Failure to rapidly identify drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) increases the risk of patient mismanagement, the amplification of drug resistance, and ongoing transmission. We generated comparative analytical data for four automated assays for the detection of TB and multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB): Abbott RealTi m e MTB and MTB RIF/INH (Abbott), Hain Lifescience FluoroType MTBDR (Hain), BD Max MDR-TB (BD), and Roche cobas MTB and MTB-RIF/INH (Roche).

Tongue swabs (TS) have shown potential for detecting Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) through downstream molecular testing. Analytical performance varies, depending on the processing protocol and the molecular test used. This study aimed to first investigate the ease of use of TS collection in addition to acceptability by individuals being assessed for tuberculosis and second to determine the performance of self-collected TS on the Xpert MTB/rifampicin (RIF) Ultra (Ultra) assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) for MTBC and RIF resistance detection. The ease of use of TS collection and acceptability by study participants was assessed through completion of a survey questionnaire. Analytical performance of self-collected TS on the Ultra assay was determined by comparing results with a liquid culture reference result and with Ultra on sputum. Results were additionally stratified by HIV and smear status. Of the 399 survey respondents, all were happy with the TS collection procedure with minimal discomfort reported. Data analysis was performed on 321 specimens. The sensitivity of the Ultra TS assay for MTBC detection was 78.1% (95% CI, 66.0-87.5%), whereas the specificity was 100% (95% CI, 98.6-100%). Test performance was better in individuals with a higher bacillary load, with some variability. On HIV-positive individuals, TS performance is ∼30% lower than that on sputum but also slightly better than smear microscopy, whereas the performance of TS among HIV-negative individuals is similar to sputum (93% vs. 97%). For RIF resistance profiling, the Ultra TS assay showed 41/41 (100%) concordance with phenotypic drug-susceptibility testing. Although self-collected TS have lower sensitivity compared with sputum, their ease of use and high acceptability make them a valuable additional specimen type for molecular tuberculosis testing. Self-collection can reduce the burden on healthcare workers and increase access to testing, particularly for individuals who are too busy to visit healthcare facilities or fear stigma.

Four moderate-complexity automated nucleic acid amplification tests for the diagnosis of tuberculosis are reported as having laboratory analytical and clinical performance similar to that of the Cepheid Xpert MTB/RIF assay. These assays are the Abbott RealTime MTB and RealTime MTB RIF/INH Resistance, Becton Dickinson MAX MDR-TB, the Hain Lifescience/Bruker FluoroType MTBDR, and the Roche cobas MTB and MTB RIF/INH assays. The study compared feasibility, ease of use, and operational characteristics of these assays/platforms. Manufacturer input was obtained for technical characteristics. Laboratory operators were requested to complete a questionnaire on the assays' ease of use. A time-in-motion analysis was also undertaken for each platform. For ease-of-use and operational requirements, the BD MAX MDR-TB assay achieved the highest scores (86% and 90%) based on information provided by the user and manufacturer, respectively, followed by the cobas MTB and MTB-RIF/INH assay (68% and 86%), the FluoroType MTBDR assay (67% and 80%), and the Abbott RT-MTB and RT MTB RIF/INH assays (64% and 76%). The time-in-motion analysis revealed that for 94 specimens, the RealTime MTB assay required the longest processing time, followed by the cobas MTB assay and the FluoroType MTBDR assay. The BD MAX MDR-TB assay required 4.6 hours for 22 specimens. These diagnostic assays exhibited different strengths and weaknesses that should be taken into account, in addition to affordability, when considering placement of a new platform.

This study evaluated the performance of cobas MTB and cobas MTB-RIF/INH for the diagnosis of tuberculosis and detection of rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH) resistance. Adults presenting with pulmonary tuberculosis symptoms were recruited in South Africa, Moldova, and India. Performance of cobas MTB was assessed against culture, whereas cobas MTB-RIF/INH was assessed using phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and whole-genome sequencing as composite reference standards. Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) or Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) was used as a comparator. The overall sensitivity and specificity of cobas MTB were 95% (95% CI, 93%-96%) and 96% (95% CI, 95%-97%). Among smear-negatives, the sensitivity of cobas MTB was 75% (95% CI, 66%-83%). Among participants tested with both cobas MTB and Xpert, sensitivity was 96% (95% CI, 94%-97%) for cobas MTB and 95% (95% CI, 93%-97%) for Xpert. Among participants tested with both cobas MTB and Ultra, sensitivity was 88% (95% CI, 81%-92%) for cobas MTB and 89% (95% CI, 83%-93%) for Ultra. Sensitivity and specificity of cobas MTB-RIF/INH for RIF and INH detection were 90% (95% CI, 84%-94%) and 100% (95% CI, 99%-100%), and 89% (95% CI, 84%-93%) and 99.5% (95% CI, 98%-100%), respectively. The cobas MTB and cobas MTB-RIF/INH assays exhibited high performance in a diverse population and present a suitable option for molecular detection of tuberculosis and RIF and INH resistance.

Background: Access to drug resistant testing for tuberculosis (TB) remains a challenge in high burden countries. Recently, the World Health Organization approved the use of several moderate complexity automated nucleic acid amplification tests (MC-NAAT) that have performance profiles suitable for placement in a range of TB laboratory tiers to improve drug susceptibility tests (DST) coverage. Methods: We conducted cost analysis of two MC-NAATs with different testing throughput: Lower Throughput (LT, < 24 tests per run) and Higher Throughput (HT, upto 90+ tests per run) for placement in a hypothetical laboratory in a resource limited setting. We used per-test cost as the main indicator to assess 1) drivers of cost by resource types and 2) optimized levels of annual testing volumes for the respective MC-NAATs. Results: The base-case per test cost of $18.52 (range: $13.79 - $40.70) for LT test and $15.37 (range: $9.61 - $37.40) for HT test. Per test cost estimates were most sensitive to the number of testing days per week, followed by equipment costs and TB-specific workloads. In general, HT NAATs were cheaper at all testing volume levels, but at lower testing volumes (less than 2,000 per year) LT tests can be cheaper if the durability of the testing system is markedly better and/or procured equipment costs are lower than that of HT NAAT. Conclusion: Assuming equivalent performance and infrastructural needs, placement strategies for MC-NAATs need to be prioritized by laboratory system’s operational factors, testing demands, and costs.