Back

Diagnostic accuracy of the BD MAXTM MDR-TB assay on sputum and tongue swabs for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex detection in adults under investigation for TB in South Africa

David, A.; Singh, L.; da Silva, M. P.; Peloakgosi-Shikwambani, K.; Nsingwane, Z.; Molepo, V.; Stevens, W.; Scott, L. E.

2025-06-11 respiratory medicine
10.1101/2025.06.10.25329360 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundDespite advances in molecular diagnostics, only 48% of newly diagnosed tuberculosis (TB) cases were confirmed using nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) in 2023. The BD MAXTM MDR-TB (MAX MDR-TB) assay, a moderate complexity NAAT, detects Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) and resistance to rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH), but data on clinical performance is limited. This study assessed assay performance on raw sputum, NALC/NaOH decontaminated sputum, and tongue swab (TS) specimens. MethodsThis evaluation assessed the MAX MDR-TB assay for MTBC detection and RIF and INH resistance profiling on sputum, using liquid culture as the reference standard. Additionally, diagnostic accuracy for MTBC detection in TS specimens was evaluated under different transport and processing conditions. ResultsAssay sensitivity was similar for sputum pellet (87%) and raw sputum (89%), with one additional case detected using raw sputum. Two false RIF-resistant results were observed. INH resistance was missed in two cases. Although specimen numbers were small, TS demonstrated better diagnostic accuracy when using a diluted (66%) STR buffer. A total of 15/55 (27%) were classified as "MTB Low POS." ConclusionThese findings suggest that MAX MDR-TB assay performance is comparable between sputum pellet and raw sputum. While TS showed promise, further validation in larger studies is warranted. The high rate of "MTB Low POS" results across specimen types underscores the importance of assay optimisation to reduce the burden of repeat testing and improve diagnostic reliability. Future research should enhance sensitivity and integration into diagnostic algorithms to improve patient outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
14.7%
2
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
10.1%
3
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
4
Journal of Medical Microbiology
20 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
5
European Respiratory Journal
54 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.3%
6
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 24%
4.8%
7
BMJ Open Respiratory Research
32 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
8
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 5%
3.9%
9
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 40%
3.6%
10
New England Journal of Medicine
50 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.1%
11
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.7%
12
International Journal of Epidemiology
74 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
2.6%
13
Journal of Clinical Virology
62 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
2.4%
14
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
15
ERJ Open Research
44 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.9%
16
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
17
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 4%
1.1%
18
Genomics
60 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.9%
19
Tuberculosis
11 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.7%
20
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.7%
21
eClinicalMedicine
55 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.7%
22
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.6%
23
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.6%