Abstract
Background Uganda introduced Xpert® MTB/RIF assay into its TB diagnostic algorithm in January 2012. In July 2018, this assay was replaced with Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra assay. We set out to compare the tests done and tuberculosis cases detected by Xpert® MTB/RIF and Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra assay in Uganda.
Methods This was a before and after study, with the tests done and TB cases detected between Jan-June 2019 when using Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra assay compared to those done between Jan-June 2018 while using Xpert® MTB/RIF assay. This data was analyzed using Stata version 13, it was summarized into measures of central tendency and the comparison between Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert® MTB/RIF was explored using a two-sided T-test which was considered significant if p <0.05.
Results One hundred and twelve (112) GeneXpert sites out of a possible 239 were included in the study. 128,476 (M: 1147.11, SD: 842.88) tests were performed with Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra assay, with 9693 drug-susceptible TB (DS-TB) cases detected (M: 86.54, SD: 62.12) and 144 (M: 1.28, SD: 3.42) Rifampicin Resistant TB cases (RR-TB). Whilst 107, 890 (M: 963.30, SD: 842.88) tests were performed with Xpert® MTB/RIF assay between, 8807 (M: 78.63, SD: 53.29) DS-TB cases were detected, and 147 (M: 1.31, SD: 2.39) RR-TB cases. The Number Need to Test (NNT) to get one TB case was 12 for Xpert® MTB/RIF and 13 for Xpert ®MTB/RIF Ultra. On comparing the two assays in terms of test performance (p=0.75) and case detection both susceptible TB (p=0.31) and RR-TB (p=0.95) were not found statistically significant.
Conclusions This study found no significant difference in test performance and overall detection of DS-TB and RR-TB when using Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert® MTB/RIF assays. The health systems approach should be used to elucidate all the probable potential of Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
There was no funding secured for the study.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study used secondary data which was anonymous and widely available. However, approval for the study was got from the Operational Research and Ethics Review Committee of the Uganda National Tuberculosis and Leprosy Control Programme.
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.
Yes
I 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).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Emails: DT: tdidas2013{at}gmail.com
AN: abdunoorn{at}gmail.com
MM: mugiemarvinder{at}gmail.com
ST: turyahabwestavia{at}gmail.com
SW: simonwalusimbi{at}gmail.com
JKBM: jmatovu{at}musph.ac.ug
Data Availability
The data is available on request.
