Jonny Peter

Feasibility, accuracy, and clinical effect of point-of-care Xpert MTB/RIF testing for tuberculosis in primary-care settings in Africa: a multicentre, randomised, controlled trial

BACKGROUND The Xpert MTB/RIF test for tuberculosis is being rolled out in many countries, but evidence is lacking regarding its implementation outside laboratories, ability to inform same-day treatment decisions at the point of care, and clinical effect on tuberculosis-related morbidity. We aimed to assess the feasibility, accuracy, and clinical effect of point-of-care Xpert MTB/RIF testing at primary-care health-care facilities in southern Africa. METHODS In this pragmatic, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre trial, we recruited adults with symptoms suggestive of active tuberculosis from five primary-care health-care facilities in South Africa, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania. Eligible patients were randomly assigned using pregenerated tables to nurse-performed Xpert MTB/RIF at the clinic or sputum smear microscopy. Participants with a negative test result were empirically managed according to local WHO-compliant guidelines. Our primary outcome was tuberculosis-related morbidity (measured with the TBscore and Karnofsky performance score [KPS]) in culture-positive patients who had begun anti-tuberculosis treatment, measured at 2 months and 6 months after randomisation, analysed by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, number NCT01554384. FINDINGS Between April 12, 2011, and March 30, 2012, we randomly assigned 758 patients to smear microscopy (182 culture positive) and 744 to Xpert MTB/RIF (185 culture positive). Median TBscore in culture-positive patients did not differ between groups at 2 months (2 [IQR 0-3] in the smear microscopy group vs 2 [0·25-3] in the MTB/RIF group; p=0·85) or 6 months (1 [0-3] vs 1 [0-3]; p=0·35), nor did median KPS at 2 months (80 [70-90] vs 90 [80-90]; p=0·23) or 6 months (100 [90-100] vs 100 [90-100]; p=0·85). Point-of-care MTB/RIF had higher sensitivity than microscopy (154 [83%] of 185 vs 91 [50%] of 182; p=0·0001) but similar specificity (517 [95%] 544 vs 540 [96%] of 560; p=0·25), and had similar sensitivity to laboratory-based MTB/RIF (292 [83%] of 351; p=0·99) but higher specificity (952 [92%] of 1037; p=0·0173). 34 (5%) of 744 tests with point-of-care MTB/RIF and 82 (6%) of 1411 with laboratory-based MTB/RIF failed (p=0·22). Compared with the microscopy group, more patients in the MTB/RIF group had a same-day diagnosis (178 [24%] of 744 vs 99 [13%] of 758; p<0·0001) and same-day treatment initiation (168 [23%] of 744 vs 115 [15%] of 758; p=0·0002). Although, by end of the study, more culture-positive patients in the MTB/RIF group were on treatment due to reduced dropout (15 [8%] of 185 in the MTB/RIF group did not receive treatment vs 28 [15%] of 182 in the microscopy group; p=0·0302), the proportions of all patients on treatment in each group by day 56 were similar (320 [43%] of 744 in the MTB/RIF group vs 317 [42%] of 758 in the microscopy group; p=0·6408). INTERPRETATION Xpert MTB/RIF can be accurately administered by a nurse in primary-care clinics, resulting in more patients starting same-day treatment, more culture-positive patients starting therapy, and a shorter time to treatment. However, the benefits did not translate into lower tuberculosis-related morbidity, partly because of high levels of empirical-evidence-based treatment in smear-negative patients. FUNDING European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership, National Research Foundation, and Claude Leon Foundation.

Evaluation of the Xpert MTB/RIF Assay for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in a High HIV Prevalence Setting

RATIONALE Xpert MTB/RIF is a novel automated molecular diagnostic recently endorsed by the World Health Organization. However, performance-related data from high HIV prevalence settings are limited. OBJECTIVES The impact of sample-related factors on performance and the significance of Xpert MTB/RIF-positive culture-negative discordance remain unclear. METHODS Xpert MTB/RIF was evaluated using single archived spot-sputum samples from 496 South African patients with suspected TB. Mycobacterium tuberculosis culture positivity and phenotypic resistance to rifampicin served as reference standards. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Overall, Xpert MTB/RIF detected 95% (95% confidence interval [CI], 88-98%; 89 of 94) of smear-positive culture-positive cases and the specificity was 94% (91-96%; 320 of 339). The sensitivity in smear-negative cases was 55% (35-73%; 12 of 22) when the analysis was restricted to 1 ml of unprocessed sputum and culture time-to-positivity of less than or equal to 28 days. Compared with smear microscopy (n=94), Xpert MTB/RIF detected an additional 17 cases (n=111) representing an 18% (11-27%; 111 vs. 94) relative increase in the rapid TB case detection rate. Moreover, compared with smear microscopy, the inclusion of Xpert MTB/RIF-positive culture-negative TB cases (ruled-in by an alternative diagnostic method) resulted in the detection of a further 16 cases (n=127), thus significantly increasing the rapid TB case detection rate to 35% (95% CI, 26-45%; 94 to 111 vs. 94 to 127; P<0.01), the overall specificity to 99.1% (97-100%; 320 of 323; P<0.001), and sensitivity in smear-negative TB to 60% (P=0.12). Performance strongly correlated with smear status and culture time-to-positivity. In patients infected with HIV compared with patients uninfected with HIV Xpert MTB/RIF showed a trend to reduced sensitivity (P=0.09) and significantly reduced negative predictive value (P=0.01). The negative predictive value for rifampicin resistance was 99.4%. CONCLUSIONS XpertMTB/RIF outperformed smear microscopy, established a diagnosis in a significant proportion of patients with smear-negative TB, detected many highly likely TB cases missed by culture, and accurately ruled out rifampicin-resistant TB. Sample-specific factors had limited impact on performance. Performance in patients infected with HIV, especially those with advanced immunosuppression, warrants further study.

Do high rates of empirical treatment undermine the potential effect of new diagnostic tests for tuberculosis in high-burden settings?

In tuberculosis-endemic settings, patients are often treated empirically, meaning that they are placed on treatment based on clinical symptoms or tests that do not provide a microbiological diagnosis (eg, chest radiography). New tests for tuberculosis, such as the Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA), are being implemented at substantial cost. To inform policy and rationally drive implementation, data are needed for how these tests affect morbidity, mortality, transmission, and population-level tuberculosis burden. If people diagnosed by use of new diagnostics would have received empirical treatment a few days later anyway, then the incremental benefit might be small. Will new diagnostics substantially improve outcomes and disease burden, or simply displace empirical treatment? Will the extent and accuracy of empirical treatment change with the introduction of a new test? In this Personal View, we review emerging data for how empirical treatment is frequently same-day, and might still be the predominant form of treatment in high-burden settings, even after Xpert implementation; and how Xpert might displace so-called true-positive, rather than false-positive, empirical treatment. We suggest types of studies needed to accurately assess the effect of new tuberculosis tests and the role of empirical treatment in real-world settings. Until such questions can be addressed, and empirical treatment is appropriately characterised, we postulate that the estimated population-level effect of new tests such as Xpert might be substantially overestimated.

Effect on mortality of point-of-care, urine-based lipoarabinomannan testing to guide tuberculosis treatment initiation in HIV-positive hospital inpatients: a pragmatic, parallel-group, multicountry, open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND HIV-associated tuberculosis is difficult to diagnose and results in high mortality. Frequent extra-pulmonary presentation, inability to obtain sputum, and paucibacillary samples limits the usefulness of nucleic-acid amplification tests and smear microscopy. We therefore assessed a urine-based, lateral flow, point-of-care, lipoarabinomannan assay (LAM) and the effect of a LAM-guided anti-tuberculosis treatment initiation strategy on mortality. METHODS We did a pragmatic, randomised, parallel-group, multicentre trial in ten hospitals in Africa--four in South Africa, two in Tanzania, two in Zambia, and two in Zimbabwe. Eligible patients were HIV-positive adults aged at least 18 years with at least one of the following symptoms of tuberculosis (fever, cough, night sweats, or self-reported weightloss) and illness severity necessitating admission to hospital. Exclusion criteria included receipt of any anti-tuberculosis medicine in the 60 days before enrolment. We randomly assigned patients (1:1) to either LAM plus routine diagnostic tests for tuberculosis (smear microscopy, Xpert-MTB/RIF, and culture; LAM group) or routine diagnostic tests alone (no LAM group) using computer-generated allocation lists in blocks of ten. All patients were asked to provide a urine sample of at least 30 mL at enrolment, and trained research nurses did the LAM test in patients allocated to this group using the Alere Determine tuberculosis LAM Ag lateral flow strip test (Alere, USA) at the bedside on enrolment. On the basis of a positive test result, the nurses made a recommendation for initiating anti-tuberculosis treatment. The attending physician made an independent decision about whether to start treatment or not. Neither patients nor health-care workers were masked to group allocation and test results. The primary endpoint was 8-week all-cause mortality assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population (those who received their allocated intervention). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01770730. FINDINGS Between Jan 1, 2013, and Oct 2, 2014, we screened 8728 patients and randomly assigned 2659 to treatment (1336 to LAM, 1323 to no LAM). 108 patients did not receive their allocated treatment, mainly because they did not meet the inclusion criteria, and 23 were excluded from analysis, leaving 2528 in the final modified intention-to-treat analysis (1257 in the LAM group, 1271 in the no LAM group). Overall all-cause 8-week mortality occurred in 578 (23%) patients, 261 (21%) in LAM and 317 (25%) in no LAM, an absolute reduction of 4% (95% CI 1-7). The risk ratio adjusted for country was 0·83 (95% CI 0·73-0·96), p=0·012, with a relative risk reduction of 17% (95% CI 4-28). With the time-to-event analysis, there were 159 deaths per 100 person-years in LAM and 196 per 100 person-years in no LAM (hazard ratio adjusted for country 0·82 [95% CI 0·70-0·96], p=0·015). No adverse events were associated with LAM testing. INTERPRETATION Bedside LAM-guided initiation of anti-tuberculosis treatment in HIV-positive hospital inpatients with suspected tuberculosis was associated with reduced 8-week mortality. The implementation of LAM testing is likely to offer the greatest benefit in hospitals where diagnostic resources are most scarce and where patients present with severe illness, advanced immunosuppression, and an inability to self-expectorate sputum. FUNDING European Developing Clinical Trials Partnership, the South African Medical Research Council, and the South African National Research Foundation.

Do adjunct tuberculosis tests, when combined with Xpert MTB/RIF, improve accuracy and the cost of diagnosis in a resource-poor setting?

Information regarding the utility of adjunct diagnostic tests in combination with Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is limited. We hypothesised adjunct tests could enhance accuracy and/or reduce the cost of tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis prior to MTB/RIF testing, and rule-in or rule-out TB in MTB/RIF-negative individuals. We assessed the accuracy and/or laboratory-associated cost of diagnosis of smear microscopy, chest radiography (CXR) and interferon-&ggr; release assays (IGRAs; T-SPOT-TB (Oxford Immunotec, Oxford, UK) and QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (Cellestis, Chadstone, Australia)) combined with MTB/RIF for TB in 480 patients in South Africa. When conducted prior to MTB/RIF: 1) smear microscopy followed by MTB/RIF (if smear negative) had the lowest cost of diagnosis of any strategy investigated; 2) a combination of smear microscopy, CXR (if smear negative) and MTB/RIF (if imaging compatible with active TB) did not further reduce the cost per TB case diagnosed; and 3) a normal CXR ruled out TB in 18% of patients (57 out of 324; negative predictive value (NPV) 100%). When downstream adjunct tests were applied to MTB/RIF-negative individuals, radiology ruled out TB in 24% (56 out of 234; NPV 100%), smear microscopy ruled in TB in 21% (seven out of 24) of culture-positive individuals and IGRAs were not useful in either context. In resource-poor settings, smear microscopy combined with MTB/RIF had the highest accuracy and lowest cost of diagnosis compared to either technique alone. In MTB/RIF-negative individuals, CXR has poor rule-in value but can reliably rule out TB in approximately one in four cases. These data inform upon the programmatic utility of MTB/RIF in high-burden settings.

The diagnostic accuracy of the GenoType® MTBDRsl assay for the detection of resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs

Background Accurate and rapid tests for tuberculosis (TB) drug resistance are critical for improving patient care and decreasing the transmission of drug-resistant TB. Genotype®MTBDRsl (MTBDRsl) is the only commercially-available molecular test for detecting resistance in TB to the fluoroquinolones (FQs; ofloxacin, moxifloxacin and levofloxacin) and the second-line injectable drugs (SLIDs; amikacin, kanamycin and capreomycin), which are used to treat patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR-)TB. Objectives To obtain summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy ofMTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance and extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB; defined asMDR-TB plus resistance to a FQand a SLID) when performed (1) indirectly (ie on culture isolates confirmed as TB positive) and (2) directly (ie on smear-positive sputum specimens). To compare summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance and XDR-TB by type of testing (indirect versus direct testing). The populations of interest were adults with drug-susceptible TB or drug-resistant TB. The settings of interest were intermediate and central laboratories. Search methods We searched the following databases without any language restriction up to 30 January 2014: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; SCOPUS; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials; the search portal of the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. Selection criteria We included all studies that determined MTBDRsl accuracy against a defined reference standard (culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST), genetic testing or both).We included cross-sectional and diagnostic case-control studies.We excluded unpublished data and conference proceedings. Data collection and analysis For each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We performed meta-analyses to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance, and XDR-TB. We explored the influence of different reference standards. We performed the majority of analyses using a bivariate random-effects model against culture-based DST as the reference standard. Main results We included 21 unique studies: 14 studies reported the accuracy of MTBDRsl when done directly, five studies when done indirectly and two studies that did both. Of the 21 studies, 15 studies (71%) were cross-sectional and 11 studies (58%) were located in lowincome or middle-income countries. All studies but two were written in English. Nine (43%) of the 21 included studies had a high risk of bias for patient selection. At least half of the studies had low risk of bias for the other QUADAS-2 domains. As a test for FQ resistance measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 83.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.7% to 86.7%) and the pooled specificity was 97.7% (95% CI 94.3% to 99.1%), respectively (16 studies, 1766 participants; 610 confirmed cases of FQ-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence).When performed directly, the pooled sensitivity was 85.1% (95% CI 71.9% to 92.7%) and the pooled specificity was 98.2% (95% CI 96.8% to 99.0%), respectively (seven studies, 1033 participants; 230 confirmed cases of FQ-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). For indirect testing for FQ resistance, four (0.2%) of 1766MTBDRsl results were indeterminate, whereas for direct testing 20 (1.9%) of 1033 wereMTBDRsl indeterminate (P < 0.001). As a test for SLID resistance measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 76.9% (95% CI 61.1% to 87.6%) and the pooled specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 97.1% to 99.9%), respectively (14 studies, 1637 participants; 414 confirmed cases of SLID-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). For amikacin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87.9% (95% CI 82.1% to 92.0%) and 99.5% (95% CI 97.5% to 99.9%), respectively. For kanamycin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 66.9% (95% CI 44.1% to 83.8%) and 98.6% (95% CI 96.1% to 99.5%), respectively. for capreomycin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 79.5% (95% CI 58.3% to 91.4%) and 95.8% (95% CI 93.4% to 97.3%), respectively. When performed directly, the pooled sensitivity for SLID resistance was 94.4% (95% CI 25.2% to 99.9%) and the pooled specificity was 98.2% (95% CI 88.9% to 99.7%), respectively (six studies, 947 participants; 207 confirmed cases of SLIDresistant TB, 740 SLID susceptible cases of TB; very low quality evidence). For indirect testing for SLID resistance, three (0.4%) of 774 MTBDRsl results were indeterminate, whereas for direct testing 53 (6.1%) of 873 were MTBDRsl indeterminate (P < 0.001). As a test for XDR-TB measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 70.9% (95%CI 42.9%to 88.8%) and the pooled specificitywas 98.8%(95%CI 96.1%to 99.6%), respectively (eight studies, 880 participants; 173 confirmed cases of XDR-TB; low quality evidence). Authors’ conclusions In adults with TB, a positiveMTBDRsl result for FQ resistance, SLID resistance, or XDR-TB can be treated with confidence. However, MTBDRsl does not detect approximately one in five cases of FQ-resistant TB, and does not detect approximately one in four cases of SLID-resistant TB. Of the three SLIDs, MTBDRsl has the poorest sensitivity for kanamycin resistance. MTBDRsl will miss between one in four and one in three cases of XDR-TB. The diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl is similar when done using either culture isolates or smear-positive sputum. As the location of the resistance causing mutations can vary on a strain-by-strain basis, further research is required on test accuracy in different settings and, if genetic sequencing is used as a reference standard, it should examine all resistancedetermining regions. Given the confidence one can have in a positive result, and the ability of the test to provide results within a matter of days, MTBDRsl may be used as an initial test for second-line drug resistance. However, when the test reports a negative result, clinicians may still wish to carry out conventional testing. Plain Language Summary The rapid test GenoType® MTBDRsl for testing resistance to second-line TB drugs Background Different drugs are available to treat people with tuberculosis (TB), but resistance to these drugs is a growing problem. People with drug-resistant TB are more likely to die than people with drug-susceptible TB. People with drug-resistant TB require “second-line” TB drugs that, compared with “first-line” TB drugs used to treat drug-susceptible TB, cause more side effects and must be taken for longer. Extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) is a type of TB that is resistant to almost all TB drugs. A rapid and accurate test could identify people with drug-resistant TB, likely improve patient care, and reduce the spread of drug-resistant TB. Test evaluated by this review GenoType® MTBDRsl (MTBDRsl) is the only rapid test that detects resistance to second-line fluoroquinolone drugs and the secondline injectable drugs. The test also detects XDR-TB. MTBDRsl can be performed on TB bacteria grown by culture from sputum, which takes a long time (indirect testing), or immediately on sputum (direct testing). Main results We examined evidence available up to 30 January 2014 and included 21 studies, 11 of which were in low-income or middle-income countries. What do these results mean? Fluoroquinolone drugs By indirect testing, the test detected 83% of people with fluoroquinolone resistance and rarely gave a positive result for people without resistance. In a population of 1000 people,where 170 have fluoroquinolone resistance,MTBDRsl will correctly identify 141 people with fluoroquinolone resistance and miss 29 people. In this same population of 1000 people, where 830 people do not have fluoroquinolone resistance, the test will correctly classify 811 people as not having fluoroquinolone resistance and misclassify 19 people as having resistance (moderate quality evidence). By direct testing, the test detected 85% of people with fluoroquinolone resistance and rarely gave a positive result for people without resistance (moderate quality evidence). Second-line injectable drugs By indirect testing, the test detected 77%of people with second-line injectable drug resistance and rarely gave a positive result for people without resistance. In a population of 1000 people, where 230 have second-line injectable drug resistance, MTBDRsl will correctly identify 177 people with second-line injectable drug resistance and miss 53 people. In this same population of 1000 people, where 770 do not have second-line injectable drug resistance, the test will correctly classify 766 people as not having second-line injectable drug resistance and misclassify four people as having resistance (moderate quality evidence). By direct testing, the test detected 94% of people with second-line injectable drug resistance and rarely gave a positive result for people without resistance (very low quality evidence). XDR-TB By indirect testing, the test detected 71% of people with XDR-TB and rarely gave a positive result for people without XDR-TB. In a population of 1000 people, where 80 have XDR-TB, MTBDRsl will correctly identify 57 people with XDR-TB and miss 23 people. In this same population of 1000 people, where 920 do not have XDR-TB, the test will correctly classify 909 people as not having XDRTB and misclassify 11 people as having XDR-TB (low quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine the accuracy of MTBDRsl by direct testing for XDR-TB. Conclusions The results s

Are interferon-γ release assays useful for diagnosing active tuberculosis in a high-burden setting?

Although interferon-&ggr; release assays (IGRAs) are intended for diagnosing latent tuberculosis (TB), we hypothesised that in a high-burden setting: 1) the magnitude of the response when using IGRAs can distinguish active TB from other diagnoses; 2) IGRAs may aid in the diagnosis of smear-negative TB; and 3) IGRAs could be useful as rule-out tests for active TB. We evaluated the accuracy of two IGRAs (QuantiFERON®-TB Gold In-tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT®.TB) in 395 patients (27% HIV-infected) with suspected TB in Cape Town, South Africa. IGRA sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 76% (68–83%) and 42% (36–49%) for QFT-GIT and 84% (77–90%) and 47% (40–53%) for T-SPOT®.TB, respectively. Although interferon-&ggr; responses were significantly higher in the TB versus non-TB groups (p<0.0001), varying the cut-offs did not improve discriminatory ability. In culture-negative patients, depending on whether those with clinically diagnosed TB were included or excluded from the analysis, the negative predictive value (NPV) of QFT-GIT, T-SPOT®.TB and chest radiograph in smear-negative patients varied between 85 and 89, 87 and 92, and 98% (for chest radiograph), respectively. Overall accuracy was independent of HIV status and CD4 count. In a high-burden setting, IGRAs alone do not have value as rule-in or -out tests for active TB. In smear-negative patients, chest radiography had better NPV even in HIV-infected patients.

Determinants of PCR performance (Xpert MTB/RIF), including bacterial load and inhibition, for TB diagnosis using specimens from different body compartments

The determinants of Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity, a widely used PCR test for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) are poorly understood. We compared culture time-to-positivity (TTP; a surrogate of bacterial load), MTB/RIF TB-specific and internal positive control (IPC)-specific CT values, and clinical characteristics in patients with suspected TB who provided expectorated (n = 438) or induced sputum (n = 128), tracheal aspirates (n = 71), bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (n = 152), pleural fluid (n = 76), cerebral spinal fluid (CSF; n = 152), pericardial fluid (n = 131), or urine (n = 173) specimens. Median bacterial load (TTP in days) was the strongest associate of MTB/RIF positivity in each fluid. TTP correlated with CT values in pulmonary specimens but not extrapulmonary specimens (Spearmans coefficient 0.5043 versus 0.1437; p = 0.030). Inhibition affected a greater proportion of pulmonary specimens than extrapulmonary specimens (IPC CT > 34: 6% (47/731) versus 1% (4/381; p < 0.0001). Pulmonary specimens had greater load than extrapulmonary specimens [TTPs (interquartile range) of 11 (7–16) versus 22 (18–33.5) days; p < 0.0001]. HIV-infection was associated with a decreased likelihood of MTB/RIF-positivity in pulmonary specimens but an increased likelihood in extrapulmonary specimens. Mycobacterial load, which displays significant variation across different body compartments, is the main determinant of MTB/RIF-positivity rather than PCR inhibition. MTB/RIF CT is a poor surrogate of load in extrapulmonary specimens.

Accuracy and impact of Xpert MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of smear-negative or sputum-scarce tuberculosis using bronchoalveolar lavage fluid

Rationale The accuracy and impact of new tuberculosis (TB) tests, such as Xpert MTB/RIF, when performed on bronchoalveolar lavage fluid (BALF) obtained from patients with sputum-scarce or smear-negative TB is unclear. Methods South African patients with suspected pulmonary TB (n=160) who were sputum-scarce or smear-negative underwent bronchoscopy. MTB/RIF was performed on uncentrifuged BALF (1 ml) and/or a resuspended pellet of centrifuged BALF (∼10 ml). Time to TB detection and anti-TB treatment initiation were compared between phase one, when MTB/RIF was performed as a research tool, and phase two, when it was used for patient management. Results 27 of 154 patients with complete data had culture-confirmed TB. Of these, a significantly lower proportion were detected by smear microscopy compared with MTB/RIF (58%, 95% CI 39% to 75% versus 93%, 77% to 98%; p<0.001). Of the 127 patients who were culture negative, 96% (91% to 98%) were MTB/RIF negative. When phase two was compared with phase one, MTB/RIF reduced the median days to TB detection (29 (18–41) to 0 (0–0); p<0.001). However, more patients initiated empirical therapy (absence of a positive test in those commencing treatment) in phase one versus phase two (79% (11/14) versus 28% (10/25); p=0.026). Consequently, there was no detectable difference in the overall proportion of patients initiating treatment (26% (17/67; 17% to 37%) versus 36% (26/73; 26% to 47%); p=0.196) or the days to treatment initiation (10 (1–49) versus 7 (0–21); p=0.330). BALF centrifugation, HIV coinfection and a second MTB/RIF did not result in detectable changes in accuracy. Conclusions MTB/RIF detected TB cases more accurately and more rapidly than smear microscopy and significantly reduced the rate of empirical treatment.

The Use of an Automated Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction (Xpert MTB/RIF) to Predict the Sputum Smear Status of Tuberculosis Patients

Xpert MTB/RIF-generated cycle-threshold (C(T)) values have poor clinical utility as a rule-in test for smear positivity (cut-point ≤20.2; sensitivity 32.3%, specificity 97.1%) but moderately good rule-out value (cut-point >31.8; negative predictive value 80.0%). Thus, 20% of individuals with C(T) values >31.8 were erroneously ruled out as smear-negative. This group had a significantly lower sputum bacillary load relative to correctly classified smear-positive patients (C(T) ≤ 31.8; P < .001). These data inform on public health and contact tracing strategies.