Comparison of the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF Test and Conventional Methods in the Diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis

Effects of sputum bacillary load and age on GeneXpert and traditional methods in pulmonary tuberculosis: a 4-year retrospective comparative study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of the GeneXpert® MTB/RIF (Xpert®), Auramine O staining method, and Lowenstein-Jensen medium for bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis and explore the effects of the sputum bacillary load (SBL) and qRT‒PCR threshold cycle (Ct) value on the detection methods.

METHODS

We retrospectively analysed the results in the Department of Infectious Disease for 49 months. The χ2 test was used to compare the performances of each method, receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to determine the optimal cut-off values, and the factors associated with a false-negative result from Xpert® were analysed by logistic regression.

RESULTS

Simultaneous analysis of 980 sputum specimens showed that the positive detection rate of Xpert® did not increase with increasing SBL, and there were differences between the three when SBL ≤ 1 + (all P < 0.05). There was a good negative correlation between the Ct value and the SBL (P < 0.0001). Age was an independent risk factor for false-negative Xpert® results (P = 0.029), and when Ct < 16, the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity were both 100.00%. The optimal cut-off Ct values for resegmentation based on the drug resistance classification were < 18.6, 18.6-34.1, and > 34.1 cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

Xpert® was not affected by SBL but it was by age, and it is more advantageous when SBL ≤ 1 + . The results regarding rifampicin resistance were reliable, and the novel Ct segmentation was a practical and more clinically meaningful classification method for diagnosing rifampicin resistance. These findings will help improve physicians' ability to accurately diagnose TB.

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.

Rapid Detection and Quantification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA in Paraffinized Samples by Droplet Digital PCR: A Preliminary Study

Background: Rapid and reliable diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) represents a diagnostic challenge in compartmentalized extrapulmonary TB infection because of the small number of mycobacteria (MTB) and the frequent lack of fresh samples to perform culture. Here, we estimate the performances of homemade droplet digital PCR (ddPCR)-based assays against culture in 89 biopsies, for those fresh and formalin-fixed and paraffin-embedded (FFPE) subsamples were available.

Methods: MTB diagnosis in fresh subsamples was performed by culture. Fresh subsamples were also analyzed for acid-fast bacilli smear-microscopy (AFB) and Xpert^® MTB/RIF (Xpert). MTB examination was repeated in blind in the 89 FFPE subsamples by in-house ddPCR assays targeting the IS6110 and rpoB. Analytical sensitivity of ddPCR assays was evaluated using serial dilution of H37Rv strain. Limit of detection (LOD) was calculated by probit analysis. Results were expressed in copies/10⁶ cells.

Results: IS6110 and rpoB ddPCR assays showed a good linear correlation between expected and observed values (R²: 0.9907 and 0.9743, respectively). Probit analyses predicted a LOD of 17 and 40 copies/10⁶ cells of MTB DNA for IS6110 and rpoB, respectively. Of the 89 biopsies, 68 were culture positive and 21 were culture negative. Considering mycobacterial culture as reference method, IS6110 assay yielded positive results in 67/68 culture-positive samples with a median interquartile range (IQR) of 1,680 (550–8,444) copies/10⁶ cells (sensitivity: 98.5%; accuracy: 98.9). These performances were superior to those reported by the rpoB assay in FFPE subsamples (sensitivity: 66.20%; accuracy: 74.1) and even superior to those reported by Xpert and AFB in fresh subsamples (sensitivity: 79.4 and 33.8%, respectively; accuracy: 84.3 and 49.4, respectively). When Xpert and AFB results were stratified according to mycobacterial load detected by rpoB and IS6110 ddPCR, bacterial load was lower in Xpert and AFB negative with respect to Xpert and AFB-positive samples (p = 0.003 and 0.01 for rpoB and p = 0.01 and 0.11 for IS6110), confirming the poor sensitivity of these methods in paucibacillary disease.

Conclusion: ddPCR provides highly sensitive, accurate, and rapid MTB diagnosis in FFPE samples, as defined by the high concordance between IS6110 assay and culture results. This approach can be safely introduced in clinical routine to accelerate MTB diagnosis mainly when culture results remain unavailable.

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.