Cited by 668Tuberculosis Research and EpidemiologyMycobacterium research and diagnosisInfectious Diseases and Tuberculosis

The New Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra: Improving Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and Resistance to Rifampin in an Assay Suitable for Point-of-Care Testing

Open access
Chakravorty, Soumitesh, Simmons, Ann Marie, Rowneki, Mazhgan, Parmar, Heta, Cao, Yuan, Ryan, Jamie, Banada, Padmapriya P., Deshpande, Srinidhi +17 more·2017·mBio

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1128/mbio.00812-17

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The limit of detection for MTB is lower with Xpert Ultra (16 cfu/mL) than with Xpert MTB/RIF (131 cfu/mL).

    “The limit of detection for MTB is lower with Xpert Ultra (16 bacterial colony‐forming units (cfu) per mL) than with Xpert MTB/RIF (131 cfu per mL) (Chakravorty 2017).”

    From Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults (2021) · cites this paper as Chakravorty 2017

    The Results section (‘Sensitivity of Ultra versus that of Xpert’) reports an MTB detection limit of 15.6 CFU/mL for Ultra, consistent with the claimed 16. It reports 112.6 CFU/mL for Xpert, not the claimed 131 CFU/mL, although the claimed value falls within the reported confidence interval. (LLM, conf=0.93)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Xpert Ultra trace result corresponds to the lowest bacterial burden for detection of M tuberculosis.

    “‘Trace' corresponds to the lowest bacterial burden for detection of M tuberculosis (Chakravorty 2017).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chakravorty, S., Simmons, A. M., Rowneki, M., Parmar, H., Cao, Y., Ryan, J., Banada, P. P., Deshpande, S., Shenai, S., Gall, A., Glass, J., Krieswirth, B., Schumacher, S. G., Nabeta, P., Tukvadze, N., Rodrigues, C., Skrahina, A., Tagliani, E., Cirillo, D. M., Davidow, A., Denkinger, C. M., Persing, D., Kwiatkowski, R., Jones, M., & Alland, D.
Affiliations
  • Rutgers New Jersey Medical School (US)
  • Cepheid (United States) (US)
  • FIND (CH)
  • National Center for Tuberculosis and Lung Disease (GE)
  • P. D. Hinduja Hospital and Medical Research Centre (IN)
  • Republican Scientific and Practical Centre of Pulmonology and Tuberculosis (BY)
  • IRCCS Ospedale San Raffaele (IT)
Corresponding author
  • Chakravorty, Soumitesh
  • Alland, David
Venue
mBio
Published
2017-09-06
Volume
8
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 2150-7511 (ISSN-L)
  • 2161-2129
OpenAlex
W2753668595
Cited by
668
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 61 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 88 · 2022: 61 · 2021: 65 · 2020: 85 · 2019: 67 · 2018: 52 · 2017: 7
FWCI
44.22
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • mBio (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
HHS | National Institutes of Health (AI111397)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Infectious Diseases › Tuberculosis Research and Epidemiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Mycobacterium research and diagnosis
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Infectious Diseases and Tuberculosis
Keywords
Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra, Xpert MTB/RIF, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, rifampicin resistance, rpoB mutations, point-of-care testing, tuberculosis diagnosis, detection limit, sensitivity and specificity, Mycobacterium bovis BCG, nucleic acid amplification
MeSH terms
Point-of-Care Testing, Antibiotics, Antitubercular, Bacterial Proteins, Humans, Mutation, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, Rifampin, DNA-Directed RNA Polymerases, Sensitivity and Specificity, Sputum, Tuberculosis, Tuberculosis, Pulmonary, Polymerase Chain Reaction, Molecular Diagnostic Techniques, Limit of Detection

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review