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. 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. 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. 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. Government of Netherlands, Government of Australia, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Government of the UK, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Nasopharyngeal (NP) swabs are considered the highest-yield sample for diagnostic testing for respiratory viruses, including SARS-CoV-2. The need to increase capacity for SARS-CoV-2 testing in a variety of settings, combined with shortages of sample collection supplies, have motivated a search for alternative sample types with high sensitivity.

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.Methods and findings: We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers’ instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies’ heterogeneity in design and reporting.Conclusions: In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data.

Molecular tests for tuberculosis (TB) have the potential to help reach the three million people with TB who are undiagnosed or not reported each year and to improve the quality of care TB patients receive by providing accurate, quick results, including rapid drug-susceptibility testing. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended the use of molecular nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) tests for TB detection instead of smear microscopy, as they are able to detect TB more accurately, particularly in patients with paucibacillary disease and in people living with HIV.

Most tuberculosis-related deaths in people with HIV could be prevented with earlier diagnosis and treatment. The only commercially available tuberculosis point-of-care test (Alere Determine TB LAM Ag [AlereLAM]) has suboptimal sensitivity, which restricts its use in clinical practice. The novel Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) assay has been developed to improve the sensitivity of AlereLAM. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the FujiLAM assay for the detection of tuberculosis in hospital inpatients with HIV compared with the AlereLAM assay. For this diagnostic accuracy study, we assessed biobanked urine samples obtained from the FIND Specimen Bank and the University of Cape Town Biobank, which had been collected from hospital inpatients (aged ≥18 years) with HIV during three independent prospective cohort studies done at two South African hospitals. Urine samples were tested using FujiLAM and AlereLAM assays. The conduct and reporting of each test was done blind to other test results. The primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of FujiLAM compared with AlereLAM, against microbiological and composite reference standards (including clinical diagnoses). Between April 18, 2018, and May 3, 2018, urine samples from 968 hospital inpatients with HIV were evaluated. The prevalence of microbiologically-confirmed tuberculosis was 62% and the median CD4 count was 86 cells per μL. Using the microbiological reference standard, the estimated sensitivity of FujiLAM was 70·4% (95% CI 53·0 to 83·1) compared with 42·3% (31·7 to 51·8) for AlereLAM (difference 28·1%) and the estimated specificity of FujiLAM was 90·8% (86·0 to 94·4) and 95·0% (87·7-98·8) for AlereLAM (difference -4·2%). Against the composite reference standard, the specificity of both assays was higher (95·7% [92·0 to 98·0] for FujiLAM vs 98·2% [95·7 to 99·6] for AlereLAM; difference -2·5%), but the sensitivity of both assays was lower (64·9% [50·1 to 76·7] for FujiLAM vs 38·2% [28·1 to 47·3] for AlereLAM; difference 26·7%). In comparison to AlereLAM, FujiLAM offers superior diagnostic sensitivity, while maintaining specificity, and could transform rapid point-of-care tuberculosis diagnosis for hospital inpatients with HIV. The applicability of FujiLAM for settings of intended use requires prospective assessment. Global Health Innovative Technology Fund, UK Department for International Development, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Wellcome Trust, Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa, and South African Medical Research Council.