Dataset Information

Test and Treat TB: a pilot trial of GeneXpert MTB/RIF screening on a mobile HIV testing unit in South Africa.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Community-based GeneXpert MTB/RIF testing may increase detection of prevalent TB in the community and improve rates of TB treatment completion. METHODS:We conducted a pilot randomized trial to evaluate the impact of GeneXpert screening on a mobile HIV testing unit. Adults (?18y) underwent rapid HIV testing and TB symptom screening and were randomized to usual mobile unit care (providing sputum on the mobile unit sent out for GeneXpert testing) or the "Test & Treat TB" intervention with immediate GeneXpert testing. Symptomatic participants in usual care produced sputum that was sent for hospital-based GeneXpert testing; participants were contacted ~?7?days later with results. In the "Test & Treat TB" intervention, HIV-infected or HIV-uninfected/TB symptomatic participants underwent GeneXpert testing on the mobile unit. GeneXpert+ participants received expedited TB treatment initiation, monthly SMS reminders and non-cash incentives. We assessed 6-month?TB treatment outcomes. RESULTS:4815 were eligible and enrolled; median age was 27?years (IQR 22 to 35). TB symptoms included cough (5%), weight loss (4%), night sweats (4%), and fever (3%). 42% of eligible participants produced sputum (intervention: 56%; usual care: 26%). Seven participants tested GeneXpert+, six in the intervention (3%, 95% CI 1%, 5%) and one in usual care (1%, 95% CI 0%, 6%). 5 of 6 intervention participants completed TB treatment; the GeneXpert+ participant in usual care did not. CONCLUSION:GeneXpert MTB/RIF screening on a mobile HIV testing unit is feasible. Yield for GeneXpert+ TB was low, however, the "Test & Treat TB" strategy led to high rates of TB treatment completion. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was registered on November 21, 2014 at ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02298309 ).

SUBMITTER: Bassett IV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6360783 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Test and Treat TB: a pilot trial of GeneXpert MTB/RIF screening on a mobile HIV testing unit in South Africa.

Bassett Ingrid V IV Forman Leah S LS Govere Sabina S Thulare Hilary H Frank Simone C SC Mhlongo Bright B Losina Elena E

BMC infectious diseases 20190204 1

<h4>Background</h4>Community-based GeneXpert MTB/RIF testing may increase detection of prevalent TB in the community and improve rates of TB treatment completion.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a pilot randomized trial to evaluate the impact of GeneXpert screening on a mobile HIV testing unit. Adults (≥18y) underwent rapid HIV testing and TB symptom screening and were randomized to usual mobile unit care (providing sputum on the mobile unit sent out for GeneXpert testing) or the "Test & Treat TB" i ...[more]

PMID: 30717693

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:BackgroundMeningitis caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis is a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. We evaluated the performance of cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) testing with the GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay versus traditional approaches for diagnosing tuberculosis meningitis (TBM).MethodsPatients were adults (n = 37) presenting with suspected TBM to the Hospital Nacional Dos de Mayo, Lima, Peru, during 12 months until 1st January 2015. Each participant had a single CSF specimen that was divided into aliquots that were concurrently tested for M. tuberculosis using GeneXpert, Ziehl-Neelsen smear and culture on solid and liquid media. Drug susceptibility testing used Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT 960) and the proportions method.Results81% (30/37) of patients received a final clinical diagnosis of TBM, of whom 63% (19/30, 95% confidence intervals, CI: 44-80%) were HIV-positive. 22% (8/37, 95%CI: 9.8-38%), of patients had definite TBM. Because definite TBM was defined by positivity in any laboratory test, all laboratory tests had 100% specificity. Considering the 30 patients who had a clinical diagnosis of TBM: diagnostic sensitivity was 23% (7/30, 95%CI: 9.9-42%) for GeneXpert and was the same for all culture results combined; considerably greater than 7% (2/30, 95%CI: 0.82-22%) for microscopy; whereas all laboratory tests had poor negative predictive values (20-23%). Considering only the 8 patients with definite TBM: diagnostic sensitivity was 88% (7/8, 95%CI: 47-100%) for GeneXpert; 75% (6/8, 95%CI: 35-97%) for MGIT culture or LJ culture; 50% (4/8, 95%CI 16-84) for Ogawa culture and 25% (2/8, 95%CI: 3.2-65%) for microscopy. GeneXpert and microscopy provided same-day results, whereas culture took 20-56 days. GeneXpert provided same-day rifampicin-susceptibility results, whereas culture-based testing took 32-71 days. 38% (3/8, 95%CI: 8.5-76%) of patients with definite TBM with data had evidence of drug-resistant TB, but 73% (22/30) of all clinically diagnosed TBM (definite, probable, and possible TBM) had no drug-susceptibility results available.ConclusionsCompared with traditional culture-based methods of CSF testing, GeneXpert had similar yield and faster results for both the detection of M. tuberculosis and drug-susceptibility testing. Including use of the GeneXpert has the capacity to improve the diagnosis of TBM cases.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Outreach and promotion programs are essential to ensuring uptake of new public health interventions and guidelines. We assessed the costs and operation dynamics of outreach and promotion efforts for up front Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) testing for pediatric presumptive tuberculosis (TB) patients in four major Indian cities. METHODS:Xpert test costs were assessed as weighted average per-test costs based on the daily workload dynamics matched by test volume specific Xpert unit cost at each study site. Costs of outreach programs to recruit health providers to refer pediatric patients for Xpert testing were assessed as cost per referral for each quarter based on total program costs and referral data. All costs were assessed in the health service provider's perspective and expressed in 2015 USD. RESULTS:Weighted average per-test costs ranged from $14.71 to $17.81 at the four laboratories assessed. Differences between laboratories were associated with unused testing capacity and/or frequencies of overtime work to cope with increasing demand and same-day testing requirements. Outreach activities generated between 825 and 2,065 Xpert testing referrals on average each quarter across the four study sites, translating into $0.63 to $2.55 per patient referred. Overall outreach costs per referral decreased with time, stabilizing at an average cost of $1.10, and demonstrated a clear association with increased referrals. CONCLUSIONS:Xpert test and outreach program costs within and across study sites were mainly driven by the dynamics of Xpert testing demand resulting from the combined outreach activities. However, these increases in demand required considerable overtime work resulting in additional costs and operational challenges at the study laboratories. Therefore, careful laboratory operational adjustment should be evaluated at target areas in parallel to the anticipated demand from the Xpert referral outreach program scale-up in other Indian regions.

Project description:Xpert MTB/RIF is approved for use in tuberculosis (TB) and rifampicin-resistance diagnosis. However, data are limited on the impact of Xpert under routine conditions in settings with high TB burden.A pragmatic prospective cluster-randomised trial of Xpert for all individuals with presumptive (symptomatic) TB compared to the routine diagnostic algorithm of sputum microscopy and limited use of culture was conducted in a large TB/HIV primary care clinic. The primary outcome was the proportion of bacteriologically confirmed TB cases not initiating TB treatment by 3 mo after presentation. Secondary outcomes included time to TB treatment and mortality. Unblinded randomisation occurred on a weekly basis. Xpert and smear microscopy were performed on site. Analysis was both by intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol. Between 7 September 2010 and 28 October 2011, 1,985 participants were assigned to the Xpert (n = 982) and routine (n = 1,003) diagnostic algorithms (ITT analysis); 882 received Xpert and 1,063 routine (per protocol analysis). 13% (32/257) of individuals with bacteriologically confirmed TB (smear, culture, or Xpert) did not initiate treatment by 3 mo after presentation in the Xpert arm, compared to 25% (41/167) in the routine arm (ITT analysis, risk ratio 0.51, 95% CI 0.33-0.77, p = 0.0052). The yield of bacteriologically confirmed TB cases among patients with presumptive TB was 17% (167/1,003) with routine diagnosis and 26% (257/982) with Xpert diagnosis (ITT analysis, risk ratio 1.57, 95% CI 1.32-1.87, p<0.001). This difference in diagnosis rates resulted in a higher rate of treatment initiation in the Xpert arm: 23% (229/1,003) and 28% (277/982) in the routine and Xpert arms, respectively (ITT analysis, risk ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.06-1.44, p = 0.013). Time to treatment initiation was improved overall (ITT analysis, hazard ratio 0.76, 95% CI 0.63-0.92, p = 0.005) and among HIV-infected participants (ITT analysis, hazard ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.53-0.85, p = 0.001). There was no difference in 6-mo mortality with Xpert versus routine diagnosis. Study limitations included incorrect intervention allocation for a high proportion of participants and that the study was conducted in a single clinic.These data suggest that in this routine primary care setting, use of Xpert to diagnose TB increased the number of individuals with bacteriologically confirmed TB who were treated by 3 mo and reduced time to treatment initiation, particularly among HIV-infected participants.Pan African Clinical Trials Registry PACTR201010000255244. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:India has been engaged in tuberculosis (TB) control activities for over 50 years and yet TB continues to remain India's important public health problem. The present study was conducted to compare the performance of GeneXpert MTB/RIF (GXpert) assay with composite reference standard in diagnosing cases of tubercular pleural effusion (TPE) and to evaluate the reliability of rifampicin resistance. A cross-sectional study was performed in a Department of Medicine of a rural teaching tertiary care hospital in central India. In all consecutive patients with pleural effusion on chest radiograph presenting to Department of Medicine, GXpert assay and composite reference standard was performed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of GXpert assay for detecting TPE in comparison to composite reference standard. Standard formulae were used to calculate the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive values (PPV), negative predictive values (NPV), positive likelihood ratios (LR+) and negative likelihood ratios (LR-). Mc-Nemar's test was applied to compare variables. All comparisons were two-tailed. We considered the difference to be statistically significant if the P value was less than 0.05. The sensitivity of the GXpert assay in diagnosing TPE was 16.6% among 158 study participants, the specificity was 100% and diagnostic accuracy was 52.5% which was statistically significant (p value < 0.05). It had a PPV of 100% (95%CI: 88.3% - 100%) and a NPV of 47.5% (95%CI: 39.3% - 55.7%). The LR+ and LR-were 23.5 (95%CI: 1.43-38.6) and 0.83 (95%CI: 0.76-0.91) respectively. GXpert assay has a very high specificity in diagnosing TPE but has a low sensitivity. In comparison to composite reference standard Thus its clinical utility is limited when used as a standalone test. A physician's clinical acumen in combination with routine pleural fluid analysis should be the key factor in the diagnosis of TPE in clinically and radiologically suspected patients, especially in high TB burden countries.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Many high burden countries are scaling-up GeneXpert® MTB/RIF (Xpert) testing for tuberculosis (TB) using a hub-and-spoke model. However, the effect of scale up on reducing TB has been limited. We sought to characterize variation in implementation of referral-based Xpert TB testing across Uganda, and to identify health system factors that may enhance or prevent high-quality implementation of Xpert testing services. METHODS:We conducted a cross-sectional study triangulating quantitative and qualitative data sources at 23 community health centers linked to one of 15 Xpert testing sites between November 2016 and May 2017 to assess health systems infrastructure for hub-and-spoke Xpert testing. Data sources included a standardized site assessment survey, routine TB notification data, and field notes from site visits. RESULTS:Challenges with Xpert implementation occurred at every step of the diagnostic evaluation process, leading to low overall uptake of testing. Of 2192 patients eligible for TB testing, only 574 (26%) who initiated testing were referred for Xpert testing. Of those, 54 (9.4%) were Xpert confirmed positive just under half initiated treatment within 14?days (n?=?25, 46%). Gaps in required infrastructure at 23 community health centers to support the hub-and-spoke system included lack of refrigeration (n?=?14, 61%) for sputum testing and lack of telephone/mobile communication (n?=?21, 91%). Motorcycle riders responsible for transporting sputum to Xpert sites operated variable with trips once, twice, or three times a week at 10 (43%), nine (39%) and four (17%) health centers, respectively. Staff recorded Xpert results in the TB laboratory register at only one health center and called patients with positive results at only two health centers. Of the 15 Xpert testing sites, five (33%) had at least one non-functioning module. The median number of tests per day was 3.57 (IQR 2.06-4.54), and 10 (67%) sites had error/invalid rates >?5%. CONCLUSIONS:Although Xpert devices are now widely distributed throughout Uganda, health system factors across the continuum from test referral to results reporting and treatment initiation preclude effective implementation of Xpert testing for patients presenting to peripheral health centers. Support for scale up of innovative technologies should include support for communication, coordination and health systems integration.

Dataset Information

Test and Treat TB: a pilot trial of GeneXpert MTB/RIF screening on a mobile HIV testing unit in South Africa.

Publications

Test and Treat TB: a pilot trial of GeneXpert MTB/RIF screening on a mobile HIV testing unit in South Africa.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure