Prospective Comparative Evaluation of the Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Assays for Detecting

Background: The Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) was introduced to enhance the sensitivity of tuberculosis detection, particularly in smear-negative cases, compared with its predecessor, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert). However, its performance in high-resource, intermediate-burden settings remains unassessed. We prospectively compared the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for detecting Methods: In total, 309 respiratory specimens were analyzed using both assays. We used two reference standards: mycobacterial culture and a composite reference standard based on clinical diagnosis and treatment decisions. Diagnostic performance, including sensitivity, specificity, and agreement between the two assays, was assessed. Spiking experiments using 13 MTB isolates with known Results: Xpert Ultra showed increased, albeit not significantly, sensitivity (73.7% vs. 65.8% with culture; 63.8% vs. 53.2% with the composite reference standard) over Xpert. Its specificity was comparable to that of Xpert; however, a few false-positive results were observed among trace- and very low-positives. Among six culture-negative but Xpert Ultra-positive cases, two were clinically diagnosed as tuberculosis. Of the 13 Conclusions: Xpert Ultra tends to have increased sensitivity; however, it shows potential diagnostic ambiguity associated with trace- or very low-positive results. These findings highlight the importance of clinical correlation, particularly in culture-negative cases. Indeterminate results in certain rpoB mutations require cautious interpretation.