Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Is Highly Sensitive for the Diagnosis of Tuberculosis Lymphadenitis in a High-HIV Setting

• Published in: Journal of clinical microbiology Vol. 59; no. 12; p. e0131621
• Main Authors: Minnies, Stephanie, Reeve, Byron W P, Rockman, Loren, Nyawo, Georgina, Naidoo, Charissa C, Kitchin, Natasha, Rautenbach, Cornelia, Wright, Colleen A, Whitelaw, Andrew, Schubert, Pawel, Warren, Robin M, Theron, Grant
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States American Society for Microbiology 18.11.2021
• Subjects: Antibiotics, Antitubercular - therapeutic use; Clinical Microbiology; HIV Infections - complications; HIV Infections - diagnosis; HIV Infections - drug therapy; Humans; Lymphadenitis - drug therapy; Mycobacteriology and Aerobic Actinomycetes; Mycobacterium tuberculosis - genetics; Rifampin - pharmacology; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tuberculosis, Lymph Node - diagnosis; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary - drug therapy; tuberculosis lymphadenitis; diagnostic accuracy; Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra
• ISSN: 0095-1137; 1098-660X
• DOI: 10.1128/jcm.01316-21

Tuberculosis lymphadenitis (TBL) is the most common extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) manifestation. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) is a World Health Organization-endorsed diagnostic test, but performance data for TBL, including on noninvasive specimens, are limited. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens (FNABs) from outpatients (≥18 years) with presumptive TBL (  = 135) underwent (i) routine Xpert MTB/RIF testing (later with Ultra once programmatically available), (ii) MGIT 960 culture (if Xpert or Ultra negative or rifampicin resistant), and (iii) study Ultra testing. Concentrated paired urine specimens underwent Ultra testing. Primary analyses used a microbiological reference standard (MRS). In a head-to-head comparison (  = 92) of an FNAB study Ultra and Xpert, Ultra had increased sensitivity (91% [95% confidence interval: 79, 98] versus 72% [57, 84];  = 0.016) and decreased specificity (76% [61, 87] versus 93% [82, 99];  = 0.020) and diagnosed patients not on treatment. Neither HIV nor alternative reference standards affected sensitivity and specificity. In patients with both routine and study Ultra tests, the latter detected more cases (+20% [0, 42];  = 0.034), and false-negative study Ultra results were more inhibited than true-positive results. Study Ultra false positives had less mycobacterial DNA than true positives (trace-positive proportions, 59% [13/22] versus 12% [5/51];  < 0.001). "Trace" exclusion or recategorization removed potential benefits offered over Xpert. Urine Ultra tests had low sensitivity (18% [7, 35]). Ultra testing on FNABs is highly sensitive and detects more TBL than Xpert (Ultra still missed some cases due in part to inhibition). Patients with FNAB Ultra-positive "trace" results, most of whom will be culture negative, may require additional clinical investigation. Urine Ultra testing could reduce the number of patients needing invasive sampling.