Clinical utility of a novel molecular assay in various combination strategies with existing methods for diagnosis of HIV-related tuberculosis in Uganda

Effectiveness of GeneXpert® in the diagnosis of tuberculosis in people living with HIV/AIDS

OBJECTIVE

To identify and synthesize the scientific knowledge produced regarding the effectiveness of the GeneXpert test in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in people living with HIV/AIDS.

METHODS

Integrative literature review, which was searched on Embase, Scopus, PubMed, Cinahl, Academic Search Premier, Socindex, and LILACS platforms, in December 2019. The studies surveyed went through two stages of selection: reading of titles and abstracts by two reviewers independently; using the Rayyan platform and reading. Nineteen primary studies in English, Portuguese, and Spanish that answered the study's guiding question were included: How effective is the GeneXpert test in the diagnosis of pulmonary TB in people living with HIV/AIDS?

RESULTS

The use of GeneXpert substantially increased the detection of TB cases among the population co-infected with HIV/AIDS, with sensitivity ranging from 68% to 100%, superior to sputum smear microscopy. Specificity ranged from 91.7% to 100%; the positive predictive value from 79.2% to 96.1%; and the negative predictive value from 84.6% to 99.3%. These values were considered similar to sputum smear microscopy by most studies. We also compared these results with different ways of performing culture and other molecular tests, being considered inferior only to the Xpert Ultra.

CONCLUSION

It is possible to affirm that places with a high incidence of HIV/AIDS would benefit from the implementation of the GeneXpert test, entailing effectiveness in diagnosing pulmonary TB in this population when compared to sputum smear microscopy, a widely used test for detection of cases.

Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of rifampicin resistance in different regions: a meta-analysis

Background

To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance in different regions, a meta-analysis was carried out.

Methods

Several databases were searched for relevant studies up to March 3, 2019. A bivariate random-effects model was used to estimate the diagnostic accuracy.

Results

We identified 97 studies involving 26,037 samples for the diagnosis of rifampicin resistance. The pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC of Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection were 0.93 (95% CI 0.90–0.95), 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.98) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–0.99), respectively. For different regions, the pooled sensitivity were 0.94(95% CI 0.89–0.97) and 0.92 (95% CI 0.88–0.94), the pooled specificity were 0.98 (95% CI 0.94–1.00) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99), and the AUC were 0.99 (95% CI 0.98–1.00) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–0.99) in high and middle/low income countries, respectively. The pooled sensitivity were 0.91 (95% CI 0.87–0.94) and 0.91 (95% CI 0.86–0.94), the pooled specificity were 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96–0.99), and the AUC were 0.98 (95% CI 0.97–0.99) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97–0.99) in high TB burden and middle/low prevalence countries, respectively.

Conclusions

The diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection was excellent.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Prevalence and patterns of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance conferring mutations in Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolates from Uganda

BACKGROUND

Accurate diagnosis of tuberculosis, especially by using rapid molecular assays, can reduce transmission of drug resistant tuberculosis in communities. However, the frequency of resistance conferring mutations varies with geographic location of Mycobacterium tuberculosis, and this affects the efficiency of rapid molecular assays in detecting resistance. This has created need for characterizing drug resistant isolates from different settings to investigate frequencies of resistance conferring mutations. Here, we describe the prevalence and patterns of rifampicin- and isoniazid- resistance conferring mutations in isolates from Uganda, which could be useful in the management of MDR-TB patients in Uganda and other countries in sub-Saharan Africa.

RESULTS

Ninety seven M. tuberculosis isolates were characterized, of which 38 were MDR, seven rifampicin-resistant, 12 isoniazid-mono-resistant, and 40 susceptible to rifampicin and isoniazid. Sequence analysis of the rpoB rifampicin-resistance determining region (rpoB/RRDR) revealed mutations in six codons: 588, 531, 526, 516, 513, and 511, of which Ser531Leu was the most frequent (40%, 18/45). Overall, the three mutations (Ser531Leu, His526Tyr, Asp516Tyr) frequently associated with rifampicin-resistance occurred in 76% of the rifampicin resistant isolates while 18% (8/45) of the rifampicin-resistant isolates lacked mutations in rpoB/RRDR. Furthermore, sequence analysis of katG and inhA gene promoter revealed mainly the Ser315Thr (76%, 38/50) and C(-15)T (8%, 4/50) mutations, respectively. These two mutations combined, which are frequently associated with isoniazid-resistance, occurred in 88% of the isoniazid resistant isolates. However, 20% (10/50) of the isoniazid-resistant isolates lacked mutations both in katG and inhA gene promoter. The sensitivity of sequence analysis of rpoB/RRDR for rifampicin-resistance via detection of high confidence mutations (Ser531Leu, His526Tyr, Asp516Tyr) was 81%, while it was 77% for analysis of katG and inhA gene promoter to detect isoniazid-resistance via detection of high confidence mutations (Ser315Thr, C(-15)T, T(-8)C). Furthermore, considering the circulating TB genotypes in Uganda, the isoniazid-resistance conferring mutations were more frequent in M. tuberculosis lineage 4/sub-lineage Uganda, perhaps explaining why this genotype is weakly associated with MDR-TB.

CONCLUSION

Sequence analysis of rpoB/RRDR, katG and inhA gene promoter is useful in detecting rifampicin/isoniazid resistant M. tuberculosis isolates in Uganda however, about ≤20% of the resistant isolates lack known resistance-conferring mutations hence rapid molecular assays may not detect them as resistant.

Accuracy of different Xpert MTB/Rif implementation strategies in programmatic settings at the regional referral hospitals in Uganda: Evidence for country wide roll out

Background

Xpert MTB/RIF assay is a highly sensitive test for TB diagnosis, but still costly to most low-income countries. Several implementation strategies instead of frontline have been suggested; however with scarce data. We assessed accuracy of different Xpert MTB/RIF implementation strategies to inform national roll-out.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study of 1,924 adult presumptive TB patients in five regional referral hospitals of Uganda. Two sputum samples were collected, one for fluorescent microscopy (FM) and Xpert MTB/RIF examined at the study site laboratories. The second sample was sent to the Uganda Supra National TB reference laboratory for culture using both Lowenstein Jensen (LJ) and liquid culture (MGIT). We compared the sensitivities of FM, Xpert MTB/RIF and the incremental sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF among patients negative on FM using LJ and/or MGIT as a reference standard.

Results

A total 1924 patients were enrolled of which 1596 (83%) patients had at least one laboratory result and 1083 respondents had a complete set of all the laboratory results. A total of 328 (30%) were TB positive on LJ and /or MGIT culture. The sensitivity of FM was n (%; 95% confidence interval) 246 (63.5%; 57.9–68.7) overall compared to 52 (55.4%; 44.1–66.3) among HIV positive individuals, while the sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF was 300 (76.2%; 71.7–80.7) and 69 (71.6%; 60.5–81.1) overall and among HIV positive individuals respectively. Overall incremental sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF was 60 (36.5%; 27.7–46.0) and 20 (41.7%; 25.5–59.2) among HIV positive individuals.

Conclusion

Xpert MTB/RIF has a higher sensitivity than FM both in general population and HIV positive population. Xpert MTB/RIF offers a significant increase in terms of diagnostic sensitivity even when it is deployed selectively i.e. among smear negative presumptive TB patients. Our results support frontline use of Xpert MTB/RIF assay in high HIV/TB prevalent countries. In settings with limited access, mechanisms to refer smear negative sputum samples to Xpert MTB/RIF hubs are recommended.

Diagnostic performance of smear microscopy and incremental yield of Xpert in detection of pulmonary tuberculosis in Rwanda

Background

Tuberculosis control program of Rwanda is currently phasing in light emitting diode-fluorescent microscopy (LED-FM) as an alternative to Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) smear microscopy. This, alongside the newly introduced Xpert (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is expected to improve diagnosis of tuberculosis and detection of rifampicin resistance in patients at health facilities. We assessed the accuracy of smear microscopy and the incremental sensitivity of Xpert at tuberculosis laboratories in Rwanda.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional study involving four laboratories performing ZN and four laboratories performing LED-FM microscopy. The laboratories include four intermediate (ILs) and four peripheral (PLs) laboratories. After smear microscopy, the left-over of samples, of a single early-morning sputum from 648 participants, were tested using Xpert and mycobacterial culture as a reference standard. Sensitivity of each test was compared and the incremental sensitivity of Xpert after a negative smear was assessed.

Results

A total of 96 presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis participants were culture positive for M. tuberculosis. The overall sensitivity in PL of ZN was 55.1 % (40.2–69.3 %), LED-FM was 37 % (19.4–57.6 %) and Xpert was 77.6 % (66.6–86.4 %) whereas in ILs the same value for ZN was 58.3 % (27.7–84.8 %), LED-FM was 62.5 % (24.5–91.5 %) and Xpert was 90 (68.3–98.8 %). The sensitivity for all tests was significantly higher among HIV-negative individuals (all test p <0.05). The overall incremental sensitivity of Xpert over smear microscopy was 32.3 %; p < 0.0001. The incremental sensitivity of Xpert was statistically significant for both smear methods at PL (32.9 %; p = 0.001) but not at the ILs (30 %; p = 0.125) for both smear methods.

Conclusions

Our study findings of the early implementation of the LED-FM did not reveal significant increment in sensitivity compared to the method being phased out (ZN). This study showed a significant incremental sensitivity for Xpert from both smear methods at peripheral centers where majority of TB patients are diagnosed. Overall our findings support the recommendation for Xpert as an initial diagnostic test in adults and children presumed to have TB.

Development and evaluation of a rapid multiplex-PCR based system for Mycobacterium tuberculosis diagnosis using sputum samples

Global tuberculosis (TB) control and eradication is hampered by the unavailability of simple, rapid and affordable diagnostic tests deployable at low infrastructure microscopy centers. We have developed and evaluated the performance of a nucleic acid amplification test for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB), the NWU-TB test, in clinical sputum specimens from 306 patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis. The test involves sputum sample processing using a Lyser device within 7 min, followed by rapid multiplex-PCR on a fast thermal cycler within 25 min, and amplicon resolution on agarose gel electrophoresis. Samples were also examined for presence of MTB using smear microscopy, GeneXpert and MGIT culture. Results were assessed in comparison to a MGIT culture as gold standard. Of the 306 patients, 174 had a previous TB history or already on treatment, and 132 were TB naïve cases. The NWU-TB system was found to have an overall sensitivity and specificity of 80.8% (95% CI: 75-85.7) and 75.6% (95% CI: 64.9-84.4) respectively, in comparison to 85.3% (95% CI: 79.9-89.6) and 73.2% (95% CI: 62.2-82.4) respectively for GeneXpert; and 62.1% (95% CI: 55.3-68.4) and 56.1% (95% CI: 44.7-67) respectively for smear microscopy. The study has shown that the NWU-TB system allows detection of TB in less than two hours and can be utilized at low infrastructure sites to provide quick and accurate diagnosis at a very low cost.