Cargando…

Improvement of Mycobacterium tuberculosis detection by Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra: A head-to-head comparison on Xpert-negative samples

BACKGROUND: The new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Ultra, Cepheid, Sunnyvale, USA) is a cartridge-based automated diagnostic test that can simultaneously identify Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB) and resistance to Rifampicin (RIF). With respect to the previous version Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert)...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bisognin, Francesco, Lombardi, Giulia, Lombardo, Donatella, Re, Maria Carla, Dal Monte, Paola
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6089413/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30102737
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201934
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: The new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Ultra, Cepheid, Sunnyvale, USA) is a cartridge-based automated diagnostic test that can simultaneously identify Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTB) and resistance to Rifampicin (RIF). With respect to the previous version Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert), IS6110/IS1081 repetitive elements probes have been added allowing the detection of lower MTB load, defined by the new semi-quantitative category “trace” with indeterminate RIF resistance. The aim of this study was to evaluate performance of the new version Ultra on Xpert-negative, but TB culture-positive clinical samples. METHODS: The de-identified frozen samples (-20 °C) collected over a 4-year period (February 2014-October 2017), which had previously resulted smear-negative, Xpert-negative but MTB culture-positive, were analyzed with Ultra. The de-frosted samples were loaded into the cartridge using the same process as the previous version, according to manufacturer’s instruction. RESULTS: During the study period 382 MTB culture-positive samples were archived: 314 resulted Xpert-positive and 68 Xpert-negative. Thirty-one of the 68 Xpert-negative samples resulted positive with Ultra, with an overall improvement in MTB detection of 45.6%. Out of 36 Xpert-negative respiratory samples, 18 resulted Ultra-positive with the following semi-quantitative loads: “low”(n = 1), “very low”(n = 11), “trace”(n = 6), with an improvement in MTB detection of 50%. The best performance was achieved on bronchoalveolar lavage specimens (53.8%). Out of 32 Xpert-negative non-respiratory samples, 13 resulted Ultra-positive with the following semi-quantitative loads: “very low”(n = 7), “trace”(n = 6), with an improvement in MTB detection of 40.6%. The best performance was achieved on biopsies (55.6%) and lymph nodes (50%). The new category “trace” detected 12 out of the 31 Ultra-positive MTB samples; in the remaining 19 samples RIF susceptibility was determined with 100% concordance with the phenotypic susceptibility test. The mean time to positivity of samples found negative by Ultra was significantly longer in comparison to positive samples in liquid culture. CONCLUSIONS: Our results are consistent with the few studies published so far and confirm the better performance of Ultra compared to the previous version in both respiratory and non-respiratory smear-negative samples, with an overall improvement of 45.6%.