Back

Diagnostic Accuracy and Potential Resource Savings of Pooled Sputum Testing with Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for Tuberculosis among adults in Vietnam: A Cross-Sectional Study

Nguyen, H. T.; Codlin, A. J.; Vo, L.; Nguyen, N.; Forse, R.; Dang, H.; Nguyen, L. H.; Hoa, N. B.; Dinh, L. V.; Doan, H. T.; Nguyen Van, H.; Creswell, J.; Garg, T.; Cubas Atienzar, A. I.; Byrne, R. L.; Iem, V.; Squire, B.; Forsman, L. D.; Wingfield, T.

2026-04-01 infectious diseases
10.64898/2026.03.31.26349825 medRxiv
Show abstract

Objectives: A pooled testing algorithm for tuberculosis (TB), in which sputum specimens from multiple individuals are tested in pools with individual testing of positive pools, can optimise diagnostic resources. This study evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and cartridge savings of pooled testing with the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay (Xpert Ultra) relative to individual Xpert Ultra testing. Methods: We conducted a cross sectional study among 2,396 adults (aged above 15 years) with presumptive TB enrolled between July 2024 and February 2025, through facility based case finding (FBCF) and community based case finding (CBCF). Participants submitted two sputum specimens. The first underwent individual Xpert Ultra testing; remnant specimens were combined into four specimen pools and tested again with Xpert-Ultra. The second specimen was used to inoculate liquid culture (BACTEC MGIT). Data were used to simulate an up-front pooled testing strategy; sensitivity and specificity of this approach was estimated against culture, and cartridge use was compared with individual Xpert-Ultra testing. Results: Of 2,396 participants, 395 (16.5%) had a positive Xpert Ultra and/or culture, including 360/912 (39.5%) in FBCF and 35/1484 (2.4%) in CBCF. The pooled testing approach had sensitivity of 82.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 77.9; 86.3) and specificity of 98.5% (97.8; 99.0) compared to culture, with lower sensitivity than individual Xpert-Ultra testing (86.5%, 82.4; 89.9) but high specificity (98.1%, 97.4; 98.7). Sensitivity of pooled testing was lower in CBCF (59.1%, 36.4; 79.3) than in FBCF (84.0%, 79.5;87%), whereas cartridge savings were greater in CBCF (69.1% vs 9.6%). The pooling strategy reduced Xpert-Ultra cartridge use by 46.5%, saving USD 14,447. Conclusions: Pooled Xpert-Ultra testing among adults appears resource-efficient for TB screening in Vietnam. As sensitivity is lower compared to individual Xpert Ultra testing, particularly for paucibacillary disease, these losses should be carefully weighed against gains in affordability and expand access to molecular testing. Careful, context-specific implementation is essential to maximise programmatic benefit while minimising missed persons with TB.

Matching journals

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

1
Clinical Infectious Diseases
231 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
14.4%
2
Emerging Infectious Diseases
103 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
10.1%
3
PLOS Global Public Health
293 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
9.2%
4
Open Forum Infectious Diseases
134 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
4.9%
5
International Journal of Infectious Diseases
126 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
4.3%
6
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
120 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.3%
7
The American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene
60 papers in training set
Top 1%
4.0%
50% of probability mass above
8
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 44%
2.7%
9
BMC Infectious Diseases
118 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
10
PLOS Medicine
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
11
BMC Medicine
163 papers in training set
Top 3%
2.1%
12
The Journal of Infectious Diseases
182 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
13
Clinical Microbiology and Infection
60 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
14
The Lancet Microbe
43 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.7%
15
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
16
Journal of Infection
71 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.7%
17
Microbiology Spectrum
435 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.5%
18
Epidemiology and Infection
84 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.3%
19
Thorax
32 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.2%
20
The Lancet Infectious Diseases
71 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.2%
21
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
378 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.9%
22
The Lancet Global Health
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
23
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.8%
24
Tropical Medicine & International Health
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
25
Tropical Medicine and Infectious Disease
12 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.7%
26
Frontiers in Public Health
140 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.7%
27
Frontiers in Cellular and Infection Microbiology
98 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.7%
28
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
29
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 65%
0.6%
30
eBioMedicine
130 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.6%