Abstract

BackgroundThe WHO recently recommended the new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Ultra) instead of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay because Ultra has improved sensitivity. We report the diagnostic accuracy of Ultra for tuberculous adenitis in a tuberculosis and HIV endemic setting.MethodsWe obtained fine-needle aspirates (FNA) and lymph node tissue by core-needle biopsy in adult patients with peripheral lymphadenopathy of >20 mm. Ultra and mycobacterial culture were performed on FNA and tissue specimens, with histological examination of tissue specimens. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of Ultra against a composite reference standard of ‘definite tuberculosis’ (microbiological criteria) or ‘probable tuberculosis’ (histological and clinical criteria).ResultsWe prospectively evaluated 99 participants of whom 50 were HIV positive: 21 had ‘definite tuberculosis’, 15 ‘probable tuberculosis’ and 63 did not have tuberculosis (of whom 38% had lymphoma and 19% disseminated malignancy). Using the composite reference standard the Ultra sensitivity on FNA was 70% (95% CI 51–85; 21 of 30), and on tissue was 67% (45–84; 16/24) these were far superior to the detection of acid-fast bacilli on an FNA (26%; 7/27); AFB on tissue (33%; 8/24); or tissue culture (39%; 9/23). The detection of granulomas on histology had high senstivity (83%) but the lowest specficity. When compared with culture the Ultra on FNA had a sensitvity of 78% (40-97; 7/9) and tissue 90% (55-100; 9/10).ConclusionsUltra performed on FNA or tissue of a lymph node had good sensitivity and high specificity. Ultra had a higher yield than culture and has the advantage of being a rapid test. Ultra on FNA would be an appropriate initial investigation for lymphadenopathy in tuberculosis endemic areas followed by a core biopsy for histopathology with a repeat Ultra on tissue if granulomas are present.

Highlights

  • The WHO recently recommended the new Xpert MTB/Rif Assay (Xpert) MTB/RIF Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Ultra) assay (Ultra) instead of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay because Ultra has improved sensitivity

  • Because the limit of detection of Ultra is lower (15.6 bacterial colony-forming units (CFU) per ml compared with 114 CFU per ml with Xpert), the greatest improvement in detection is likely to be in paucibacillary samples

  • The performance on Ultra in lymph nodes has only been tested in one small retrospective study on 10 frozen samples where it showed an improvement of 50% compared with Xpert, (5/10 samples that were Xpert negative and culture positive were positive on Ultra) [6]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The WHO recently recommended the new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Ultra) instead of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay because Ultra has improved sensitivity. Because the limit of detection of Ultra is lower (15.6 bacterial colony-forming units (CFU) per ml compared with 114 CFU per ml with Xpert), the greatest improvement in detection is likely to be in paucibacillary samples. This has been demonstrated in cerebrospinal fluid, where Ultra has much higher sensitivity (95, 95% CI 77–99), versus Xpert at 45%,) with only a marginally reduced specificity (95.6% vs 98.3%) which was thought to be due to antecedent tuberculosis infection [5]. The performance on Ultra in lymph nodes has only been tested in one small retrospective study on 10 frozen samples where it showed an improvement of 50% compared with Xpert, (5/10 samples that were Xpert negative and culture positive were positive on Ultra) [6]

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call