Alena Skrahina

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.

ABSTRACT The Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is a rapid test for tuberculosis (TB) and rifampin resistance (RIF-R) suitable for point-of-care testing. However, it has decreased sensitivity in smear-negative sputum, and false identification of RIF-R occasionally occurs. We developed the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Ultra) to improve performance. Ultra and Xpert limits of detection (LOD), dynamic ranges, and RIF-R rpoB mutation detection were tested on Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA or sputum samples spiked with known numbers of M. tuberculosis H37Rv or Mycobacterium bovis BCG CFU. Frozen and prospectively collected clinical samples from patients suspected of having TB, with and without culture-confirmed TB, were also tested. For M. tuberculosis H37Rv, the LOD was 15.6 CFU/ml of sputum for Ultra versus 112.6 CFU/ml of sputum for Xpert, and for M. bovis BCG, it was 143.4 CFU/ml of sputum for Ultra versus 344 CFU/ml of sputum for Xpert. Ultra resulted in no false-positive RIF-R specimens, while Xpert resulted in two false-positive RIF-R specimens. All RIF-R-associated M. tuberculosis rpoB mutations tested were identified by Ultra. Testing on clinical sputum samples, Ultra versus Xpert, resulted in an overall sensitivity of 87.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 82.1, 91.7) versus 81.0% (95% CI, 74.9, 86.2) and a sensitivity on sputum smear-negative samples of 78.9% (95% CI, 70.0, 86.1) versus 66.1% (95% CI, 56.4, 74.9). Both tests had a specificity of 98.7% (95% CI, 93.0, 100), and both had comparable accuracies for detection of RIF-R in these samples. Ultra should significantly improve TB detection, especially in patients with paucibacillary disease, and may provide more-reliable RIF-R detection. IMPORTANCE The Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert), the first point-of-care assay for tuberculosis (TB), was endorsed by the World Health Organization in December 2010. Since then, 23 million Xpert tests have been procured in 130 countries. Although Xpert showed high overall sensitivity and specificity with pulmonary samples, its sensitivity has been lower with smear-negative pulmonary samples and extrapulmonary samples. In addition, the prediction of rifampin resistance (RIF-R) in paucibacillary samples and for a few rpoB mutations has resulted in both false-positive and false-negative results. The present study is the first demonstration of the design features and operational characteristics of an improved Xpert Ultra assay. This study also shows that the Ultra format overcomes many of the known shortcomings of Xpert. The new assay should significantly improve TB detection, especially in patients with paucibacillary disease, and provide more-reliable detection of RIF-R.

Linezolid is used off-label to treat multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in absence of systematic evidence. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis on efficacy, safety and tolerability of linezolid-containing regimes based on individual data analysis. 12 studies (11 countries from three continents) reporting complete information on safety, tolerability, efficacy of linezolid-containing regimes in treating MDR-TB cases were identified based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Meta-analysis was performed using the individual data of 121 patients with a definite treatment outcome (cure, completion, death or failure). Most MDR-TB cases achieved sputum smear (86 (92.5%) out of 93) and culture (100 (93.5%) out of 107) conversion after treatment with individualised regimens containing linezolid (median (inter-quartile range) times for smear and culture conversions were 43.5 (21-90) and 61 (29-119) days, respectively) and 99 (81.8%) out of 121 patients were successfully treated. No significant differences were detected in the subgroup efficacy analysis (daily linezolid dosage ≤ 600 mg versus >600 mg). Adverse events were observed in 63 (58.9%) out of 107 patients, of which 54 (68.4%) out of 79 were major adverse events that included anaemia (38.1%), peripheral neuropathy (47.1%), gastro-intestinal disorders (16.7%), optic neuritis (13.2%) and thrombocytopenia (11.8%). The proportion of adverse events was significantly higher when the linezolid daily dosage exceeded 600 mg. The study results suggest an excellent efficacy but also the necessity of caution in the prescription of linezolid.

The emergence of multidrug-resistant (MDR) and extensively drug-resistant (XDR) tuberculosis (TB) substantially challenges TB control, especially in the European Region of the World Health Organization, where the highest prevalence of MDR/XDR cases is reported. The current management of patients with MDR/XDR-TB is extremely complex for medical, social and public health systems. The treatment with currently available anti-TB therapies to achieve relapse-free cure is long and undermined by a high frequency of adverse drug events, suboptimal treatment adherence, high costs and low treatment success rates. Availability of optimal management for patients with MDR/XDR-TB is limited even in the European Region. In the absence of a preventive vaccine, more effective diagnostic tools and novel therapeutic interventions the control of MDR/XDR-TB will be extremely difficult. Despite recent scientific advances in MDR/XDR-TB care, decisions for the management of patients with MDR/XDR-TB and their contacts often rely on expert opinions, rather than on clinical evidence. This document summarises the current knowledge on the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of adults and children with MDR/XDR-TB and their contacts, and provides expert consensus recommendations on questions where scientific evidence is still lacking.

Large studies on bedaquiline used to treat multidrug-resistant (MDR-) and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) are lacking. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of bedaquiline-containing regimens in a large, retrospective, observational study conducted in 25 centres and 15 countries in five continents.428 culture-confirmed MDR-TB cases were analysed (61.5% male; 22.1% HIV-positive, 45.6% XDR-TB). MDR-TB cases were admitted to hospital for a median (interquartile range (IQR)) 179 (92-280) days and exposed to bedaquiline for 168 (86-180) days. Treatment regimens included, among others, linezolid, moxifloxacin, clofazimine and carbapenems (82.0%, 58.4%, 52.6% and 15.3% of cases, respectively).Sputum smear and culture conversion rates in MDR-TB cases were 63.6% and 30.1%, respectively at 30 days, 81.1% and 56.7%, respectively at 60 days; 85.5% and 80.5%, respectively at 90 days and 88.7% and 91.2%, respectively at the end of treatment. The median (IQR) time to smear and culture conversion was 34 (30-60) days and 60 (33-90) days. Out of 247 culture-confirmed MDR-TB cases completing treatment, 71.3% achieved success (62.4% cured; 8.9% completed treatment), 13.4% died, 7.3% defaulted and 7.7% failed. Bedaquiline was interrupted due to adverse events in 5.8% of cases. A single case died, having electrocardiographic abnormalities that were probably non-bedaquiline related.Bedaquiline-containing regimens achieved high conversion and success rates under different nonexperimental conditions.