An interventional study of Diagnostic procedures in Tuberculosis Diagnosis, sponsored by Mercy Corps Pakistan. Enrolling by invitation at 1 site in Pakistan. Open to participants aged 12 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-01-02.
Sponsored by Mercy Corps Pakistan · Not applicable, Interventional, and Diagnostic
This study aims to test new diagnostic methods for tuberculosis (TB) testing as compared to the existing Xpert MTB/Rif Ultra testing approach. The research questions that will be addressed by this study include:
Research Objective 1:
The study aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy-specifically the sensitivity and specificity-of two new NAT-based tuberculosis (TB) tests, Pluslife and Ustar. These tests will be compared against the existing reference standard, the Xpert MTB/Rif Ultra, with culture testing used as the gold standard. This evaluation will take place in the context of Active Case Finding (ACF) in Pakistan. The research will follow a non-inferiority diagnostic trial design. The procedure involves testing all samples with cultures and comparing the results from the new NAT tests against the reference to determine their effectiveness in detecting and diagnosing TB.
Expected Outcomes:
Sensitivity of the new NAT tests Specificity of the new NAT tests False positive rate False negative rate
Research Objective 2:
This objective focuses on evaluating the operational feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and turnaround time of the new NAT diagnostics compared to the Xpert Ultra platform. The strategy will involve both quantitative and qualitative research methods. Quantitative data will be collected and analyzed regarding the cost per test and the time taken from sample receipt to result reporting. In addition, a qualitative study will be conducted using semi-structured in-depth interviews with presumptive TB patients and healthcare providers involved in sample collection at ACF camp settings. These interviews will explore experiences, challenges, and preferences related to the use of sputum samples versus tongue swabs.
Expected Outcomes:
Cost per test performed Average turnaround time for each NAT platform Preferences of sample providers regarding collection methods Preferences of healthcare providers regarding sample collection methods Specific challenges associated with each collection method Barriers to compliance with sample collection Overall feasibility and ease of use of the diagnostic approaches
Research Objective 3:
The third objective seeks to assess the acceptability and usability of tongue swab-based sample collection compared to traditional sputum sample methods. This will be explored through a qualitative inquiry, gathering in-depth insights from both sample providers and healthcare workers to understand their perspectives, experiences, and any usability issues associated with each method.
Expected Outcomes:
Insights into user and provider acceptance of tongue swab versus sputum collection Identification of usability challenges and practical considerations in sample collection methods
This is the only study on the registry with Mercy Corps Pakistan as lead sponsor.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Exclusion Criteria:
Diagnostic Test: Diagnostic procedures
This study will be evaluated by conducting a non-inferiority diagnostic trial within routine ACF settings by comparing the New Diagnostic tests (NAT) to the reference standard test (Xpert MTB/Rif Assay) to determine how well it can detect and diagnose TB. All samples will be tested for MTB using cultures.
Number of participants with positive and negative Mycobacterium Tuberculosis
The results of each of the test performed (negative and positive TB) using Pluslife MTBC test result, Ustar's PortNAT test result, Xpert MTB/Rif test result and results of the MTB culture.
Time frame: From enrolment to the end of results confirmation at 8 weeks
Plan to share: Undecided
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
No contact was published for this record. The registry link below has the sponsor’s details.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.