Diagnostic Accuracy of the Small Membrane Filtration Method for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in a High-HIV-Prevalence Setting

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra assays for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis is a leading cause of infectious disease-related death and is one of the top 10 causes of death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of specific rapid molecular tests, including Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra, as initial diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in people with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. However, the WHO estimates that nearly one-third of all active tuberculosis cases go undiagnosed and unreported. We were interested in whether a single test, Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra, could be useful as a screening test to close this diagnostic gap and improve tuberculosis case detection.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in high-risk groups and in the general population. Screening "irrespective of signs or symptoms" refers to screening of people who have not been assessed for the presence of tuberculosis symptoms (e.g. cough). To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for detecting rifampicin resistance in adults screened for tuberculosis, irrespective of signs and symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in high-risk groups and in the general population.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 databases including the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and Embase, on 19 March 2020 without language restrictions. We also reviewed reference lists of included articles and related Cochrane Reviews, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional and cohort studies in which adults (15 years and older) in high-risk groups (e.g. people living with HIV, household contacts of people with tuberculosis) or in the general population were screened for pulmonary tuberculosis using Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra. For tuberculosis detection, the reference standard was culture. For rifampicin resistance detection, 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 and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. We used a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) separately for tuberculosis detection and rifampicin resistance detection. We estimated all models using a Bayesian approach. For tuberculosis detection, we first estimated screening accuracy in distinct high-risk groups, including people living with HIV, household contacts, people residing in prisons, and miners, and then in several high-risk groups combined.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 21 studies: 18 studies (13,114 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test for pulmonary tuberculosis and one study (571 participants) evaluated both Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra. Three studies (159 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance. Fifteen studies (75%) were conducted in high tuberculosis burden and 16 (80%) in high TB/HIV-burden countries. We judged most studies to have low risk of bias in all four QUADAS-2 domains and low concern for applicability. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra as screening tests for pulmonary tuberculosis In people living with HIV (12 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) were 61.8% (53.6 to 69.9) (602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 98.8% (98.0 to 99.4) (4173 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 50 have tuberculosis on culture, 40 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive; of these, 9 (22%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 960 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative; of these, 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). In people living with HIV (1 study), Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 69% (57 to 80) (68 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 98% (97 to 99) (503 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 50 have tuberculosis on culture, 53 would be Xpert Ultra-positive; of these, 19 (36%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 947 would be Xpert Ultra-negative; of these, 16 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). In non-hospitalized people in high-risk groups (5 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 69.4% (47.7 to 86.2) (337 participants, low-certainty evidence) and 98.8% (97.2 to 99.5) (8619 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 10 have tuberculosis on culture, 19 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive; of these, 12 (63%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 981 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative; of these, 3 (0%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). We did not identify any studies using Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra for screening in the general population. Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test for rifampicin resistance Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was 81% and 100% (2 studies, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity was 94% to 100%, (3 studies, 139 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Of the high-risks groups evaluated, Xpert MTB/RIF applied as a screening test was accurate for tuberculosis in high tuberculosis burden settings. Sensitivity and specificity were similar in people living with HIV and non-hospitalized people in high-risk groups. In people living with HIV, Xpert Ultra sensitivity was slightly higher than that of Xpert MTB/RIF and specificity similar. As there was only one study of Xpert Ultra in this analysis, results should be interpreted with caution. There were no studies that evaluated the tests in people with diabetes mellitus and other groups considered at high-risk for tuberculosis, or in the general population.

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.

Which sample type is better for Xpert MTB/RIF to diagnose adult and pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis?

Objective: This review aimed to identify proper respiratory-related sample types for adult and pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB), respectively, by comparing performance of Xpert MTB/RIF when using bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), induced sputum (IS), expectorated sputum (ES), nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs), and gastric aspiration (GA) as sample.

Methods: Articles were searched in Web of Science, PubMed, and Ovid from inception up to 29 June 2020. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated, each with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Quality assessment and heterogeneity evaluation across included studies were performed.

Results: A total of 50 articles were included. The respective sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95% CI: 0.84–0.89), 91% (95% CI: 0.90–0.92) and 95% (95% CI: 0.93–0.97) in the adult BAL group; 90% (95% CI: 0.88–0.91), 98% (95% CI: 0.97–0.98) and 97% (95% CI: 0.95–0.99) in the adult ES group; 86% (95% CI: 0.84–0.89) and 97% (95% CI: 0.96–0.98) in the adult IS group. Xpert MTB/RIF showed the sensitivity and specificity of 14% (95% CI: 0.10–0.19) and 99% (95% CI: 0.97–1.00) in the pediatric ES group; 80% (95% CI: 0.72–0.87) and 94% (95% CI: 0.92–0.95) in the pediatric GA group; 67% (95% CI: 0.62–0.72) and 99% (95% CI: 0.98–0.99) in the pediatric IS group; and 54% (95% CI: 0.43–0.64) and 99% (95% CI: 0.97–0.99) in the pediatric NPA group. The heterogeneity across included studies was deemed acceptable.

Conclusion: Considering diagnostic accuracy, cost and sampling process, ES was a better choice than other sample types for diagnosing adult PTB, especially HIV-associated PTB. GA might be more suitable than other sample types for diagnosing pediatric PTB. The actual choice of sample types should also consider the needs of specific situations.

Evaluation of 'TBDetect' sputum microscopy kit for improved detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a multi-centric validation study

OBJECTIVES

The present study aimed to evaluate the performance of the 'TBDetect' kit-based bio-safe fluorescent microscopy filter (BioFM-Filter) microscopy in comparison with direct smear microscopy and culture for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in a multi-centric setting in India.

METHODS

The TBDetect kit enables sputum concentration through filtration using the BioFM-Filter for improved and bio-safe smear microscopy. We evaluated the performance of the TBDetect kit in a six-site multi-centric validation study on sputum collected from 2086 presumptive TB patients.

RESULTS

The combined positivity of TBDetect microscopy performed on these sputum samples was 20% (n = 417/2086) vs 16.1% of light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy (LED-FM, n = 337/2086) and 16% of Ziehl Neelsen (ZN) smear microscopy (n = 333/2086). The increment in positivity of TBDetect over both LED-FM and ZN smears was significant (p < 0.001). The overall sensitivity of TBDetect for six sites was ~55% (202/367, 95% confidence interval (CI): 50, 60%) vs 52% (191/367, 95% CI: 47, 57%) for LED-FM (p 0.14) and 50.9% (187/367, 95% CI: 46, 56%) for ZN smear (p < 0.05), using Mycobacterium Growth Indicator Tube culture (MGIT, n = 1949, culture positive, n = 367) as the reference standard. A bio-safety evaluation at six sites confirmed efficient sputum disinfection by TBDetect; 99.95% samples (1873/1874) were sterile after 42 days of incubation. Scientists and technicians at the study sites indicated the ease of use and convenience of TBDetect microscopy during feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

TBDetect added value to the smear microscopy test due to its improved performance, convenience and user safety. These findings indicate that equipment-free TBDetect technology has the potential to improve TB diagnosis in basic laboratory settings by leveraging on the existing nationwide network of designated microscopy centres and primary healthcare centres.

Development and evaluation of novel bio-safe filter paper-based kits for sputum microscopy and transport to directly detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis and associated drug resistance

India has the highest burden of Tuberculosis (TB) and multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) worldwide. Innovative technology is the need of the hour to identify these cases that remain either undiagnosed or inadequately diagnosed due to the unavailability of appropriate tools at primary healthcare settings. We developed and evaluated 3 kits, namely ‘TB Detect’ (containing BioFM-Filter device), ‘TB Concentration and Transport’ (containing Trans-Filter device) and ‘TB DNA Extraction’ kits. These kits enable bio-safe equipment-free concentration of sputum on filters and improved fluorescence microscopy at primary healthcare centres, ambient temperature transport of dried inactivated sputum filters to central laboratories and molecular detection of drug resistance by PCR and DNA sequencing (Mol-DST). In a 2-site evaluation (n = 1190 sputum specimens) on presumptive TB patients, BioFM-Filter smear exhibited a significant increase in positivity of 7% and 4% over ZN smear and LED-FM smear (p<0.05), respectively and an increment in smear grade status (1+ or 2+ to 3+) of 16% over ZN smear and 20% over LED-FM smear. The sensitivity of Mol-DST in presumptive MDR-TB and XDR-TB cases (n = 148) was 90% for Rifampicin (95% confidence interval [CI], 78–96%), 84% for Isoniazid (95% CI, 72–92%), 83% for Fluoroquinolones (95% CI, 66–93%) and 75% for Aminoglycosides (95% CI, 35–97%), using phenotypic DST as the reference standard. Test specificity was 88–93% and concordance was ~89–92% (κ value 0.8–0.9). The patient-friendly kits described here address several of the existing challenges and are designed to provide ‘Universal Access’ to rapid TB diagnosis, including drug-resistant disease. Their utility was demonstrated by application to sputum at 2 sites in India. Our findings pave the way for larger studies in different point-of-care settings, including high-density urban areas and remote geographical locations.

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.

Detection and Quantification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the Sputum of Culture-Negative HIV-infected Pulmonary Tuberculosis Suspects: A Proof-of-Concept Study

RATIONALE

Rapid diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is critical for timely initiation of treatment and interruption of transmission. Yet, despite recent advances, many patients remain undiagnosed. Culture, usually considered the most sensitive diagnostic method, is sub-optimal for paucibacillary disease.

METHODS

We evaluated the Totally Optimized PCR (TOP) TB assay, a new molecular test that we hypothesize is more sensitive than culture. After pre-clinical studies, we estimated TOP's per-patient sensitivity and specificity in a convenience sample of 261 HIV-infected pulmonary TB suspects enrolled into a TB diagnostic study in Mbarara, Uganda against MGIT culture, Xpert MTB/RIF and a composite reference standard. We validated results with a confirmatory PCR used for sequencing M. tuberculosis.

MEASUREMENTS AND RESULTS

Using culture as reference, TOP had 100% sensitivity but 35% specificity. Against a composite reference standard, the sensitivity of culture (27%) and Xpert MTB/RIF (27%) was lower than TOP (99%), with similar specificity (100%, 98% and 87%, respectively). In unadjusted analyses, culture-negative/TOP-positive patients were more likely to be older (P<0·001), female (P<0·001), have salivary sputum (P = 0·05), sputum smear-negative (P<0.001) and less advanced disease on chest radiograph (P = 0.05). M. tuberculosis genotypes identified in sputum by DNA sequencing exhibit differential growth in culture.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that the TOP TB assay is accurately detecting M. tuberculosis DNA in the sputum of culture-negative tuberculosis suspects. Our results require prospective validation with clinical outcomes. If the operating characteristics of the TOP assay are confirmed in future studies, it will be justified as a "TB rule out" test.