition of goats as a potential source of M. bovis spread to cattle as well as humans and wildlife. The aim of this study was to estimate diagnostic test performance for four assays and determine whether M. bovis infection was present in goats sharing communal pastures with M. bovis positive cattle in the Umkhanyakude district of Northern Zululand, KwaZulu Natal. In 2019, 137 M. bovis-exposed goats were screened for MTBC infection with four diagnostic tests: the in vivo single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin test (SICCT), in vitro QuantiFERON®-TB Gold (QFT) bovine interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA), QFT bovine interferon gamma induced protein 10 (IP-10) release assay (IPRA), and nasal swabs tested with the Cepheid GeneXpert® MTB/RIF Ultra (GXU) assay for detection of MTBC DNA. A Bayesian latent class analysis was used to estimate MTBC prevalence and diagnostic test sensitivity and specificity. Among the 137 M. bovis-exposed goats, positive test results were identified in 15/136 (11.0%) goats by the SICCT; 4/128 (3.1%) goats by the IPRA; 2/128 (1.6%) goats by the IGRA; and 26/134 (19.4%) nasal swabs by the GXU. True prevalence was estimated by our model to be 1.1%, suggesting that goats in these communal herds are infected with MTBC at a low level. Estimated posterior means across the four evaluated assays ranged from 62.7% to 80.9% for diagnostic sensitivity and from 82.9% to 97.9% for diagnostic specificity, albeit estimates of the former (diagnostic sensitivity) were dependent on model assumptions. The application of a Bayesian latent class analysis and multiple ante-mortem test results may improve detection of MTBC, especially when prevalence is low. Our results provide a foundation for further investigation to confirm infection in communal goat herds and identify previously unrecognized sources of intra- and inter-species transmission of MTBC.

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.

The Diagnostic Value of the Thermostatic Amplification of Ribonucleic Acid in Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid in Smear-Negative Pulmonary Tuberculosis

Objective

This study aimed to determine the value of the simultaneous amplification and testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis in bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) in the diagnosis of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB).

Methods

A total of 316 patients were selected, of which 197 had smear-negative PTB (observation group), and 119 did not have TB (control group). Bronchoscopy was performed in both groups, and BALF samples were collected for acid-fast bacilli smears, simultaneous amplification/testing for TB (SAT-TB), and BACTEC MGIT 960 cultures. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive, and negative predictive values of SAT-TB in BALF for the diagnosis of negative TB were calculated.

Results

The sensitivity of SAT-TB detection was 45.18%, which was significantly higher than smears and slightly lower than cultures. The specificity of SAT-TB was 99.16%, which differed slightly from the other two methods. The positive predictive value was 98.89%, which was not significantly different from the other two methods. The negative predictive value of SAT-TB was 58.91%, which was higher than smears and slightly lower than cultures.

Conclusion

The very high specificity and negative prediction of SAT-TB in BALF means that the method has great application value for the rapid diagnosis of smear-negative PTB.

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.

Abdominal Tuberculosis: Experience from Two Tertiary-Care Hospitals in the Paris Region

Abdominal tuberculosis (ATB) is uncommon and not very well known by clinicians. We describe the characteristics, evolution, and treatment of patients with ATB in two large hospitals in the Paris region. We reviewed all records of patients treated for ATB, from January 01, 2010 to December 01, 2016, diagnosed by bacteriological and/or histological methods or highly suspected because of clinical/radiological features. We included 80 patients, with a median (IQR) age of 39 (29-50) years, with 56.2% being males. Among them, 63.7% had African origins, 15% Asian, and 11.2% European. Twenty-nine had a cause of immunosuppression (n = 21 HIV infection). The main abdominal localizations were lymph nodes (72.5%), peritoneum (62.5%), and solid organs (25%). Extra-abdominal localizations were recorded in 65 (81.2%) patients. Tuberculosis was proven bacteriologically in 71%, histologically in 50%, and solely clinical/radiological in 10% of cases. Patients received standard therapy for a median duration of 9 months, with a favorable outcome. Corticosteroid therapy was used in 15 cases, either for paradoxical reaction or to prevent complications. Abdominal TB was mainly represented by lymphatic and peritoneal localizations, proven bacteriologically, and associated with extra-abdominal localizations in most cases. The use of steroids remains controversial, but it does not seem systematically needed in case of abdominal involvement.

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 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.

Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF for the Diagnosis of Lymphatic Tuberculosis

Background

The World Health Organization approved the use of Xpert MTB/RIF for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA, which has significantly improved the diagnosis of tuberculosis. In this study, our main objective was to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF for lymphoid tuberculosis to determine whether Xpert MTB/RIF could be used as a routine detection method.

Materials and Methods

We searched four databases for the relevant literature published from May 2007 to December 2019. The quality of the literature was evaluated with reference to the evaluation criteria. Data that were extracted from the literature on Xpert MTB/RIF diagnosis of lymphatic tuberculosis were used to plot the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve, after which the software was used to combine and analyze the accuracy of these data.

Results

A total of 27 studies were included. The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF for detecting lymphatic tuberculosis was 0.79 (95% CI (0.77, 0.81)), the specificity was 0.88 (95% CI (0.87, 0.90)), and the positive likelihood ratio (PLR) was 7.21 (95% CI (4.93, 10.55)). In addition, the negative likelihood ratio (NLR) was 0.25 (95% CI (0.19, 0.32)) and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 40.23 (95% CI (24.53, 65.98)). At the same time, we used the extracted data to make the SROC curve, obtaining the following parameters: area under the curve (AUC) = 0.9144, Q = 0.8470 (SE = 0.0163).

Conclusion

Xpert MTB/RIF has high accuracy in detecting lymphatic tuberculosis, and it can be used to quickly and easily diagnose lymphatic tuberculosis at an early stage as a general method.

Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis transmission among middle school students in Zhejiang Province, China

Background

Despite significant advancements in the treatment and diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) over the past decade, drug-resistant TB remains an increasing threat to public health. TB outbreaks are most commonly reported in schools considering the delay in TB diagnosis, sustained contact, and overcrowding observed in schools. This report describes multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) transmission in a school in Zhejiang Province. We aimed to raise awareness regarding MDR-TB transmission among students.

Case presentation

The index patient was a 16-year-old girl in the second year of junior middle school in Zhejiang Province, China, who had been experiencing persistent cough and expectoration for 37 days since 1 March 2014. She tested positive for smear pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB on 8 April 2014 and was subsequently diagnosed with MDR-TB on 1 May 2014. However, the patient was resistant to isoniazid, rifampicin, ethambutol, and streptomycin. Thus, she was suspended from school for anti-TB treatment. All 54 students who were in close contact with the index patient in the same class were screened, and 5 tested positive on the tuberculin skin test. Their exposure time to the index patient was approximately 37 days. Three classmates were subsequently diagnosed with MDR-TB, with similar resistance profiles nearly two years later. Their average discovery delay was 55 days. These three classmates were also suspended from school for anti-TB treatment. During the treatment period, four students visited the local TB-designated hospital for further consultation every month and were followed up once a month by the local community health service center until they were completely cured.

Conclusions

Discovery delay for an index patient played a primary role in MDR-TB transmission inside the school. To immediately detect TB, morning examinations in schools should be performed. TB trackers and case managers should work closely with public health workers and physicians in cases of TB outbreaks or transmissions involving students. Moreover, individuals who are in close contact with MDR-TB patients should undergo careful clinical follow-up for at least two years. Implementing a joint examination strategy to ensure early detection, diagnosis, and treatment of MDR-TB transmission is recommended.

Comparison of CapitalBio™ Mycobacterium nucleic acid detection test and Xpert MTB/RIF assay for rapid diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis

The CapitalBio™ Mycobacterium nucleic acid detection test is a real-time fluorescent polymerase chain reaction and TaqMan probe technology test for rapid diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB). This test had moderate sensitivity and high specificity for EPTB, like that of Xpert MTB/RIF, especially for lymph node, chest wall, and purulent fluid samples.

Comparison of GeneXpert and line probe assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin-mono resistance at the National Tuberculosis Reference Laboratory, Kenya

BACKGROUND

The dual challenge of low diagnostic sensitivity of microscopy test and technical challenge of performing a TB culture test poses a problem for case detection and initiation of Tuberculosis (TB) second-line treatment. There is thus need for a rapid, reliable and easily accessible assay. This comparative analysis was performed to assess diagnostic performance characteristics of GeneXpert MTB/RIF and Line Probe Assay (LPA).

METHODS

Three hundred twenty nine sputum samples of patients across the 47 counties in Kenya suspected to have drug resistant TB were picked and subjected to GeneXpert, LPA and Culture MGIT at the National TB Reference Laboratory. Sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were then determined to assess the performance characteristics of the various assays.

RESULTS

Against culture MGIT as the gold standard for TB diagnosis, GeneXpert had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 78.5, 64.9, 59.4 and 82.2% respectively while LPA had 98.4, 66.0, 65.4 and 98.4%. For diagnosis of rifampicin mono-resistance GeneXpert had a moderate agreement (Kappa 0.59, P < 0.01) (sensitivity 62.50%, specificity 96.50%) while LPA that had almost perfect agreement (Kappa = 0.89, p < 0.01) with a (sensitivity 90.0% and specificity 99.1%).

CONCLUSION

LPA has a better performance characteristic to GeneXpert and an alternative to culture with regards to detection of RIF's mono-resistance.

A recent update of the diagnostic methods for tuberculosis and their applicability in Indonesia: a narrative review

Tuberculosis (TB) is a major global problem, especially with the high prevalence of HIV-TB co-infection. Delayed diagnosis and continual transmission contribute to high mortality in Indonesia, which has the third highest incidence of TB in the world, after China and India. Therefore, early diagnosis is needed to reduce the number of cases and to administer therapy to prevent the transmission of bacteria. The diagnosis of TB remains a challenge in clinical practice due to poor sensitivity and the requirement of skilled staff in microscopic tests, the slow growth Mycobacterium in culture, and the low number of bacilli present in extrapulmonary TB. Despite being the golden standard for TB diagnosis, cultures require 2–8 weeks to grow. Other methods for diagnosing TB include interferon-gamma release assays and serologic tests such as the tuberculin skin test. Recently, the World Health Organization recommended the GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay for diagnosing TB. This review presents the current state of TB epidemiology and various methods for TB diagnosis. In particular, the paper provides an in-depth discussion about the GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay that has been made available recently in selected tertiary hospitals in Indonesia.

Comparative evaluation of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay, GeneXpert MTB/Rif and multiplex PCR for the diagnosis of tubercular lymphadenitis in HIV-infected patients of North India

BACKGROUND

Tubercular lymphadenitis (TBLA) is one of the most common extrapulmonary manifestations of tuberculosis in patients with HIV. With several other pathological conditions presenting as lymphadenitis and lack of consensus regarding a gold standard test, the diagnosis of TBLA remains a challenge for the clinician.

OBJECTIVES

and design: In this study, we have assessed the potential of loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) test for the diagnosis of TBLA in HIV-infected patients. The study group included samples collected by fine needle aspiration (FNAC) of lymph nodes from 24 HIV-infected patients with TBLA. A composite reference standard was used to identify cases of TBLA based on clinical suspicion, results of cytology, AFB smear, MGIT culture, GeneXpert MTB/RIF, multiplex polymerase chain reaction (MPCR) and subsequently clinical response to antitubercular therapy. These tests were also carried out in 26 control samples of lymph node FNAC from HIV-infected patients with non-tubercular lymphadenitis.

RESULTS

LAMP assay was positive in 19/24 TBLA cases and yielded a sensitivity of 79.17% with 100% specificity. Cytology was suggestive in 18/24 (75%) TBLA cases. GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay correctly identified 16/24 TBLA cases, but the test did show one false positive result reducing its specificity. MPCR had the highest sensitivity of 91.67% as it correctly identified 22/24 cases and showed no false positive result.

CONCLUSION

The current study highlights the potential of LAMP test for the specific diagnosis of tubercular lymphadenitis in FNAC samples from HIV-infected patients, especially when cytology is either non-conclusive or non-available. Though MPCR had a higher sensitivity than LAMP assay, the added advantages of low cost, minimal technical expertise and simplicity of procedure make LAMP assay a suitable diagnostic test in resource-limited settings.

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.

Diagnostic Accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF Assay for Lymph Node Tuberculosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objectives

To evaluate the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF for lymph node tuberculosis (LNTB).

Methods

We searched databases for published reports. We reviewed the studies and identified the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF with respect to a composite reference standard (CRS) and culture. We used a bivariate random-effects model to perform meta-analyses and used metaregression to analyze sources of heterogeneity.

Results

15 independent studies compared Xpert MTB/RIF with CRS while 21 comparing it with culture were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF were 79% and 98% compared to that of CRS, respectively, and 84% and 91% compared to that of culture, respectively. The pooled sensitivity and specificity using fine needle aspiration (FNA) samples versus CRS were 80% and 96%, whereas those against culture were 90% and 89%, respectively. The percentages while working with tissue samples versus CRS were 76% and 100%, respectively, whereas those against culture were 76% and 92%, respectively. There was no significant difference in diagnostic efficiency among the types of specimen.

Conclusions

Xpert MTB/RIF demonstrates good diagnostic efficiency for LNTB and is not related to the type of specimen, obtained via different routes.

Artificial Neural Networks for Prediction of Tuberculosis Disease

Background: The global burden of tuberculosis (TB) and antibiotic resistance is attracting the attention of researchers to develop some novel and rapid diagnostic tools. Although, the conventional methods like culture are considered as the gold standard, they are time consuming in diagnostic procedure, during which there are more chances in the transmission of disease. Further, the Xpert MTB/RIF assay offers a fast diagnostic facility within 2 h, but due to low sensitivity in some sample types may lead to more serious state of the disease. The role of computer technologies is now increasing in the diagnostic procedures. Here, in the current study we have applied the artificial neural network (ANN) that predicted the TB disease based on the TB suspect data. Methods: We developed an approach for prediction of TB, based on an ANN. The data was collected from the TB suspects, guardians or care takers along with samples, referred by TB units and health centers. All the samples were processed and cultured. Data was trained on 12,636 records of TB patients, collected during the years 2016 and 2017 from the provincial TB reference laboratory, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan. The training and test set of the suspect data were kept as 70 and 30%, respectively, followed by validation and normalization. The ANN takes the TB suspect's information such as gender, age, HIV-status, previous TB history, sample type, and signs and symptoms for TB prediction. Results: Based on TB patient data, ANN accurately predicted the Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) positive or negative with an overall accuracy of >94%. Further, the accuracy of the test and validation were found to be >93%. This increased accuracy of ANN in the detection of TB suspected patients might be useful for early management of disease to adopt some control measures in further transmission and reduce the drug resistance burden. Conclusion: ANNs algorithms may play an effective role in the early diagnosis of TB disease that might be applied as a supportive tool. Modern computer technologies should be trained in diagnostics for rapid disease management. Delays in TB diagnosis and initiation treatment may allow the emergence of new cases by transmission, causing high drug resistance in countries with a high TB burden.

Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) is the world's leading infectious cause of death. Extrapulmonary TB accounts for 15% of TB cases, but the proportion is increasing, and over half a million people were newly diagnosed with rifampicin-resistant TB in 2016. Xpert^® MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended, rapid, automated, nucleic acid amplification assay that is used widely for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum specimens. This Cochrane Review assessed the accuracy of Xpert in extrapulmonary specimens.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert a) for extrapulmonary TB by site of disease in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB; and b) for rifampicin resistance in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB.

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 (LILACS), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry, and ProQuest up to 7 August 2017 without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies of Xpert in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. We included TB meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, and disseminated TB. We used culture as the reference standard. For pleural TB, we also included a composite reference standard, which defined a positive result as the presence of granulomatous inflammation or a positive culture result. For rifampicin resistance, we used culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus as the reference standard.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. We determined pooled predicted sensitivity and specificity for TB, grouped by type of extrapulmonary specimen, and for rifampicin resistance. For TB detection, we used a bivariate random-effects model. Recognizing that use of culture may lead to misclassification of cases of extrapulmonary TB as 'not TB' owing to the paucibacillary nature of the disease, we adjusted accuracy estimates by applying a latent class meta-analysis model. For rifampicin resistance detection, we performed univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected. We used theoretical populations with an assumed prevalence to provide illustrative numbers of patients with false positive and false negative results.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 66 unique studies that evaluated 16,213 specimens for detection of extrapulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance. We identified only one study that evaluated the newest test version, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), for TB meningitis. Fifty studies (76%) took place in low- or middle-income countries. Risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains and was high or unclear for the reference standard domain (most of these studies decontaminated sterile specimens before culture inoculation). Regarding applicability, in the patient selection domain, we scored high or unclear concern for most studies because either patients were evaluated exclusively as inpatients at tertiary care centres, or we were not sure about the clinical settings.Pooled Xpert sensitivity (defined by culture) varied across different types of specimens (31% in pleural tissue to 97% in bone or joint fluid); Xpert sensitivity was > 80% in urine and bone or joint fluid and tissue. Pooled Xpert specificity (defined by culture) varied less than sensitivity (82% in bone or joint tissue to 99% in pleural fluid and urine). Xpert specificity was ≥ 98% in cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, urine, and peritoneal fluid.Xpert testing in cerebrospinal fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval (CrI)) against culture were 71.1% (60.9% to 80.4%) and 98.0% (97.0% to 98.8%), respectively (29 studies, 3774 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have TB meningitis on culture, 89 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 18 (20%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 911 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have TB (false-negatives).For TB meningitis, ultra sensitivity and specificity against culture (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 90% (55% to 100%) and 90% (83% to 95%), respectively (one study, 129 participants).Xpert testing in pleural fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 50.9% (39.7% to 62.8%) and 99.2% (98.2% to 99.7%), respectively (27 studies, 4006 specimens; low-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 150 have pleural TB on culture, 83 would be Xpert-positive: of these, seven (8%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 917 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 74 (8%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing in urineXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 82.7% (69.6% to 91.1%) and 98.7% (94.8% to 99.7%), respectively (13 studies, 1199 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 70 have genitourinary TB on culture, 70 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 12 (17%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 930 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 12 (1%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing for rifampicin resistanceXpert pooled sensitivity (20 studies, 148 specimens) and specificity (39 studies, 1088 specimens) were 95.0% (89.7% to 97.9%) and 98.7% (97.8% to 99.4%), respectively (high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 120 have rifampicin-resistant TB, 125 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 11 (9%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); and 875 would be negative for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 6 (1%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).For lymph node TB, the accuracy of culture, the reference standard used, presented a greater concern for bias than in other forms of extrapulmonary TB.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB, Xpert may be helpful in confirming the diagnosis. Xpert sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens, while for most specimens, specificity is high, the test rarely yielding a positive result for people without TB (defined by culture). Xpert is accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. For people with presumed TB meningitis, treatment should be based on clinical judgement, and not withheld solely on an Xpert result, as is common practice when culture results are negative.

GeneXpert MTB/RIF for rapid diagnosis and rifampin resistance detection of endobronchial tuberculosis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Delayed diagnosis and treatment of tuberculosis (TB) contribute to poor outcomes, especially for endobronchial TB (EBTB), which typically leads to tracheobronchial stenosis. Finding rapid and accurate diagnostic tools for EBTB is crucial. GeneXpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB)/rifampin (RIF) was recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) as a standard molecular biological diagnostic technique for MTB. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of GeneXpert MTB/RIF for diagnosing EBTB and for evaluating RIF resistance.

METHODS

Biopsy tissue and bronchial brushings from EBTB patients were prospectively assessed with GeneXpert MTB/RIF. The diagnostic yields of auramine O-stained sputum smears and bronchial brush smears were obtained, and the results were compared with the cultures of sputum and biopsy tissues for MTB.

RESULTS

In 61 confirmed cases of EBTB, the sensitivities of sputum smear, bronchial brush smear, sputum culture and tissue culture to diagnose EBTB were 13.1%, 32.8%, 36.1% and 68.9%, respectively. For bronchial brushings and biopsies, our data showed sensitivities of 57.4% and 63.9%, respectively, and a specificity of 100% for GeneXpert MTB/RIF, and these results were superior to those of sputum smears, bronchial brush smears and sputum culture. GeneXpert MTB/RIF for bronchial brushings and biopsies showed complementarity in its diagnostic performance. Resistance to RIF was identified in 17.4% (8/46) of GeneXpert MTB-positive cases.

CONCLUSION

GeneXpert MTB/RIF may enable more rapid EBTB diagnosis and determination of RIF resistance, which are crucial for timely treatment.

Mixed infections in tuberculosis: The missing part in a puzzle

The mixed strains infection phenomenon is a major problem posing serious challenges in control of tuberculosis (TB). In patients with mixed infection, several different strains of Mycobacterium tuberculosis can be isolated simultaneously. Although different genotyping methods and various molecular approaches can be employed for detection of mixed infection in clinical samples, the MIRU-VNTR technique is more sensitive with higher discriminative power than many widely used techniques. Furthermore, the recent introduction of whole genome sequencing (WGS) promises to reveal more details about mixed infection with high resolution. WGS has been used for detection of mixed infection with high sensitivity and discriminatory, but the technology is currently limited to developed countries. Mixed infection may involve strains with different susceptibility patterns, which may alter the treatment outcome. In this report, we review the current concepts of mixed strains infection and also infection involving strains with a different susceptibility pattern in TB. We evaluate the importance of identifying mixed infection for diagnosis as well as treatment and highlight the accuracy and clinical utility of direct genotyping of clinical specimens.