RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Evaluation of Xpert<sup>®</sup> MTB/XDR test for susceptibility testing of <em>Mycobacterium tuberculosis</em> to first and second-line drugs in Uganda
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.04.03.23288099
DO 10.1101/2023.04.03.23288099
A1 Katamba, Achilles
A1 Ssengooba, Willy
A1 Sserubiri, James
A1 Semugenze, Derrick
A1 William, Kasule George
A1 Abdunoor, Nyombi
A1 Byaruhanga, Raymond
A1 Turyahabwe, Stavia
A1 Joloba, Moses L
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/04/05/2023.04.03.23288099.abstract
AB Background Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis (DR-TB) is one of the key challenges toward TB control. There is an urgent need for rapid and accurate drug susceptibility tests (DST) for the most commonly used 1st and 2nd line TB drugs.Design and Methods In a blinded, laboratory-based cross-sectional study, we set out to validate the performance of the Xpert® MTB/XDR test for DST of M. tuberculosis. Sputum samples or culture isolates collected between January 2020 and December 2021 from patients with rifampicin resistance –TB and/or with higher suspicion index for isoniazid (INH) resistance and/or 2nd line fluoroquinolones (FQ) and injectable agents (IAs) were tested using the Xpert® MTB/XDR test from 11/September 2021 to 26/May /2022. Diagnostic accuracy and factors for laboratory uptake of Xpert® MTB/XDR test were compared to MGIT960 and the Hain Genotype® MTBDRplus and MDRsl assays (LPA) as reference DST methods.Results A total of 100 stored sputum samples were included in this study. Of the samples tested using MGIT960, 65/99 (65.6%) were resistant to INH, 5/100 (5.0%) resistant to FQ and none were resistant to IAs. The sensitivity and specificity, n (%; 95%Confidence Interval, CI) of Xpert® MTB/XDR test for; INH were 58 (89.2; 79.1-95.5) and 30 (88.2; 72.5-96.6), FQ; 4 (80.0; 28.3-99.4) and 95 (100; 96.2-100), respectively. The specificity for AIs was 100 (100; 96.3-100).Using LPA as a reference standard, a total of 52/98 (53.1%) were resistant to INH, 3/100 (3.0%) to FQ, and none to IA. The sensitivity and specificity, n (%; 95%CI) of Xpert® MTB/XDR test compared to LPA for; INH was 50 (96.1; 86.7-99.5) and 34 (74.0; 58.8-85.7) and FQ 3 (100; 29.2-100) and 96 (99.0; 94.3-99.9) respectively. The specificity of IAs was 96 (100; 96.2-100).The factors for laboratory uptake and roll-out included; no training needed for technicians with previous Xpert-ultra experience and one day for those without, recording and reporting needs were not different from those of Xpert ultra, the error rate was 4/100 (4%), no uninterpretable results reported, test turn-around-time was 1hr/45 minutes and workflow similar to that of the Xpert-ultra test.Conclusion There is high sensitivity and specificity of Xpert® MTB/XDR test for isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, and Injectable agents. There are acceptable Xpert® MTB/XDR test attributes for test uptake and roll-out.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementWe acknowledge the support from Cepheid for technical support, the Xpert MTB/XDR machine and cartridges used in this validation study. Cepheid had to influence in the design and conduct of this validation study in Uganda. WS is a NURTURE fellow under NIH grant D43TW010132, a postdoctoral fellow under MUII+, Uganda Medical Informatics Centre (UMIC) Bioinformatics endeavour and under the European &amp; Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) grant TMA2018CDF-2351. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study received ethics committee approval from the Makerere University School of Biomedical Sciences Research Ethics Committee and the Uganda National Council of Science and Technology.I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.