Abstract

ABSTRACTHigh-throughput centralized testing for tuberculosis (TB) and drug resistance is important, but comparative data are limited. In this retrospective cross-sectional study, participants were recruited from Johannesburg, South Africa, and Tbilisi, Georgia. The index tests, Abbott RealTime MTB (RT-MTB) and RealTime MTB RIF/INH (RT-MTB RIF/INH), were performed on specimens stored frozen for an extended period of time (beyond manufacturer-validated specifications) and compared to paired Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) results obtained with fresh specimens. The detection reference standard was the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex culture, and for resistance detection, it was phenotypic drug susceptibility testing. The median age of 474 participants was 39 (interquartile range [IQR], 31 to 51) years. On decontaminated sputum, Xpert Ultra had a sensitivity of 91%, compared to 77% for RT-MTB, with a difference of +14% (95% confidence interval [CI], +9.2 to +21%; 18/127). On raw sputum, Xpert Ultra exhibited a sensitivity of 89% and Xpert one of 88%, compared to 80% for RT-MTB, exhibiting differences of +10% (95% CI, +3.3 to +18%; 9/93) and +8.6% (95% CI, +2.4 to +17%; 8/93), respectively. Specificity was ≥98% for all tests. All three tests showed high sensitivity and specificity for detection of rifampin resistance. Abbott assays may have lower sensitivity than Xpert and Xpert Ultra for TB detection but similar performance for detection of resistance. The differences in TB detection may be attributable to differences in testing of frozen (Abbott) versus fresh (Xpert) samples. Studies in compliance with manufacturer’s instructions are required to compare performance.IMPORTANCE In 2019, 10 million people fell ill with tuberculosis (TB), of whom 1.4 million died. There are few comparative studies of diagnostic assays, particularly those aiming to be used in high-throughput laboratories. One such assay is the Abbott RealTime MTB (RT-MTB) and RealTime MTB RIF/INH (RT-MTB RIF/INH), which uses the m2000 platform already in use in many settings for HIV load testing and allows the diagnosis of TB and resistance to two first-line drugs, rifampin and isoniazid. Our study compared the RT-MTB and RT-MTB RIF/INH to the WHO-recommended Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF. The study is the largest comparative study to date and was performed independent of the manufacturer. The study results suggest that the Abbott RealTime MTB may have a lower sensitivity, but the study may have placed the Abbott test at a disadvantage by using frozen samples and comparing the results to those for fresh samples for the Xpert.

Highlights

  • High-throughput centralized testing for tuberculosis (TB) and drug resistance is important, but comparative data are limited

  • This estimate must be interpreted with caution, as the Xpert Ultra test was performed on fresh samples, while RealTime MTB (RT-MTB) was done on frozen samples for which storage was outside the manufacturers’ recommendations

  • When different unprocessed sputum samples provided by the same patient were compared, Xpert Ultra demonstrated a 110% (13.3 to 118%) higher sensitivity while Xpert demonstrated an 18% (12.4 to 117%) higher sensitivity when tested on fresh samples compared to RT-MTB tested on frozen samples

Read more

Summary

Introduction

High-throughput centralized testing for tuberculosis (TB) and drug resistance is important, but comparative data are limited. There are few comparative studies of diagnostic assays, those aiming to be used in high-throughput laboratories One such assay is the Abbott RealTime MTB (RT-MTB) and RealTime MTB RIF/INH (RT-MTB RIF/INH), which uses the m2000 platform already in use in many settings for HIV load testing and allows the diagnosis of TB and resistance to two first-line drugs, rifampin and isoniazid. The meta-analysis found sensitivity point estimates between 79% and 100% for RT-MTB, while specificity varied from 84% to 99%; pooled estimates were 96.2% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.2 to 98.6) and 97.1% (CI, 93.7 to 98.7%), respectively The majority of these studies were, based in low-TB-incidence and low-HIV-prevalence countries, and few studies compared RT-MTB head-to-head with WHO-recommended tests. The review raised a potential concern regarding the involvement of manufacturers in all studies of highthroughput platforms [2]

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

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