Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis detection in different regions with different endemic burden: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out.Up to June 20, 2015, multiple databases were screened for relevant studies.Accordingly, 106 studies included 52,410 samples were selected. Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for TB detection was validated against either culture or a composite reference standard (CRS). Additionally, selected studies were further subgrouped in four groups based on sample's type, subject's age, status of HIV co-infection and smear-positivity. The overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF was 0.85 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.82-0.88) and 0.98 (95% CI 0.96-0.98), respectively, compared to culture; while it was 0.59 (95% CI 0.44-0.72) and 0.99 (95% CI 0.97-1.00) compared to CRS. The overall sensitivity was lower in countries with high TB prevalence than countries with middle/low prevalence (0.84, 95% CI: 0.80-0.88 versus 0.89, 95% CI: 0.84-0.93). Furthermore, Xpert MTB/RIF has higher sensitivity in patients with positive smears (0.99, 95% CI 0.97-0.99), in patients with pulmonary TB samples (0.87, 95% CI 0.83-0.90), in adults (0.82, 95% CI 0.76-0.86) and in HIV-positive patients (0.81, 95% CI 0.73-0.87).Taken together, Xpert MTB/RIF is a quick and accurate diagnostic assay for TB which will significantly help the physicians to make their clinical decisions.

SUBMITTER: Li S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5510832 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis detection in different regions with different endemic burden: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Li Shiying S Liu Bin B Peng Mingli M Chen Min M Yin Wenwei W Tang Hui H Luo Yuxuan Y Hu Peng P Ren Hong H

PloS one 20170714 7

<h4>Purpose</h4>To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF, a systematic review and meta-analysis were carried out.<h4>Methods</h4>Up to June 20, 2015, multiple databases were screened for relevant studies.<h4>Results</h4>Accordingly, 106 studies included 52,410 samples were selected. Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for TB detection was validated against either culture or a composite reference standard (CRS). Additionally, selected studies were further subgrouped in four groups ba ...[more]

PMID: 28708844

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) might have higher sensitivity than its predecessor, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), but its role in tuberculous meningitis diagnosis is uncertain. We aimed to compare Xpert Ultra with Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected adults.MethodsIn this prospective, randomised, diagnostic accuracy study, adults (≥16 years) with suspected tuberculous meningitis from a single centre in Vietnam were randomly assigned to cerebrospinal fluid testing by either Xpert Ultra or Xpert at baseline and, if treated for tuberculous meningitis, after 3-4 weeks of treatment. Test performance (sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values) was calculated for Xpert Ultra and Xpert and compared against clinical and mycobacterial culture reference standards. Analyses were done for all patients and by HIV status.FindingsBetween Oct 16, 2017, and Feb 10, 2019, 205 patients were randomly assigned to Xpert Ultra (n=103) or Xpert (n=102). The sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for tuberculous meningitis diagnosis against a reference standard of definite, probable, and possible tuberculous meningitis were 47·2% (95% CI 34·4-60·3; 25 of 53 patients) for Xpert Ultra and 39·6% (27·6-53·1; 21 of 53) for Xpert (p=0·56); specificities were 100·0% (95% CI 92·0-100·0; 44 of 44) and 100·0% (92·6-100·0; 48 of 48), respectively. In HIV-negative patients, the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was 38·9% (24·8-55·1; 14 of 36) versus 22·9% (12·1-39·0; eight of 35) by Xpert (p=0·23). In HIV co-infected patients, the sensitivities were 64·3% (38·8-83·7; nine of 14) for Xpert Ultra and 76·9% (49·7-91·8; ten of 13) for Xpert (p=0·77). Negative predictive values were 61·1% (49·6-71·5) for Xpert Ultra and 60·0% (49·0-70·0) for Xpert. Against a reference standard of mycobacterial culture, sensitivities were 90·9% (72·2-97·5; 20 of 22 patients) for Xpert Ultra and 81·8% (61·5-92·7; 18 of 22) for Xpert (p=0·66); specificities were 93·9% (85·4-97·6; 62 of 66) and 96·9% (89·5-91·2; 63 of 65), respectively. Six (22%) of 27 patients had a positive test by Xpert Ultra after 4 weeks of treatment versus two (9%) of 22 patients by Xpert.InterpretationXpert Ultra was not statistically superior to Xpert for the diagnosis of tuberculous meningitis in HIV-uninfected and HIV-infected adults. A negative Xpert Ultra or Xpert test does not rule out tuberculous meningitis. New diagnostic strategies are urgently required.FundingWellcome Trust and the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics.

Project description:BackgroundThe Xpert MTB/RIF assay is an automated molecular test that has improved the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance, but its sensitivity is inadequate in patients with paucibacillary disease or HIV. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) was developed to overcome this limitation. We compared the diagnostic performance of Xpert Ultra with that of Xpert for detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance.MethodsIn this prospective, multicentre, diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited adults with pulmonary tuberculosis symptoms presenting at primary health-care centres and hospitals in eight countries (South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, India, China, Georgia, Belarus, and Brazil). Participants were allocated to the case detection group if no drugs had been taken for tuberculosis in the past 6 months or to the multidrug-resistance risk group if drugs for tuberculosis had been taken in the past 6 months, but drug resistance was suspected. Demographic information, medical history, chest imaging results, and HIV test results were recorded at enrolment, and each participant gave at least three sputum specimen on 2 separate days. Xpert and Xpert Ultra diagnostic performance in the same sputum specimen was compared with culture tests and drug susceptibility testing as reference standards. The primary objectives were to estimate and compare the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra test with that of Xpert for detection of smear-negative tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance and to estimate and compare Xpert Ultra and Xpert specificities for detection of rifampicin resistance. Study participants in the case detection group were included in all analyses, whereas participants in the multidrug-resistance risk group were only included in analyses of rifampicin-resistance detection.FindingsBetween Feb 18, and Dec 24, 2016, we enrolled 2368 participants for sputum sampling. 248 participants were excluded from the analysis, and 1753 participants were distributed to the case detection group (n=1439) and the multidrug-resistance risk group (n=314). Sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert were 63% and 46%, respectively, for the 137 participants with smear-negative and culture-positive sputum (difference of 17%, 95% CI 10 to 24); 90% and 77%, respectively, for the 115 HIV-positive participants with culture-positive sputum (13%, 6·4 to 21); and 88% and 83%, respectively, across all 462 participants with culture-positive sputum (5·4%, 3·3 to 8·0). Specificities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for case detection were 96% and 98% (-2·7%, -3·9 to -1·7) overall, and 93% and 98% for patients with a history of tuberculosis. Xpert Ultra and Xpert performed similarly in detecting rifampicin resistance.InterpretationFor tuberculosis case detection, sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was superior to that of Xpert in patients with paucibacillary disease and in patients with HIV. However, this increase in sensitivity came at the expense of a decrease in specificity.FundingGovernment of Netherlands, Government of Australia, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Government of the UK, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Project description:BackgroundTuberculous meningitis (TBM) is difficult to diagnose promptly. The utility of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for the diagnosis of TBM remains unclear, and the effect of host- and sample-related factors on test performance is unknown. This study sought to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of TBM.Methods and findings235 South-African patients with a meningeal-like illness were categorised as having definite (culture or Amplicor PCR positive), probable (anti-TBM treatment initiated but microbiological confirmation lacking), or non-TBM. Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy was evaluated using 1 ml of uncentrifuged and, when available, 3 ml of centrifuged cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). To evaluate the incremental value of MTB/RIF over a clinically based diagnosis, test accuracy was compared to a clinical score (CS) derived using basic clinical and laboratory information. Of 204 evaluable patients (of whom 87% were HIV-infected), 59 had definite TBM, 64 probable TBM, and 81 non-TBM. Overall sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 62% (48%-75%) and 95% (87%-99%), respectively. The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF was significantly better than that of smear microscopy (62% versus 12%; p?=?0.001) and significantly better than that of the CS (62% versus 30%; p?=?0.001; C statistic 85% [79%-92%]). Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was higher when centrifuged versus uncentrifuged samples were used (82% [62%-94%] versus 47% [31%-61%]; p?=?0.004). The combination of CS and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert MTB/RIF performed if CS<8) performed as well as Xpert MTB/RIF alone but with a ?10% reduction in test usage. This overall pattern of results remained unchanged when the definite and probable TBM groups were combined. Xpert MTB/RIF was not useful in identifying TBM among HIV-uninfected individuals, although the sample was small. There was no evidence of PCR inhibition, and the limit of detection was ?80 colony forming units per millilitre. Study limitations included a predominantly HIV-infected cohort and the limited number of culture-positive CSF samples.ConclusionsXpert MTB/RIF may be a good rule-in test for the diagnosis of TBM in HIV-infected individuals from a tuberculosis-endemic setting, particularly when a centrifuged CSF pellet is used. Further studies are required to confirm these findings in different settings. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis detection in different regions with different endemic burden: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis detection in different regions with different endemic burden: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets