Dataset Information

Accuracy of different Xpert MTB/Rif implementation strategies in programmatic settings at the regional referral hospitals in Uganda: Evidence for country wide roll out.

ABSTRACT: Xpert MTB/RIF assay is a highly sensitive test for TB diagnosis, but still costly to most low-income countries. Several implementation strategies instead of frontline have been suggested; however with scarce data. We assessed accuracy of different Xpert MTB/RIF implementation strategies to inform national roll-out.This was a cross-sectional study of 1,924 adult presumptive TB patients in five regional referral hospitals of Uganda. Two sputum samples were collected, one for fluorescent microscopy (FM) and Xpert MTB/RIF examined at the study site laboratories. The second sample was sent to the Uganda Supra National TB reference laboratory for culture using both Lowenstein Jensen (LJ) and liquid culture (MGIT). We compared the sensitivities of FM, Xpert MTB/RIF and the incremental sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF among patients negative on FM using LJ and/or MGIT as a reference standard.A total 1924 patients were enrolled of which 1596 (83%) patients had at least one laboratory result and 1083 respondents had a complete set of all the laboratory results. A total of 328 (30%) were TB positive on LJ and /or MGIT culture. The sensitivity of FM was n (%; 95% confidence interval) 246 (63.5%; 57.9-68.7) overall compared to 52 (55.4%; 44.1-66.3) among HIV positive individuals, while the sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF was 300 (76.2%; 71.7-80.7) and 69 (71.6%; 60.5-81.1) overall and among HIV positive individuals respectively. Overall incremental sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF was 60 (36.5%; 27.7-46.0) and 20 (41.7%; 25.5-59.2) among HIV positive individuals.Xpert MTB/RIF has a higher sensitivity than FM both in general population and HIV positive population. Xpert MTB/RIF offers a significant increase in terms of diagnostic sensitivity even when it is deployed selectively i.e. among smear negative presumptive TB patients. Our results support frontline use of Xpert MTB/RIF assay in high HIV/TB prevalent countries. In settings with limited access, mechanisms to refer smear negative sputum samples to Xpert MTB/RIF hubs are recommended.

SUBMITTER: Muttamba W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5864038 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Accuracy of different Xpert MTB/Rif implementation strategies in programmatic settings at the regional referral hospitals in Uganda: Evidence for country wide roll out.

Muttamba Winters W Ssengooba Willy W Sekibira Rogers R Kirenga Bruce B Katamba Achilles A Joloba Moses M

PloS one 20180322 3

<h4>Background</h4>Xpert MTB/RIF assay is a highly sensitive test for TB diagnosis, but still costly to most low-income countries. Several implementation strategies instead of frontline have been suggested; however with scarce data. We assessed accuracy of different Xpert MTB/RIF implementation strategies to inform national roll-out.<h4>Methods</h4>This was a cross-sectional study of 1,924 adult presumptive TB patients in five regional referral hospitals of Uganda. Two sputum samples were collec ...[more]

PMID: 29566056

Similar Datasets

Project description:The Xpert MTB/RIF assay has garnered significant interest as a sensitive and rapid diagnostic tool to improve detection of sensitive and drug resistant tuberculosis. However, most existing literature has described the performance of MTB/RIF testing only in study conditions; little information is available on its use in routine case finding. TB REACH is a multi-country initiative focusing on innovative ways to improve case notification.We selected a convenience sample of nine TB REACH projects for inclusion to cover a range of implementers, regions and approaches. Standard quarterly reports and machine data from the first 12 months of MTB/RIF implementation in each project were utilized to analyze patient yields, rifampicin resistance, and failed tests. Data was collected from September 2011 to March 2013. A questionnaire was implemented and semi-structured interviews with project staff were conducted to gather information on user experiences and challenges.All projects used MTB/RIF testing for people with suspected TB, as opposed to testing for drug resistance among already diagnosed patients. The projects placed 65 machines (196 modules) in a variety of facilities and employed numerous case-finding strategies and testing algorithms. The projects consumed 47,973 MTB/RIF tests. Of valid tests, 7,195 (16.8%) were positive for MTB. A total of 982 rifampicin resistant results were found (13.6% of positive tests). Of all tests conducted, 10.6% failed. The need for continuous power supply was noted by all projects and most used locally procured solutions. There was considerable heterogeneity in how results were reported and recorded, reflecting the lack of standardized guidance in some countries.The findings of this study begin to fill the gaps among guidelines, research findings, and real-world implementation of MTB/RIF testing. Testing with Xpert MTB/RIF detected a large number of people with TB that routine services failed to detect. The study demonstrates the versatility and impact of the technology, but also outlines various surmountable barriers to implementation. The study is not representative of all early implementer experiences with MTB/RIF testing but rather provides an overview of the shared issues as well as the many different approaches to programmatic MTB/RIF implementation.

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:BACKGROUND:Xpert MTB/RIF, the most widely used automated nucleic acid amplification test for tuberculosis, is available in more than 130 countries. Although diagnostic accuracy is well documented, anticipated improvements in patient outcomes have not been clearly identified. We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to examine improvements in patient outcomes associated with Xpert MTB/RIF. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry from inception to Feb 1, 2018, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of Xpert MTB/RIF with sputum smear microscopy as tests for tuberculosis diagnosis in adults (aged 18 years or older). We excluded studies of patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and studies in which mortality was not assessed. We used a two-stage approach for our primary analysis and a one-stage approach for the sensitivity analysis. To assess the primary outcome of cumulative 6-month all-cause mortality, we first performed logistic regression models (random effects for cluster randomised trials, with robust SEs for multicentre studies) for each trial, and then pooled the odds ratio (OR) estimates by a fixed-effects (inverse variance) or random-effects (Der Simonian Laird) meta-analysis. We adjusted for age and gender, and stratified by HIV status and previous tuberculosis-treatment history. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014013394. FINDINGS:Our search identified 387 studies, of which five RCTs were eligible for analysis. 8567 adult clinic attendees (4490 [63·5%] of 7074 participants for whom data were available were HIV-positive) were tested for tuberculosis with Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert group) versus sputum smear microscopy (sputum smear group), across five low-income and middle-income countries (South Africa, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania). The primary outcome (reported in three studies) occurred in 182 (4·5%) of 4050 patients in the Xpert group and 217 (5·3%) of 4093 patients in the smear group (pooled adjusted OR 0·88, 95% CI 0·68-1·14 [p=0·34]; for HIV-positive individuals OR 0·83, 0·65-1·05 [p=0·12]). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a lower rate of death (12·73 per 100 person-years in the Xpert group vs 16·38 per 100 person-years in the sputum smear group) for HIV-positive patients (hazard ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·60-0·97; p=0·03). The risk of bias was assessed as reasonable and the statistical heterogeneity across studies was low (I2<20% for the primary outcome). INTERPRETATION:Despite individual patient data analysis from five RCTs, we were unable to confidently rule in nor rule out an Xpert MTB/RIF-associated reduction in mortality among outpatients tested for tuberculosis. Reduction in mortality among HIV-positive patients in a secondary analysis suggests the possibility of population-level impact. FUNDING:US National Institutes of Health.

Project description:The aim of this study was to evaluate the performance of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) compared with its predecessor, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), in the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) in a low TB incidence country. Retrospective analysis was performed on 689 clinical samples received between 2015 and 2018, on which Xpert was performed, and on 715 samples, received between 2018 and 2020, on which Ultra was performed. Samples were pulmonary (n = 830) and extrapulmonary (n = 574) in nature, and a total of 264 were culture positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC). The diagnostic performance of both assays was analyzed using culture as the reference standard. The sensitivity of Ultra for culture positive (smear positive and smear negative) MTBC samples, was 93.2% (110/118) compared with 82.2% (120/146) for Xpert (P = 0.0078). In smear negative-culture positive samples, Ultra had a sensitivity of 74.2% (23/31) versus 36.11% (13/36) for Xpert (P = 0.0018). Specificity of both assays was comparable at 94.8% (566/597) for Ultra and 95.8% (520/543) for Xpert (P = 0.4475). The sensitivity of Ultra and Xpert assays among exclusively pulmonary samples was 95.3% (82/86) and 90.3% (84/93), respectively (P = 0.1955), and 87.5% (28/32) and 67.9% (36/53), respectively, among extrapulmonary samples (P = 0.0426). Ultra showed improved performance compared with Xpert in a low TB incidence setting, particularly in smear negative and extrapulmonary MTBC disease. The specificity of Ultra was lower than Xpert, however, this was not statistically significant. IMPORTANCE The study demonstrates the improved sensitivity of the Ultra compared with the Xpert, particularly in smear negative TB disease, for both pulmonary and extrapulmonary samples in a low TB incidence setting. Cycle threshold (Ct) value for both assays was found to positively correlate with time to TB culture positivity, suggesting that Ct and semiquantitative results could be used as indicators of sample MTBC bacillary burden, and thus, perhaps, of transmission potential. This may have implications for the designation of patient isolation precautions.

Dataset Information

Accuracy of different Xpert MTB/Rif implementation strategies in programmatic settings at the regional referral hospitals in Uganda: Evidence for country wide roll out.

Publications

Accuracy of different Xpert MTB/Rif implementation strategies in programmatic settings at the regional referral hospitals in Uganda: Evidence for country wide roll out.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets