ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing availability of rapid molecular tests for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in high-burden settings, many people with tuberculosis are undiagnosed. Reliance on sputum as the primary specimen for tuberculosis diagnostics contributes to this diagnostic gap. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and additive yield of a novel stool quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in three countries in Africa with high tuberculosis burdens. METHODS: We undertook a prospective diagnostic accuracy study in Eswatini, Mozambique, and Tanzania from Sept 21, 2020, to Feb 2, 2023, to compare the diagnostic accuracy for tuberculosis of a novel stool qPCR test with the current diagnostic standard for Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA detection from sputum and stool, Xpert-MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra). Sputum, stool, and urine samples were provided by a cohort of participants, aged 10 years or older, diagnosed with tuberculosis. Participants with tuberculosis (cases) were enrolled within 72 h of treatment initiation for tuberculosis diagnosed clinically or following laboratory confirmation. Participants without tuberculosis (controls) consisted of household contacts of the cases who did not develop tuberculosis during a 6-month follow-up. The performance was compared with a robust composite microbiological reference standard (CMRS). FINDINGS: The cohort of adolescents and adults (n=408) included 268 participants with confirmed or clinical tuberculosis (cases), 147 (55%) of whom were living with HIV, and 140 participants (controls) without tuberculosis. The sensitivity of the novel stool qPCR was 93·7% (95% CI 87·4-97·4) compared with participants with detectable growth on M tuberculosis culture, and 88·1% (81·3-93·0) compared with sputum Xpert Ultra. The stool qPCR had an equivalent sensitivity as sputum Xpert Ultra (94·8%, 89·1-98·1) compared with culture. Compared with the CMRS, the sensitivity of the stool qPCR was higher than the current standard for tuberculosis diagnostics on stool, Xpert Ultra (80·4%, 73·4-86·2 vs 73·5%, 66·0-80·1; p=0·025 on paired comparison). The qPCR also identified 17-21% additional tuberculosis cases compared to sputum Xpert Ultra or sputum culture. In controls without tuberculosis, the specificity of the stool qPCR was 96·9% (92·2-99·1). INTERPRETATION: In this study, a novel qPCR for the diagnosis of tuberculosis from stool specimens had a higher accuracy in adolescents and adults than the current diagnostic PCR gold standard on stool, Xpert-MTB/RIF Ultra, and equivalent sensitivity to Xpert-MTB/RIF Ultra on sputum. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health (NIH) Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and NIH Fogarty International Center.
Subject(s)
Feces , Mycobacterium tuberculosis , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction , Sensitivity and Specificity , Sputum , Tuberculosis , Humans , Adolescent , Feces/microbiology , Feces/chemistry , Adult , Prospective Studies , Mycobacterium tuberculosis/genetics , Mycobacterium tuberculosis/isolation & purification , Female , Male , Real-Time Polymerase Chain Reaction/methods , Young Adult , Tuberculosis/diagnosis , Tuberculosis/microbiology , Tuberculosis/urine , Sputum/microbiology , Middle Aged , Child , Tanzania/epidemiology , DNA, Bacterial/analysis , Mozambique/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Studies evaluating the new GeneXpert Ultra with other rapid diagnostic assays are limited, particularly in different geographical settings. The performance of the GeneXpert Ultra, the GeneXpert G4, the Line probe assays (LPA) and auramine smear microscopy in detecting TB in pulmonary and extra-pulmonary samples were thus evaluated. Remnants (n = 205 samples) of pulmonary (n = 125 samples) and extra-pulmonary (n = 80 samples) specimens from TB suspects were prospectively collected. Each sample was divided for diagnosis using microscopy, GeneXpert MTB/RIF assays, and LPA; these were all comparatively evaluated, using the MGIT 960 culture as a gold standard. The sensitivity and specificity of microscopy, Xpert Ultra, Xpert G4 and MTBDRplus (ver 2) in pulmonary samples were respectively: 82.00% and 90.28%; 88.00% and 58.57%; 79.59% and 90.28%; 80.00% and 11.11%. For extra-pulmonary specimen, the sensitivity and specificity were respectively: 53.85% and 98.51%; 69.23% and 49.25%; 50.00% and 97.01%; 69.23% and 25.37%. The new and improved GeneXpert Ultra assay was more sensitive than GeneXpert G4 and LPA in both pulmonary and extra pulmonary samples, albeit with lower specificity than the GeneXpert G4. The auramine and LPA tests were also highly sensitive, although the LPA was less specific.
