Performance Comparison Of Genexpert Mtb/Rif And Probetec Et Tests For Rapid Molecular Diagnosis Of Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis In A Low Tb/Mdr-Tb Incidence Country

Objective: This study evaluated the performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and ProbeTec ET (PTec-ET) assays in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) in Kuwait. Materials and Methods: We tested nonrespiratory clinical specimens (n = 3,995) collected from 3,995 patients suspected to have EPTB. These included cavitary fluids (n = 2,054), fine-needle aspirate (FNA)/pus/tissue biopsy (n = 1,461), urine (n = 302), cerebrospinal fluid (CSF, n = 118), and others (n = 60). All specimens were processed for acid-fast bacilli (AFB), culture in mycobacteria growth indicator tube 960 system, and nucleic acid detection by Xpert and PTec-ET according to manufacturer's instructions. Results: Of 3,995 specimens, 95 were AFB-positive, 403 were culture-positive, and an additional 86 samples had histopathology suggestive of TB. Using culture as reference, the sensitivity and specificity values were 88.33 and 97.3% for Xpert and 72.95 and 97.80% for PTec-ET, respectively. Although performance of both tests was comparable in AFB-positive samples, Xpert detected significantly more cases in culture-positive samples. Among culture-negative samples, Xpert detected 18 more cases including 16 with histopathological evidence of TB. Lowest positivity was detected for both tests in cavitary fluids. Xpert performed better than PTec-ET in culture-positive FNA/pus/tissue biopsy and CSF samples. Conclusions: Although performance of both tests was suboptimal for AFB-negative/culture-positive samples, Xpert performed better than PTec-ET and also detected more cases of AFB-negative/culture-negative/histopathology-positive samples. PTec-ET was positive in 3, while Xpert was positive in all 6 culture-positive CSF specimens for rapid diagnosis of TB meningitis. Xpert was thus superior to PTec-ET or smear microscopy in rapid diagnosis of EPTB.