Can a simple flotation method lower the limit of detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in extrapulmonary samples analyzed by the GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay?

A stool based qPCR for the diagnosis of TB in children and people living with HIV in Uganda, Eswatini and Mozambique (Stool4TB): a protocol for a multicenter diagnostic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) is a major cause of mortality worldwide. Children and people living with HIV (PLHIV) have an increased risk of mortality, particularly in the absence of rapid diagnosis. The main challenges of diagnosing TB in these populations are due to the unspecific and paucibacillary disease presentation and the difficulty of obtaining respiratory samples. Thus, novel diagnostic strategies, based on non-respiratory specimens could improve clinical decision making and TB outcomes in high burden TB settings. We propose a multi-country, prospective diagnostic evaluation study with a nested longitudinal cohort evaluation to assess the performance of a new stool-based qPCR, developed by researchers at Baylor College of Medicine (Houston, Texas, USA) for TB bacteriological confirmation with promising results in pilot studies.

METHODS

The study will take place in high TB/HIV burden countries (Mozambique, Eswatini and Uganda) where we will enroll, over a period of 30 months, 650 PLHIV (> 15) and 1295 children under 8 years of age (irrespective of HIV status) presenting pressumptive TB. At baseline, all participants will provide clinical history, complete a physical assessment, and undergo thoracic chest X-ray imaging. To obtain bacteriological confirmation, participants will provide respiratory samples (1 for adults, 2 in children) and 1 stool sample for Xpert Ultra MTB/RIF (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA). Mycobacterium tuberculosis (M.tb) liquid culture will only be performed in respiratory samples and lateral flow lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) in urine following WHO recommendations. Participants will complete 2 months follow-up if they are not diagnosed with TB, and 6 months if they are. For analytical purposes, the participants in the pediatric cohort will be classified into "confirmed tuberculosis", "unconfirmed tuberculosis" and "unlikely tuberculosis". Participants of the adult cohort will be classified as "bacteriologically confirmed TB", "clinically diagnosed TB" or "not TB". We will assess accuracy of the novel qPCR test compared to bacteriological confirmation and Tb diagnosis irrespective of laboratory results. Longitudinal qPCR results will be analyzed to assess its use as treatment response monitoring.

DISCUSSION

The proposed stool-based qPCR is an innovation because both the strategy of using a non-sputum based sample and a technique specially designed to detect M.tb DNA in stool.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION DETAILS

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05047315.

The Value of GeneXpert MTB/RIF for Detection in Tuberculosis: A Bibliometrics-Based Analysis and Review

With the continuous development of medical science and technology, especially with the advent of the era of precision diagnosis and treatment, molecular biology detection technology is widely valued and applied as an aid to early diagnosis of tuberculosis. The GeneXpert Mycobacterium tuberculosis Branching (MTB) technology is a suite of semi-nested real-time fluorescent quantitative PCR in vitro diagnostic technologies developed by Cepheid Inc. It targets the rifampicin resistance gene, rpoB, and can detect both MTB and resistance to rifampicin within 2 h. This review analyzed the papers related to GeneXpert using bibliometric software CiteSpace and Bibliometrix. A total of 151 articles were analyzed, spanning from 2011 to 2021. This bibliometrics-based review summarizes the history of the development of GeneXpert in tuberculosis diagnosis and its current status. Contributions of different countries to the topic, journal analysis, key paper analysis, and clustering of keywords were used to analyze this topic.

Diagnosis of osteoarticular tuberculosis: multi-targeted loop-mediated isothermal amplification assay versus multiplex PCR

Aim: Diagnosis of osteoarticular tuberculosis (OATB) is quite challenging and there is an urgent need to design a prompt and precise diagnostic test. Methods: We developed a multi-targeted loop-mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) assay using mpt64 (Rv1980c) and pstS1 (Rv0934) targets for the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in OATB patients. Results: The sensitivities of 100 and 82.4% were obtained in confirmed (n = 10) and suspected (n = 57) OATB cases, respectively by multi-targeted LAMP with a specificity of 96.9% (n = 33). Moreover, the sensitivities attained by multi-targeted LAMP in total OATB cases were significantly higher (p < 0.05-0.01) than multiplex PCR (mpt64 + pstS1) and GeneXpert assay. Conclusion: Our LAMP is simple, reliable and cost-effective method, which may develop into an attractive diagnostic kit for early detection of OATB cases.

Laboratory comparison of stool processing methods for Xpert® Ultra

TB disease diagnosis in children is difficult due to non-specific symptoms, paucibacillary disease and the need for invasive procedures to obtain diagnostic specimens. In many settings, these specimens are simply not collected and therefore stool, easily obtained, has emerged as a promising specimen for the diagnosis of child TB. In this study, stool from a healthy adult was spiked with known concentrations of bacille Calmette-Guérin vaccine and tested using the Xpert® Ultra assay to determine the relative detection and error rate associated with four different published stool processing methods.

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.

Laboratory development of a simple stool sample processing method diagnosis of pediatric tuberculosis using Xpert Ultra

Stool samples are alternatives to respiratory samples for bacteriological confirmation of childhood tuberculosis but require intensive laboratory processing before molecular testing to remove PCR inhibitors and debris. We aimed to develop a centrifuge-free processing method for use in resource-limited settings based on a sucrose-flotation method that showed good sensitivity for childhood tuberculosis diagnosis. In an in vitro study using Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra on stool samples spiked with defined bacterial concentrations of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB), we compared different simplification parameters to the reference sucrose-flotation method. Best methods were selected based on the rate of invalid/error results and on sensitivity, compared to the reference method on stools spiked at 10³ colony forming units (CFU)/g MTB. For final selection, we tested the best parameter combinations at 10² CFU/g. Out of 13 different parameter combinations, three were tested at 10² CFU/g. The best combination used 0.5 g stool, manual shaking, no filtration, 30-min sedimentation, and a 1:3.6 dilution ratio. This method gave 10% invalid/error results and a sensitivity of 70% vs 63% at 10³ CFU/g and 53% vs 58% at 10² CFU/g compared to the reference method. This pre-clinical study was able to develop a centrifuge-free processing method to facilitate stool Xpert Ultra testing.

Xpert MTB/RIF ultra for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis: A diagnostic accuracy study from India

SETTING

Studies evaluating Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Xpert Ultra) for diagnosing tuberculous meningitis (TBM) are scarce and have reported contrasting results in comparison to Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert).

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the performance of Xpert Ultra in diagnosing TBM and compare it with Xpert and multiplex polymerase chain reaction (MPCR).

DESIGN

Xpert Ultra was performed on 244 cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples: 56 definite TBM, 148 probable TBM and 40 non-TBM controls. 105/244 CSF samples were also subjected to Xpert and MPCR (IS6110, MPB64, protein B).

RESULTS

The overall sensitivity of Xpert Ultra in diagnosing TBM from 244 CSF samples was 72.05% (96.42% - definite TBM, 62.83% - probable TBM) with a specificity of 100%. 18 (12.24%) cases [8 definite TBM, 10 probable TBM] were reported rifampicin resistant (Rif^R) by Xpert Ultra and confirmed by rpoB sequencing. 60 (40.81%) cases [9 definite TBM, 51 probable TBM] were reported rifampicin indeterminate (Rif^I) by Xpert Ultra (all trace category), out of which 45 [8 definite, 37 probable) were rifampicin susceptible (Rif^S) and 5 probable cases were Rif^R on rpoB sequencing. Out of 105 CSF samples subjected to all three techniques, TBM was diagnosed in 70.66%, 28% and 88% by Xpert Ultra, Xpert and MPCR, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Xpert Ultra detected TBM with higher sensitivity than Xpert. Among trace category, constituting 40% of TBM cases, rpoB gene sequencing confirmed 5 Rif^R cases.

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.

Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in stool samples of adults with pulmonary tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

The Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assay technology allows rapid and sensitive diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) from sputum specimens. However, diagnosis of PTB is difficult for patients who cannot produce sputum. The objective of this study was to investigate the use of Xpert assay for successful detection of PTB using stool samples from adult subjects.

METHODS

Both stool and sputum samples from known smear and Xpert positive PTB patients were collected from a TB hospital in Dhaka. Stool samples were collected from healthy individuals without TB symptoms from a slum area of Dhaka. Stool and sputum samples were decontaminated and concentrated using NALC-NaOH-Na-citrate solution and the resultant sediment was used for Xpert, acid-fast bacilli (AFB) microscopy and culture.

RESULTS

A total of 102 stool samples were collected from PTB patients and another 50 stool samples from healthy individuals without TB. The sensitivity of the Xpert assay for detection of M. tuberculosis in stool samples of PTB patients was 90.2% (95% CI, 82.9-95.0). All 50 stool samples from healthy individuals were negative by the assay (Specificity 100%; 95% CI, 92.9-100). Compared with the sputum culture positive results the sensitivity of the stool Xpert assay was 94.8% (95% CI, 88.5-97.8). Moreover, stool Xpert demonstrated full concordant results with the sputum culture for detection of rifampicin susceptibility. The cycle threshold values of rpoB probes obtained from Xpert assay correlated significantly with the bacilli load in the corresponding stool (Spearman correlation = -0.40, P < 0.01) and sputum (Spearman correlation = -0.77, P < 0.01) samples as determined by microscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

Stool Xpert can be applied as a potential alternative of sputum testing for detection of M. tuberculosis and accurate determination of RIF susceptibility in adult PTB patients. The assay would be beneficial for rapid diagnosis of PTB for those adult patients who cannot expectorate sputum.

Comparative evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF assay with multiplex polymerase chain reaction for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis

BACKGROUND

Rapid and specific diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is of paramount importance to decrease morbidity and mortality. Therefore, the present study was undertaken to compare the efficacy of Xpert MTB/RIF assay (GXpert) and multiplex PCR (MPCR) using three targets (IS6110, MPB64 and protein B) for diagnosing tuberculous meningitis.

METHODS

GXpert and MPCR were performed on cerebrospinal fluid samples of 225 patients out of which 80 were culture-positive confirmed cases of TBM, 100 were 'suspected' cases of TBM and 45 were non-TBM controls. rpoB gene sequencing was done for diagnosing rifampicin (Rif) resistance in all positive cases.

RESULTS

GXpert and MPCR were positive in 91/180 (50.5%) and 157/180 (87.2%) confirmed or suspected TBM patients respectively. Both the tests were negative in all 45 controls. Rif resistance was detected in 14 cases by GXpert and in 13 cases by MPCR. Rif resistance was confirmed in 13 cases with rpoB gene sequencing. There was one case of false Rif resistance detected by GXpert which was Rif susceptible on rpoB gene sequencing. Cost of doing MPCR was less than USD1 whereas GXpert required USD10 per isolate.

CONCLUSION

MPCR has a higher sensitivity than GXpert for diagnosing TBM. MPCR is a robust and cost effective method for diagnosis of TBM in low-resource and high-endemic countries.

Diagnostic and Treatment Monitoring Potential of A Stool-Based Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay for Pulmonary Tuberculosis

A quantifiable, stool-based, Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) test has potential complementary value to respiratory specimens. Limit of detection (LOD) was determined by spiking control stool. Clinical test performance was evaluated in a cohort with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) (N = 166) and asymptomatic household TB child contacts (N = 105). Stool-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) results were compared with sputum acid-fast bacilli (AFB) microscopy, GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert MTB/RIF), and cultures. In Mtb stool-spiking studies, the LOD was 96 colony-forming units/50 mg of stool (95% confidence interval [CI]: 84.8-105.6). Among specimens collected within 72 hours of antituberculosis treatment (ATT) initiation, stool qPCR detected 22 of 23 (95%) of culture-positive cases. Among clinically diagnosed cases that were Xpert MTB/RIF and culture negative, stool qPCR detected an additional 8% (3/37). Among asymptomatic, recently TB-exposed participants, stool PCR detected Mtb in two of 105 (1.9%) patients. Two months after ATT, the Mtb quantitative burden in femtogram per microliters decreased (Wilcoxon signed-rank P < 0.001) and persistent positive stool PCR was associated with treatment failure or drug resistance (relative risk 2.8, CI: 1.2-6.5; P = 0.012). Stool-based qPCR is a promising complementary technique to sputum-based diagnosis. It detects and quantifies low levels of stool Mtb DNA, thereby supporting adjunct diagnosis and treatment monitoring in pulmonary TB.

Xpert MTB/RIF on Stool Is Useful for the Rapid Diagnosis of Tuberculosis in Young Children With Severe Pulmonary Disease

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis (TB) continues to result in high morbidity and mortality in children from resource-limited settings. Diagnostic challenges, including resource-intense sputum collection methods and insensitive diagnostic tests, contribute to diagnostic delay and poor outcomes in children. We evaluated the diagnostic utility of stool Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) compared with bacteriologic confirmation (combination of Xpert and culture of respiratory samples).

METHODS

In a hospital-based study in Cape Town, South Africa, we enrolled children younger than 13 years of age with suspected pulmonary TB from April 2012 to August 2015. Standard clinical investigations included tuberculin skin test, chest radiograph and HIV testing. Respiratory samples for smear microscopy, Xpert and liquid culture included gastric aspirates, induced sputum, nasopharyngeal aspirates and expectorated sputum. One stool sample per child was collected and tested using Xpert.

RESULTS

Of 379 children enrolled (median age, 15.9 months, 13.7% HIV infected), 73 (19.3%) had bacteriologically confirmed TB. The sensitivity and specificity of stool Xpert versus overall bacteriologic confirmation were 31.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 21.84%-44.50%] and 99.7% (95% CI: 98.2%-100%), respectively. A total of 23/51 (45.1%) children with bacteriologically confirmed TB with severe disease were stool Xpert positive. Cavities on chest radiograph were associated with Xpert stool positivity regardless of age and other relevant factors [odds ratios (OR) 7.05; 95% CI: 2.16-22.98; P = 0.001].

CONCLUSIONS

Stool Xpert can rapidly confirm TB in children who present with radiologic findings suggestive of severe TB. In resource-limited settings where children frequently present with advanced disease, Xpert on stool samples could improve access to rapid diagnostic confirmation and appropriate treatment.

Evaluation of rapid GeneXpert MTB/RIF method using DNA tissue specimens of vertebral bones in patients with suspected spondylitis TB

PURPOSE

To detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA and rifampicin resistance in vertebral bone tissue specimens from spondylitis TB suspects.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The rapid GeneXpert MTB/RIF and MGIT 960 liquid culture methods have been used in the specimens. Results from 70 suspects with spondylitis TB shown that 31.42% identified positive for spondylitis TB using culture method, while 88.57% shown positive results using rapid GeneXpert MTB/RIF method. The validity of GeneXpert MTB/RIF shown sensitivity value of 100%, specificity value of 16.6%, PPV of 35.48%, and NPV of 100%.

CONCLUSION

GeneXpert has a high sensitivity but low specificity value in this study.

Development and Diagnostic Evaluation of Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Using a New Gene Target for Rapid Detection of Helicobacter pylori

BACKGROUND

Helicobacter pylori cause chronic gastritis and subsequent diseases like gastric and duodenal ulcers and gastric adenocarcinoma. Current methods for detecting H. pylori have several disadvantages and it is of utmost importance to develop a simple, quick, accurate, and cost-effective diagnostic test.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to set up and evaluate a diagnostic value of loop- mediated isothermal amplification (LAMP) for detecting H. pylori.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The analytical sensitivity values (limit of detection) of LAMP and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) were determined using serial dilutions of H. pylori DNA. Analytical specificity of the methods using new designed primers targeted ureC gene was also determined.

RESULTS

The detection limits of the LAMP and PCR assay were similar and were 10 fg of pure DNA of H. pylori, which is equal to 6 copy numbers of H. pylori genome. Analytical specificity of the tests was 100% because the tests were positive only with H. pylori DNA.

CONCLUSIONS

The analytical sensitivity of LAMP and PCR methods, using the designed primers, was 8 times more than any other reported methods. The designed methods are specific and sensitive for detection of H. pylori in different clinical and environmental samples.

What steps do we need to take to improve diagnosis of tuberculosis in children?

Tuberculosis still represents a big global public health challenge. The diagnosis of tuberculosis and the differentiation between active and latent tuberculosis remain difficult, particularly in childhood, because of the lack of a gold standard test for diagnosis. In the last decade, novel diagnostic assays have been developed. Among immunologic tests, new assays based on the measurement of different cytokines released by specific T cells in response to Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens, other than INF-γ, have been investigated. Promising results rely on nucleic acid amplification techniques, also able to detect drugs resistance. Innovative research fields studied the modifications of CD27 expression in T cells as well as different host gene expression in response to M. tuberculosis. Further studies are needed to assess the diagnostic value and the accuracy of these new assays.

Presentation and outcome of tuberculous meningitis among children: experiences from a tertiary children's hospital

BACKGROUND

Diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis (TBM) is complicated and outcome is poor especially in resource limited settings. Early diagnosis and prompt treatment are vital in effective treatment. We set out to describe experiences in the management and immediate outcome of TBM a tertiary-level children's hospital in a high HIV and tuberculosis co-infection setting.

METHODS

This retrospective study included children who were diagnosed with TBM in the year 2009. A pre-coded questionnaire was used to extract data on presentation, diagnostics, treatment and outcome at the time of hospital discharge. Data was analyzed using STATA statistical package (StataCorp, Version 11).

RESULTS

Of the 40 children diagnosed with TBM, 6 (15%) had definitive TBM, 17 (42.5%) had probable TBM and 17 (42.5%) had possible TBM. The cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) chemistry and cells were abnormal in 39/40 (98%). Mantoux test was reactive in 16/29 (55%) and 17/30 (57%) had Chest X-rays suggestive of tuberculosis. Only 3/21 (14%) had positive sputum tuberculosis culture and 89% (32/36) had neuro-imaging abnormalities. Outcome at discharge was; 8% died, 49% improved with neurological sequelae and 43% improved without sequelae. Having TBM stage 3 at admission was associated with mortality (p=0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Most children had early diagnosis of TBM and mortality was lower than in previous studies. We recommend a larger prospective study to further understand the outcome of TBM.

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

BACKGROUND

Accurate, rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and TB drug resistance is critical for improving patient care and decreasing TB transmission. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay is an automated test that can detect both TB and rifampicin resistance, generally within two hours after starting the test, with minimal hands-on technical time. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued initial recommendations on Xpert® MTB/RIF in early 2011. A Cochrane Review on the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance was published January 2013. We performed this updated Cochrane Review as part of a WHO process to develop updated guidelines on the use of the test.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB (TB detection), where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as both an initial test replacing microscopy and an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection, where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as the initial test replacing culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST).The populations of interest were adults presumed to have pulmonary, rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), with or without HIV infection. The settings of interest were intermediate- and peripheral-level laboratories. The latter may be associated with primary health care facilities.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for publications in any language up to 7 February 2013 in the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; and SCOPUS. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the search portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that allowed for extraction of data evaluating Xpert® MTB/RIF against the reference standard. We excluded gastric fluid specimens. The reference standard for TB was culture and for rifampicin resistance was phenotypic culture-based DST.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

For each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we extracted data for subgroups by smear and HIV status. We assessed the quality of studies using QUADAS-2 and carried out meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert® MTB/RIF separately for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection. For TB detection, we performed the majority of analyses using a bivariate random-effects model and compared the sensitivity of Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy against culture as reference standard. For rifampicin resistance detection, we undertook univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 unique studies (integrating nine new studies) involving 9557 participants. Sixteen studies (59%) were performed in low- or middle-income countries. For all QUADAS-2 domains, most studies were at low risk of bias and low concern regarding applicability.As an initial test replacing smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 89% [95% Credible Interval (CrI) 85% to 92%] and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%), (22 studies, 8998 participants: 2953 confirmed TB, 6045 non-TB).As an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result, Xpert®MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 67% (95% CrI 60% to 74%) and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%; 21 studies, 6950 participants).For smear-positive, culture-positive TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 21 studies, 1936 participants).For people with HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 79% (95% CrI 70% to 86%; 7 studies, 1789 participants), and for people without HIV infection, it was 86% (95% CrI 76% to 92%; 7 studies, 1470 participants). Comparison with smear microscopy In comparison with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF increased TB detection among culture-confirmed cases by 23% (95% CrI 15% to 32%; 21 studies, 8880 participants).For TB detection, if pooled sensitivity estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients where 10% of those with symptoms have TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF will diagnose 88 cases and miss 12 cases, whereas sputum microscopy will diagnose 65 cases and miss 35 cases. Rifampicin resistance For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 95% (95% CrI 90% to 97%; 17 studies, 555 rifampicin resistance positives) and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 24 studies, 2411 rifampicin resistance negatives). Among 180 specimens with nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), Xpert® MTB/RIF was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM (14 studies, 2626 participants).For rifampicin resistance detection, if the pooled accuracy estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals where 15% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 143 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss eight cases, and correctly identify 833 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 17 individuals as resistant. Where 5% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 48 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss three cases and correctly identify 931 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 19 individuals as resistant.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In adults thought to have TB, with or without HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF is sensitive and specific. Compared with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF substantially increases TB detection among culture-confirmed cases. Xpert® MTB/RIF has higher sensitivity for TB detection in smear-positive than smear-negative patients. Nonetheless, this test may be valuable as an add-on test following smear microscopy in patients previously found to be smear-negative. For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF provides accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of MDR-TB treatment, pending results from conventional culture and DST. The tests are expensive, so current research evaluating the use of Xpert® MTB/RIF in TB programmes in high TB burden settings will help evaluate how this investment may help start treatment promptly and improve outcomes.