Search

Summary Background Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) is a new test for tuberculosis undergoing global roll-out. We assessed the performance of Ultra compared with Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) in an HIV-endemic setting where previous tuberculosis is frequent and current test performance is suboptimal. Methods In this two-cohort diagnostic accuracy study, we used sputum samples from patients in South Africa to evaluate the accuracy of Ultra and Xpert against a single culture reference standard. For the first cohort (cohort A), we recruited adults (aged ≥18 years) with symptoms of presumptive tuberculosis at Scottsdene clinic in Cape Town, South Africa. We collected three sputum samples from each patient in cohort A, two at the first visit of which one was tested using Xpert and the other was tested using culture, and one sample the next morning which was tested using Ultra. In a separate cohort of patients with presumptive tuberculosis and recent previous tuberculosis (≤2 years) who had submitted sputum samples to the National Health Laboratory Services (cohort B), decontaminated sediments were, after processing, randomly allocated (1:1) for testing with Ultra or Xpert. For both cohorts we calculated the sensitivity and specificity of Ultra and Xpert and evaluated the effects of different methods of interpreting Ultra trace results. Findings Between Feb 6, 2016, and Feb 2, 2018, we recruited 302 people into cohort A, all of whom provided sputum samples and 239 were included in the head-to-head analyses of Ultra and Xpert. For cohort B, we collected sputum samples from eligible patients who had submitted samples between Dec 6, 2016, and Dec 21, 2017, to give a cohort of 831 samples, of which 352 were eligible for inclusion in analyses and randomly assigned to Ultra (n=173) or Xpert (n=179). In cohort A, Ultra gave more non-actionable results (not positive or negative) than did Xpert (28 [10%] 275 vs 14 [5%] 301; p=0·011). In the head-to-head analysis, in smear-negative patients, sensitivity of Ultra was 80% (95% CI 64–90) and of Xpert was 73% (57–85; p=0·45). Overall, specificity of Ultra was lower than that of Xpert (90% [84–94] vs 99% [95–100]; p=0·001). In cohort B, overall sensitivity was 92% (81–98) for Xpert versus 86% (73–95; p=0·36) for Ultra and overall specificity was 69% (60–77) for Ultra versus 84% (78–91; p=0·005) for Xpert. Ultra specificity estimates improved after reclassification of results with the lowest Ultra-positive semiquantitation category (trace) to negative (15% [8–22]). In cohort A, the positive predictive value (PPV) for Ultra was 78% (67–87) and for Xpert was 96% (87–99; p=0·004); in cohort B, the PPV for Ultra was 50% (43–57) and for Xpert was 70% (61–78; p=0·014). Ultra PPV estimates in previously treated patients were low: at 15% tuberculosis prevalence, half of Ultra-positive patients with presumptive tuberculosis would be culture negative, increasing to approximately 70% in patients with recent previous tuberculosis. In cohort B, 21 (28%) of 76 samples that were Ultra positive were rifampicin indeterminate (all trace) and, like cohort A, most were culture negative (19 [90%] of 21). Interpretation In a setting with a high burden of previous tuberculosis, Ultra generated more non-actionable results and had diminished specificity compared with Xpert. In patients with recent previous tuberculosis, a quarter of Ultra-positive samples were indeterminate for rifampicin resistance and culture negative, suggesting that additional drug-resistance testing will probably be unsuccessful. Our data have implications for the handling of Ultra-positive results in patients with previous tuberculosis in high burden settings. Funding South African Medical Research Council, the EDCTP2 program, and the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University.

BackgroundIdentification of an accurate, low-cost triage test for pulmonary TB among people presenting to healthcare facilities is an urgent global research priority. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility of C-reactive protein (CRP) for TB triage among symptomatic adult outpatients, irrespective of HIV status.MethodsWe prospectively enrolled adults reporting at least one (for people with HIV) or two (for people without HIV) symptoms of cough, fever, night sweats, or weight loss at two TB clinics in Cape Town, South Africa. Participants provided sputum for culture and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of CRP (measured using a laboratory-based assay) against a TB-culture reference standard as the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and sensitivity and specificity at pre-specified thresholds. We assessed clinical utility using decision curve analysis, benchmarked against WHO recommendations.ResultsOf 932 included individuals, 255 (27%) had culture-confirmed TB and 389 (42%) were living with HIV. CRP demonstrated an AUROC of 0.80 (95% confidence interval 0.77–0.83), with sensitivity 93% (89–95%) and specificity 54% (50–58%) using a primary cut-off of ≥10mg/L. Performance was similar among people with HIV to those without. In decision curve analysis, CRP-based triage offered greater clinical utility than confirmatory testing for all up to a number willing to test threshold of 20 confirmatory tests per true positive TB case diagnosed.ConclusionsCRP approached the WHO-defined minimum performance for a TB triage test and showed evidence of clinical utility among symptomatic outpatients, irrespective of HIV status.

Pathogen cell-free DNA (pcfDNA) in blood and urine is an attractive biomarker; however, the impact of preanalytical factors is not well understood. Blood and urine samples from healthy donors spiked with cfDNA from Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Salmonella enterica, Aspergillus fumigatus, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and samples from tuberculosis patients were used to evaluate the impact of blood collection tube, urine preservative, processing delay, processing method, freezing and thawing, and sample volume on pcfDNA., Pathogen cell-free DNA (pcfDNA) in blood and urine is an attractive biomarker; however, the impact of preanalytical factors is not well understood. Blood and urine samples from healthy donors spiked with cfDNA from Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Salmonella enterica, Aspergillus fumigatus, and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) and samples from tuberculosis patients were used to evaluate the impact of blood collection tube, urine preservative, processing delay, processing method, freezing and thawing, and sample volume on pcfDNA. The PCR cycle threshold (CT) was used to measure amplifiable cfDNA. In spiked samples, the median CT values for M. tuberculosis, S. enterica, and EBV cfDNA were significantly lower in blood collected in K2EDTA tubes than those in Streck and PAXgene blood collection tubes, and they were was significantly lower in urine preserved with EDTA (EDTA-urine) than in urine preserved with Streck reagent (Streck-urine). Blood and urine samples from TB patients preserved with K2EDTA and Tris-EDTA, respectively, showed significantly lower median M. tuberculosis CT values than with the Streck blood collection tube and Streck urine preservative. Processing delay increased the median pathogen CT values for Streck and PAXgene but not K2EDTA blood samples and for urine preserved with Streck reagent but not EDTA. Double-spin compared with single-spin plasma separation increased the median pathogen CT regardless of blood collection tube. No differences were observed between whole urine and supernatant and between fresh and thawed plasma and urine after 24 weeks at –80°C. Larger plasma and urine volumes in contrived and patient samples showed a significantly lower median M. tuberculosis CT. These findings suggest that large-volume single-spin K2EDTA-plasma and EDTA-whole urine with up to a 24-h processing delay may optimize pcfDNA detection.

Summary Background Blood transcriptional signatures are candidates for non-sputum triage or confirmatory tests of tuberculosis. Prospective head-to-head comparisons of their diagnostic accuracy in real-world settings are necessary to assess their clinical use. We aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of candidate transcriptional signatures identified by systematic review, in a setting with a high burden of tuberculosis and HIV. Methods We did a prospective observational study nested within a diagnostic accuracy study of sputum Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) tests for pulmonary tuberculosis. We recruited consecutive symptomatic adults aged 18 years or older self-presenting to a tuberculosis clinic in Cape Town, South Africa. Participants provided blood for RNA sequencing, and sputum samples for liquid culture and molecular testing using Xpert and Ultra. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of candidate blood transcriptional signatures for active tuberculosis (including those intended to distinguish active tuberculosis from other diseases) identified by systematic review, compared with culture or Xpert MTB/RIF positivity as the standard reference. In our primary analysis, patients with tuberculosis were defined as those with either a positive liquid culture or Xpert result. Patients with missing blood RNA or sputum results were excluded. Our primary objective was to benchmark the diagnostic accuracy of candidate transcriptional signatures against the WHO target product profile (TPP) for a tuberculosis triage test. Findings Between Feb 12, 2016, and July 18, 2017, we obtained paired sputum and RNA sequencing data from 181 participants, 54 (30%) of whom had confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis. Of 27 eligible signatures identified by systematic review, four achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy with similar area under the receiver operating characteristic curves (Sweeney3: 90·6% [95% CI 85·6–95·6]; Kaforou25: 86·9% [80·9–92·9]; Roe3: 86·9% [80·3–93·5]; and BATF2: 86·8% [80·6–93·1]), independent of age, sex, HIV status, previous tuberculosis, or sputum smear result. At test thresholds that gave 70% specificity (the minimum WHO TPP specificity for a triage test), these four signatures achieved sensitivities between 83·3% (95% CI 71·3–91·0) and 90·7% (80·1–96·0). No signature met the optimum criteria, of 95% sensitivity and 80% specificity proposed by WHO for a triage test, or the minimum criteria (of 65% sensitivity and 98% specificity) for a confirmatory test, but all four correctly identified Ultra-positive, culture-negative patients. Interpretation Selected blood transcriptional signatures met the minimum WHO benchmarks for a tuberculosis triage test but not for a confirmatory test. Further development of the signatures is warranted to investigate their possible effects on clinical and health economic outcomes as part of a triage strategy, or when used as add-on confirmatory test in conjunction with the highly sensitive Ultra test for Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA. Funding Royal Society Newton Advanced Fellowship, Wellcome Trust, National Institute of Health Research, and UK Medical Research Council.