Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Background/Objectives: Interpretation of positive and indeterminate rifampicin (RIF) calls from Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) in previously treated, high-risk populations is poorly characterised. Methods: We retrospectively analysed all 2271 Ultra records (2024) at Taiwan’s National Reference Mycobacteriology Laboratory, a high-risk referral cohort, against referring-laboratory culture and phenotypic drug-susceptibility testing (pDST), with line-probe assay (LPA) as a reflex test and treatment history defined by referral indication. Results: Among 1662 culture-paired records, sensitivity was 91.7% and specificity 75.1%. Specificity was 92.7% in screening or risk-based referrals but 56.4% in previously or currently treated patients, who accounted for 84.8% of culture-negative Ultra-positive results. Positive predictive value fell from 89.3% (HIGH) to 36.2% (Trace). All 77 Trace results were RIF indeterminate (77 of 78 indeterminate calls). In 362 of 382 pDST-paired records with determinate calls, RIF sensitivity and specificity were 94.3% and 96.8%. Eight of 10 pDST-discordant resistance calls, none sequenced, were LPA-resistant. Reflex LPA was interpretable in 98.9% of resistance-detected records but in 19.2% of indeterminate records. Conclusions: Low specificity was concentrated among previously or currently treated patients, and indeterminate calls reflected Trace detection. LPA supported most pDST-discordant resistance calls, whose mutational basis remains unconfirmed. Stewardship should reflect the limited yield of reflex LPA in paucibacillary specimens.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jian et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: