Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance: a prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: The Xpert MTB/RIF assay is an automated molecular test that has improved the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance, but its sensitivity is inadequate in patients with paucibacillary disease or HIV. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) was developed to overcome this limitation. We compared the diagnostic performance of Xpert Ultra with that of Xpert for detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentre, diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited adults with pulmonary tuberculosis symptoms presenting at primary health-care centres and hospitals in eight countries (South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, India, China, Georgia, Belarus, and Brazil). Participants were allocated to the case detection group if no drugs had been taken for tuberculosis in the past 6 months or to the multidrug-resistance risk group if drugs for tuberculosis had been taken in the past 6 months, but drug resistance was suspected. Demographic information, medical history, chest imaging results, and HIV test results were recorded at enrolment, and each participant gave at least three sputum specimen on 2 separate days. Xpert and Xpert Ultra diagnostic performance in the same sputum specimen was compared with culture tests and drug susceptibility testing as reference standards. The primary objectives were to estimate and compare the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra test with that of Xpert for detection of smear-negative tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance and to estimate and compare Xpert Ultra and Xpert specificities for detection of rifampicin resistance. Study participants in the case detection group were included in all analyses, whereas participants in the multidrug-resistance risk group were only included in analyses of rifampicin-resistance detection. FINDINGS: Between Feb 18, and Dec 24, 2016, we enrolled 2368 participants for sputum sampling. 248 participants were excluded from the analysis, and 1753 participants were distributed to the case detection group (n=1439) and the multidrug-resistance risk group (n=314). Sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert were 63% and 46%, respectively, for the 137 participants with smear-negative and culture-positive sputum (difference of 17%, 95% CI 10 to 24); 90% and 77%, respectively, for the 115 HIV-positive participants with culture-positive sputum (13%, 6·4 to 21); and 88% and 83%, respectively, across all 462 participants with culture-positive sputum (5·4%, 3·3 to 8·0). Specificities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for case detection were 96% and 98% (-2·7%, -3·9 to -1·7) overall, and 93% and 98% for patients with a history of tuberculosis. Xpert Ultra and Xpert performed similarly in detecting rifampicin resistance. INTERPRETATION: For tuberculosis case detection, sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was superior to that of Xpert in patients with paucibacillary disease and in patients with HIV. However, this increase in sensitivity came at the expense of a decrease in specificity. FUNDING: Government of Netherlands, Government of Australia, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Government of the UK, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Diagnostic preparedness for infectious disease outbreaks.

Diagnostics are crucial in mitigating the effect of disease outbreaks. Because diagnostic development and validation are time consuming, they should be carried out in anticipation of epidemics rather than in response to them. The diagnostic response to the 2014-15 Ebola epidemic, although ultimately effective, was slow and expensive. If a focused mechanism had existed with the technical and financial resources to drive its development ahead of the outbreak, point-of-care Ebola tests supporting a less costly and more mobile response could have been available early on in the diagnosis process. A new partnering model could drive rapid development of tests and surveillance strategies for novel pathogens that emerge in future outbreaks. We look at lessons learned from the Ebola outbreak and propose specific solutions to improve the speed of new assay development and ensure their effective deployment.

Diagnosis of opportunistic infections: HIV co-infections - tuberculosis.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Tuberculosis (TB) incidence has declined ∼1.5% annually since 2000, but continued to affect 10.4 million individuals in 2015, with 1/3 remaining undiagnosed or underreported. The diagnosis of TB among those co-infected with HIV is challenging as TB remains the leading cause of death in such individuals. Accurate and rapid diagnosis of active TB will avert mortality in both adults and children, reduce transmission, and assist in timeous decisions for antiretroviral therapy initiation. This review describes advances in diagnosing TB, especially among HIV co-infected individuals, highlights national program's uptake, and impact on patient care. RECENT FINDINGS: The TB diagnostic landscape has been transformed over the last 5 years. Molecular diagnostics such as Xpert MTB/RIF, which simultaneously detects Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) resistance to rifampicin, has revolutionized TB control programs. WHO endorsed the use of Xpert MTB/RIF in 2010 for use in HIV/TB co-infected patients, and later in 2013 for use as the initial diagnostic test for all adults and children with signs and symptoms of pulmonary TB. Line probe assays (LPAs) are recommended for the detection of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance in sputum smear-positive specimens and mycobacterial cultures. A second-line line probe assay has been recommended for the diagnosis of extensively drug-resistant (XDR)-TB Assays such as the urine lateral flow (LF)-lipoarabinomannan (LAM), can be used at the point of care (POC) and have a niche role to supplement the diagnosis of TB in seriously ill HIV-infected, hospitalized patients with low CD4 cell counts of less than 100 cells/µl. Polyvalent platforms such as the m2000 (Abbott Molecular) and GeneXpert (Cepheid) offer potential for integration of HIV and TB testing services. While the Research and Development (R&D) pipeline appears to be rich at first glance, there are actually few leads for true POC tests that would allow for earlier TB diagnosis or rapid, comprehensive drug susceptibility testing, especially when considering the very high attrition rates observed between biomarker discovery and product market entry. SUMMARY: In this review, we describe diagnostic strategies specifically for HIV and TB co-infected individuals. Molecular diagnostics in particular within the past 5 years have revolutionized and 'disrupted' this field. They lend themselves to integration of services with platforms capable of polyvalent testing. Impact on patient care is, however, still debatable. What has been highlighted is the need for health system strengthening and for true POC testing that can be used in active case finding.

Tuberculosis Diagnostics: State of the Art and Future Directions.

Rapid and accurate diagnosis is critical for timely initiation of anti-tuberculosis (TB) treatment, but many people with TB (or TB symptoms) do not have access to adequate initial diagnosis. In many countries, TB diagnosis is still reliant on sputum microscopy, a test with known limitations. However, new diagnostics are starting to change the landscape. Stimulated, in part, by the success and rollout of Xpert MTB/RIF, an automated, molecular test, there is now considerable interest in new technologies. The landscape looks promising with a pipeline of new tools, particularly molecular diagnostics, and well over 50 companies actively engaged in product development, and many tests have been reviewed by WHO for policy endorsement. However, new diagnostics are yet to reach scale, and there needs to be greater convergence between diagnostics development and the development of shorter TB drug regimens. Another concern is the relative absence of non-sputum-based diagnostics in the pipeline for children, and of biomarker tests for triage, cure, and latent TB progression. Increased investments are necessary to support biomarker discovery, validation, and translation into clinical tools. While transformative tools are being developed, high-burden countries will need to improve the efficiency of their health care delivery systems, ensure better uptake of new technologies, and achieve greater linkages across the TB and HIV care continuum. While we wait for next-generation technologies, national TB programs must scale up the best diagnostics currently available, and use implementation science to get the maximum impact.

Tuberculosis.

Tuberculosis (TB) is an airborne infectious disease caused by organisms of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. Although primarily a pulmonary pathogen, M. tuberculosis can cause disease in almost any part of the body. Infection with M. tuberculosis can evolve from containment in the host, in which the bacteria are isolated within granulomas (latent TB infection), to a contagious state, in which the patient will show symptoms that can include cough, fever, night sweats and weight loss. Only active pulmonary TB is contagious. In many low-income and middle-income countries, TB continues to be a major cause of morbidity and mortality, and drug-resistant TB is a major concern in many settings. Although several new TB diagnostics have been developed, including rapid molecular tests, there is a need for simpler point-of-care tests. Treatment usually requires a prolonged course of multiple antimicrobials, stimulating efforts to develop shorter drug regimens. Although the Bacillus Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccine is used worldwide, mainly to prevent life-threatening TB in infants and young children, it has been ineffective in controlling the global TB epidemic. Thus, efforts are underway to develop newer vaccines with improved efficacy. New tools as well as improved programme implementation and financing are necessary to end the global TB epidemic by 2035.

Development, roll-out and impact of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis: what lessons have we learnt and how can we do better?

The global roll-out of Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid Inc., Sunnyvale, CA, USA) has changed the diagnostic landscape of tuberculosis (TB). More than 16 million tests have been performed in 122 countries since 2011, and detection of multidrug-resistant TB has increased three- to eight-fold compared to conventional testing. The roll-out has galvanised stakeholders, from donors to civil society, and paved the way for universal drug susceptibility testing. It has attracted new product developers to TB, resulting in a robust molecular diagnostics pipeline. However, the roll-out has also highlighted gaps that have constrained scale-up and limited impact on patient outcomes. The roll-out has been hampered by high costs for under-funded programmes, unavailability of a complete solution package (notably comprehensive training, quality assurance, implementation plans, inadequate service and maintenance support) and lack of impact assessment. Insufficient focus has been afforded to effective linkage to care of diagnosed patients, and clinical impact has been blunted by weak health systems. In many countries the private sector plays a dominant role in TB control, yet this sector has limited access to subsidised pricing. In light of these lessons, we advocate for a comprehensive diagnostics implementation approach, including increased engagement of in-country stakeholders for product launch and roll-out, broader systems strengthening in preparation for new technologies, as well as quality impact data from programmatic settings.

Feasibility and Operational Performance of Tuberculosis Detection by Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification Platform in Decentralized Settings: Results from a Multicenter Study.

Currently available nucleic acid amplification platforms for tuberculosis (TB) detection are not designed to be simple or inexpensive enough to implement in decentralized settings in countries with a high burden of disease. The loop-mediated isothermal amplification platform (LAMP) may change this. We conducted a study in adults with symptoms suggestive of TB in India, Uganda, and Peru to establish the feasibility of using TB-LAMP (Eiken Chemical Co.) in microscopy laboratories compared with using smear microscopy against a reference standard of solid and liquid cultures. Operational characteristics were evaluated as well. A total of 1,777 participants met the eligibility criteria and were included for analysis. Overall, TB-LAMP sensitivities among culture-positive samples were 97.2% (243/250; 95% confidence interval [CI], 94.3% to 98.2%) and 62.0% (88/142; 95% CI, 53.5% to 70.0%) for smear-positive and smear-negative TB, respectively, but varied widely by country and operator. Specificities ranged from 94.5% (446/472; 95% CI, 92.0% to 96.4%) to 98.0% (350/357; 95% CI, 96.0% to 99.2%) by country. A root cause analysis identified high temperatures, high humidity, and/or low reaction volumes as possible causes for false-positive results, as they may result in nonspecific amplification. The study was repeated in India with training focused on vulnerable steps and an updated protocol; 580 participants were included for analysis. Specificity in the repeat trial was 96.6% (515/533; 95% CI, 94.7% to 97.9%). To achieve acceptable performance of LAMP at the microscopy center level, significant training and infrastructure requirements are necessary.

Defining the needs for next generation assays for tuberculosis.

To accelerate the fight against tuberculosis, major diagnostic challenges need to be addressed urgently. Post-2015 targets are unlikely to be met without the use of novel diagnostics that are more accurate and can be used closer to where patients first seek care in affordable diagnostic algorithms. This article describes the efforts by the stakeholder community that led to the identification of the high-priority diagnostic needs in tuberculosis. Subsequently target product profiles for the high-priority diagnostic needs were developed and reviewed in a World Health Organization (WHO)-led consensus meeting. The high-priority diagnostic needs included (1) a sputum-based replacement test for smear-microscopy; (2) a non-sputum-based biomarker test for all forms of tuberculosis, ideally suitable for use at levels below microscopy centers; (3) a simple, low cost triage test for use by first-contact care providers as a rule-out test, ideally suitable for use by community health workers; and (4) a rapid drug susceptibility test for use at the microscopy center level. The developed target product profiles, along with complimentary work presented in this supplement, will help to facilitate the interaction between the tuberculosis community and the diagnostics industry with the goal to lead the way toward the post-2015 global tuberculosis targets.

Target product profile of a molecular drug-susceptibility test for use in microscopy centers.

BACKGROUND: Current phenotypic testing for drug resistance in patients with tuberculosis is inadequate primarily with respect to turnaround time. Molecular tests hold the promise of an improved time to diagnosis. METHODS: A target product profile for a molecular drug-susceptibility test (DST) was developed on the basis of a collaborative effort that included opinions gathered from researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and test developers on optimal clinical and operational characteristics in settings of intended use. In addition, the current diagnostic ecosystem and the diagnostic development landscape were mapped. RESULTS: Molecular DSTs for detecting tuberculosis in microscopy centers should ideally evaluate for resistance to rifampin, fluoroquinolones, isoniazid, and pyrazinamide and enable the selection of the most appropriate treatment regimen. Performance characteristics of DSTs need to be optimized, but compromises can be made that depend on the trade-off between a false-positive result and a false-negative result. The operational requirements of a test will vary depending on the site of implementation. However, the most-important considerations pertain to quality control, maintenance and calibration, and the ability to export data. CONCLUSION: This target product profile defines the needs as perceived by the tuberculosis stakeholder community and attempts to provide a means of communication with test developers to ensure that fit-for-purpose DSTs are being developed.

Impact of Xpert MTB/RIF for TB diagnosis in a primary care clinic with high TB and HIV prevalence in South Africa: a pragmatic randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Xpert MTB/RIF is approved for use in tuberculosis (TB) and rifampicin-resistance diagnosis. However, data are limited on the impact of Xpert under routine conditions in settings with high TB burden. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A pragmatic prospective cluster-randomised trial of Xpert for all individuals with presumptive (symptomatic) TB compared to the routine diagnostic algorithm of sputum microscopy and limited use of culture was conducted in a large TB/HIV primary care clinic. The primary outcome was the proportion of bacteriologically confirmed TB cases not initiating TB treatment by 3 mo after presentation. Secondary outcomes included time to TB treatment and mortality. Unblinded randomisation occurred on a weekly basis. Xpert and smear microscopy were performed on site. Analysis was both by intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol. Between 7 September 2010 and 28 October 2011, 1,985 participants were assigned to the Xpert (n = 982) and routine (n = 1,003) diagnostic algorithms (ITT analysis); 882 received Xpert and 1,063 routine (per protocol analysis). 13% (32/257) of individuals with bacteriologically confirmed TB (smear, culture, or Xpert) did not initiate treatment by 3 mo after presentation in the Xpert arm, compared to 25% (41/167) in the routine arm (ITT analysis, risk ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.33-0.77, p = 0.0052). The yield of bacteriologically confirmed TB cases among patients with presumptive TB was 17% (167/1,003) with routine diagnosis and 26% (257/982) with Xpert diagnosis (ITT analysis, risk ratio 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.87, p<0.001). This difference in diagnosis rates resulted in a higher rate of treatment initiation in the Xpert arm: 23% (229/1,003) and 28% (277/982) in the routine and Xpert arms, respectively (ITT analysis, risk ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.06-1.44, p = 0.013). Time to treatment initiation was improved overall (ITT analysis, hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, p = 0.005) and among HIV-infected participants (ITT analysis, hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.85, p = 0.001). There was no difference in 6-mo mortality with Xpert versus routine diagnosis. Study limitations included incorrect intervention allocation for a high proportion of participants and that the study was conducted in a single clinic. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that in this routine primary care setting, use of Xpert to diagnose TB increased the number of individuals with bacteriologically confirmed TB who were treated by 3 mo and reduced time to treatment initiation, particularly among HIV-infected participants. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201010000255244. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is endorsed for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of Xpert for the detection of extrapulmonary TB. We searched multiple databases to October 15, 2013. We determined the accuracy of Xpert compared with culture and a composite reference standard (CRS). We grouped data by sample type and performed meta-analyses using a bivariate random-effects model. We assessed sources of heterogeneity using meta-regression for predefined covariates. We identified 18 studies involving 4461 samples. Sample processing varied greatly among the studies. Xpert sensitivity differed substantially between sample types. In lymph node tissues or aspirates, Xpert pooled sensitivity was 83.1% (95% CI 71.4-90.7%) versus culture and 81.2% (95% CI 72.4-87.7%) versus CRS. In cerebrospinal fluid, Xpert pooled sensitivity was 80.5% (95% CI 59.0-92.2%) against culture and 62.8% (95% CI 47.7-75.8%) against CRS. In pleural fluid, pooled sensitivity was 46.4% (95% CI 26.3-67.8%) against culture and 21.4% (95% CI 8.8-33.9%) against CRS. Xpert pooled specificity was consistently >98.7% against CRS across different sample types. Based on this systematic review, the World Health Organization now recommends Xpert over conventional tests for diagnosis of TB in lymph nodes and other tissues, and as the preferred initial test for diagnosis of TB meningitis.

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.

Determine TB-LAM lateral flow urine antigen assay for HIV-associated tuberculosis: recommendations on the design and reporting of clinical studies.

Detection of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis cell wall antigen lipoarabinomannan (LAM) in urine permits diagnoses of tuberculosis (TB) to be made in HIV-infected patients with advanced immunodeficiency. This can be achieved at the point-of-care within just 30 minutes using the Determine TB-LAM, which is a commercially available, lateral-flow urine 'strip test' assay. The assay has been shown to have useful diagnostic accuracy in patients enrolling in antiretroviral treatment services or in HIV-infected patients requiring admission to hospital medical wards in sub-Saharan Africa. Such patients have high mortality risk and have most to gain from rapid diagnosis of TB and immediate initiation of treatment. However, few studies using this assay have yet been reported and many questions remain concerning the correct use of the assay, interpretation of results, the role of the assay as an add-on test within existing diagnostic algorithms and the types of further studies needed. In this paper we address a series of questions with the aim of informing the design, conduct and interpretation of future studies. Specifically, we clarify which clinical populations are most likely to derive benefit from use of this assay and how patients enrolled in such studies might best be characterised. We describe the importance of employing a rigorous microbiological diagnostic reference standard in studies of diagnostic accuracy and discuss issues surrounding the specificity of the assay in different geographical areas and potential cross-reactivity with non-tuberculous mycobacteria and other organisms. We highlight the importance of careful procedures for urine collection and storage and the critical issue of how to read and interpret the test strips. Finally, we consider how the assay could be used in combination with other assays and outline the types of studies that are required to build the evidence base concerning its use.

The changing landscape of diagnostic services for tuberculosis.

During the last decade there has been a dramatic change in the laboratory approach to tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis in the developing world. This change began with the realization that acid-fast bacillus smear microscopy alone was totally inadequate to deal with the dual problems of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-associated TB and drug-resistant TB that threaten to undermine global progress in TB control. Subsequently, increased financial resources for TB laboratory services and the establishment of a systematic process for endorsement of new TB diagnostic tools and approaches by the World Health Organization (WHO) have led to rapid expansion of TB laboratory services and the availability of several new diagnostic tests that have been introduced. These include both commercial automated and noncommercial systems for phenotypic mycobacterial liquid culture and drug susceptibility testing, a simple and inexpensive test for mycobacterial species identification in culture isolates, light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy, and rapid molecular methods for TB case detection and the diagnosis of drug-resistant TB. The latter methodologies that include line probe assays and an automated cartridge-based real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR)-based test are being scaled up at an unprecedented pace and are truly revolutionizing the diagnosis of drug-resistant TB. On the other hand, little progress has been made in the quest for a true point-of-care test for TB. Fortunately, this is being addressed in several discovery initiatives that hopefully will provide impetus for the development of rapid, accurate TB diagnostics for the lowest level of the health system.

Alignment of new tuberculosis drug regimens and drug susceptibility testing: a framework for action.

New tuberculosis drug regimens are creating new priorities for drug susceptibility testing (DST) and surveillance. To minimise turnaround time, rapid DST will need to be prioritised, but developers of these assays will need better data about the molecular mechanisms of resistance. Efforts are underway to link mutations with drug resistance and to develop strain collections to enable assessment of new diagnostic assays. In resource-limited settings, DST might not be appropriate for all patients with tuberculosis. Surveillance data and modelling will help country stakeholders to design appropriate DST algorithms and to decide whether to change drug regimens. Finally, development of practical DST assays is needed so that, in countries where surveillance and modelling show that DST is advisable, these assays can be used to guide clinical decisions for individual patients. If combined judiciously during both development and implementation, new tuberculosis regimens and new DST assays have enormous potential to improve patient outcomes and reduce the burden of disease.

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

BACKGROUND: Accurate and rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and drug resistance are critical for improving patient care and decreasing the spread of TB. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is a rapid, automated test that can detect both TB and rifampicin resistance, within two hours after starting the test, with minimal hands-on technical time, but is more expensive than conventional sputum microscopy. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert for pulmonary TB (TB detection), both where Xpert was used as an initial test replacing microscopy, and where Xpert was used as an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert for rifampicin resistance detection where Xpert was used as the initial test, replacing conventional culture-based drug susceptibility testing.The population of interest was adults suspected of having pulmonary TB or multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), with or without HIV infection. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive search of 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. We performed searches on 25 September 2011 and we repeated them on 15 December 2011, without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional, and cohort studies that used respiratory specimens to compare Xpert with culture for detecting TB and Xpert with conventional phenotypic drug susceptibility testing for detecting rifampicin resistance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each study, two review authors independently extracted a set of data using a standardized data extraction form. When possible, we extracted data for subgroups by smear and HIV status. We assessed the quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We carried out meta-analyses to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert separately for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection using a bivariate random-effects model. We estimated the median pooled sensitivity and specificity and their 95% credible intervals (CrI). MAIN RESULTS: We identified 18 unique studies as eligible for this review, including two multicentre international studies, one with five and the other with six distinct study centres. The majority of studies (55.6%) were performed in low-income and middle-income countries. In 17 of the 18 studies, Xpert was performed by trained technicians in reference laboratories.When used as an initial test replacing smear microscopy (15 studies, 7517 participants), Xpert achieved a pooled sensitivity of 88% (95% CrI 83% to 92%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). As an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result (14 studies, 5719 participants), Xpert yielded a pooled sensitivity of 67% (95% CrI 58% to 74%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). In clinical subgroups, we found the following accuracy estimates: the pooled sensitivity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%) for smear-positive, culture-positive TB and 68% (95% CrI 59% to 75%) for smear-negative, culture-positive TB (15 studies); the pooled sensitivity was 80% (95% CrI 67% to 88%) in people living with HIV and 89% (95% CrI 81% to 94%) in people without HIV infection (four studies). For rifampicin resistance detection (11 studies, 2340 participants), Xpert achieved a pooled sensitivity of 94% (95% CrI 87% to 97%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). In a separate analysis, Xpert could distinguish between TB and nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) in clinical samples with high accuracy: among 139 specimens with NTM, Xpert was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM.In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals suspected of having rifampicin resistance (a proxy for MDR-TB), where the prevalence of rifampicin resistance is 30%, we estimated that on average Xpert would wrongly identify 14 patients as being rifampicin resistant. In comparison, where the prevalence of rifampicin resistance is only 2%, we estimated that the number of individuals wrongly identified as rifampicin resistant would increase to 20, an increase of 43%. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review shows that Xpert used as an initial diagnostic test for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection in patients suspected of having TB, MDR-TB, or HIV-associated TB is sensitive and specific. Xpert may also be valuable as an add-on test following microscopy for patients who have previously been found to be smear-negative. An Xpert result that is positive for rifampicin resistance should be carefully interpreted and take into consideration the risk of MDR-TB in a given patient and the expected prevalence of MDR-TB in a given setting.Studies in this review mainly assessed sensitivity and specificity of the test when used in reference laboratories in research investigations. Most studies were performed in high TB burden countries. Ongoing use of Xpert in high TB burden countries will contribute to the evidence base on the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of Xpert in routine programmatic and peripheral health care settings, including settings where the test is performed at the point of care.