Assessment of the Xpert assay among new pulmonary tuberculosis suspects with and without diabetes mellitus

Citation: Deshmukh S, Atre S, Ramchandra, Chavan A, Raskar S, Mave V, Gupte N, Gaikwad S, Sahasrabudhe Tushar, Barthwal M, Kakrani A, Kagal A, Gupta A, Bharadwaj R, Pradhan N, Dharmshale S, Golub J. Assessment of the Xpert assay among new pulmonary tuberculosis suspects with and without diabetes mellitus. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1 Jan 2020: 24(1); 11-117(5). doi: https://doi.org/10.5588/ijtld.19.0239

Access full article:

https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/iuatld/ijtld/2020/00000024/00000001/art00017;jsessionid=6pppm0b097kpg.x-ic-live-03

SETTING:
Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation area, Maharashtra State, India.

OBJECTIVE:
To assess the sensitivity and specificity of the Xpert® MTB/RIF assay among adults with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and with or without diabetes (DM).

DESIGN:
As part of a prospective cohort study, we screened 2359 adults presumed to have PTB with no history of TB. All individuals underwent testing for two sputum smears, culture, Xpert, glycated haemoglobin and fasting blood sugar. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of Xpert by comparing it with TB sputum culture result as a gold standard.

RESULTS:
Among screened individuals, 483 (20%) were diagnosed with DM and 1153 (49%) with pre-DM; 723 (31%) had no DM. Overall sensitivity of Xpert was 96% (95%CI 95–97) and specificity was 91% (95%CI 89–93). Xpert sensitivity was significantly higher among DM group (98%) than in the ‘No DM' (95%; P < 0.01) and pre-DM (96%; P < 0.05) groups. Among sputum smear-negative individuals, Xpert sensitivity was higher in the DM group than in the No DM (92% vs. 82%; P = 0.054) and pre-DM group (92% vs. 82%; P = 0.037).

CONCLUSION:
High sensitivity and specificity of Xpert underscores the need for its rapid scale up for the early detection of TB in settings with a high dual burden of TB and DM.

Categories

CRS
Topics

Clinical Trials

A5207, Maintaining Options for Mothers Study (MOMS): A Phase...

A major disadvantage of giving SD NVP is the potential for maternal development of NVP resistance and additional resistance to...

Read More

HPTN 069: A Phase II Randomized, Double-Blind, Study of the...

HPTN 069 is a phase II, four-arm, multisite, randomized, double-blinded trial. To assess the safety and tolerability of four...

Read More

A5300/P2003: PHOENIx Feasibility Study

Study of MDR TB Cases and Their Household Contacts: Operational Feasibility to Inform PHOENIx Trial Design

Read More

A5324: A Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled...

ACTG A5324 is a phase IV randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study to assess the efficacy of adding Maraviroc (MVC)...

Read More

NWCS 414, Evaluation of a Serum Biosignature for Identifying...

We will address our hypothesis using a case-control study design. We plan to leverage the existing biorepository of...

Read More