Skip to main content

Performance of stool Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis among adults living with HIV: a multicentre, prospective diagnostic study.

The Lancet. Microbe2025-04-08PubMed
Total: 81.0Innovation: 7Impact: 8Rigor: 9Citation: 8

Summary

In 677 adults with HIV across three African countries, stool Xpert Ultra showed overall sensitivity of 23.7% and specificity of 94.0% versus a composite reference; sensitivity rose to 45.5% when CD4 ≤200 cells/μL. Stool Ultra added 23–33% extra cases compared with sputum Ultra, sputum culture, or urine TB-LAM, supporting its role as an adjunct diagnostic in PLHIV.

Key Findings

  • Overall stool Ultra sensitivity 23.7% (95% CI 16.4–32.4) and specificity 94.0% (95% CI 91.7–95.9) versus composite reference.
  • Higher sensitivity in advanced immunosuppression: 45.5% with CD4 ≤200 cells/μL vs 21.3% with CD4 >200.
  • Stool Ultra added 23–33% additional cases compared with sputum Ultra, sputum culture, and urine TB-LAM across all tested.
  • Diagnostic yield among all treated: stool Ultra 9%, urine TB-LAM 12%, sputum Ultra 6%, sputum culture 4%.

Clinical Implications

Incorporate stool Xpert Ultra as an adjunct test in TB diagnostic algorithms for PLHIV—prioritizing those with CD4 ≤200 cells/μL—and combine with urine LAM and sputum testing to maximize yield.

Why It Matters

Provides prospective, multicountry evidence that stool Ultra augments TB detection in PLHIV—especially the immunosuppressed—filling a critical gap where sputum is unobtainable or paucibacillary.

Limitations

  • Overall sensitivity was modest; performance may vary with stool processing and bacillary load.
  • Study population limited to adults with HIV; generalizability to HIV-negative populations not assessed.

Future Directions

Optimize stool processing workflows and evaluate integration with triage tools (e.g., clinical scores, digital CXR) in implementation studies; assess cost-effectiveness and impact on time-to-treatment.

Study Information

Study Type
Prospective diagnostic accuracy study
Research Domain
Diagnosis
Evidence Level
II - Well-designed prospective multicenter diagnostic study
Study Design
OTHER