ABSTRACT
Rationale Sputum-based testing using Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert) is the most common molecular testing method for diagnosing tuberculosis (TB).
Objectives To evaluate whether sputum quality influences Xpert positivity and diagnostic accuracy.
Methods We screened consecutive people for presumptive TB in India, the Philippines, Vietnam, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia as part of the R2D2 TB Network and ADAPT studies. Participants provided 2-3 sputum samples for Xpert and culture reference testing. The quality of the first sputum sample was graded following standardized procedures by trained research staff and used for Xpert testing. We performed logistic regression to evaluate whether sputum grade was independently associated with Xpert positivity, and calculated sensitivity and specificity of Xpert against a culture-based microbiological reference standard (MRS).
Measurements and Main Results Among 1,855 participants, 798 (43%) were female, 348 (19%) were living with HIV (PLHIV), and 1795 (97%) had a cough of ≥2 weeks. Overall, 313 (17%) had a positive Xpert result. Most sputum samples were salivary (83%). Xpert positivity was lowest among salivary samples (16.1%) and highest among purulent samples (31.2%). After adjusting for demographic and clinical variables, there was no significant association between any sputum grade and Xpert positivity. Xpert sensitivity (salivary: 89%, mucoid: 91%, mucopurulent: 87%, purulent: 100%) and specificity (>98%) were high across sputum grades.
Conclusions Sputum quality was not independently associated with Xpert positivity and Xpert sensitivity was high across all sputum grades. These findings support molecular testing of all sputum samples for TB diagnosis regardless of macroscopic appearance.
Scientific Knowledge on the Subject Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) is a WHO-recommended initial diagnostic test for pulmonary tuberculosis. Historical laboratory practice, derived from the smear microscopy era, has emphasized sputum macroscopic quality, with many programs recommending rejection of salivary sputum as inadequate. Prior studies evaluating sputum quality and Xpert performance yielded mixed results, and were limited by small sample sizes, single-country designs, heterogeneous sputum grading systems, and predominant use of the first-generation Xpert MTB/RIF assay.
What This Study Adds to the Field In this large and geographically diverse evaluation of 1,855 participants across seven high-burden countries, macroscopic sputum quality was not independently associated with Xpert Ultra positivity or diagnostic accuracy. Xpert Ultra demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity across all sputum grades, including salivary specimens, which comprised over 80% of samples. These findings, generated by using a standardized sputum grading protocol and a culture-based microbiological reference standard, provide robust evidence that sputum quality-based rejection criteria are unnecessary for Xpert Ultra testing. Revising laboratory guidelines to accept all expectorated sputum regardless of appearance could improve case detection and reduce diagnostic delays in high-burden settings.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
NCT04923958 and NCT05941052
Funding Statement
This research was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Numbers U01AI152087, by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of the NIH under award number T32HLHL166114 (CAM) and made possible by the support of the U.S. Government through the SMART4TB consortium under cooperative agreement number 7200AA22CA00005.
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:
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from research ethics committees at the University of California San Francisco (USA), the University of Heidelberg (Germany), Christian Medical College Vellore (India), KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation (the Netherlands), the Abuja Health Research Ethics Committee (Nigeria), De La Salle Health Sciences Institute (Philippines), Stellenbosch University (South Africa), Makerere University (Uganda), Ministry of Health Ethical Committee in National Biological Medical Research (Vietnam) and the University of Zambia (Zambia).
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, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Funding: This research was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Numbers U01AI152087, by the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute of the NIH under award number T32HLHL166114 (CAM) and made possible by the support of the U.S. Government through the SMART4TB consortium under cooperative agreement number 7200AA22CA00005.
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
