Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of Stool Xpert MTB/RIF for Detection of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Children: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Invasive collection methods are often required to obtain samples for the microbiological evaluation of children with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). Nucleic acid amplification testing of easier-to-collect stool samples could be a noninvasive method of diagnosing PTB. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of testing stool with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay ("stool Xpert") for childhood PTB. Four databases were searched for publications from January 2008 to June 2018. Studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy among children of stool Xpert compared to a microbiological reference standard of conventional specimens tested by mycobacterial culture or Xpert were eligible. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled sensitivity and specificity of stool Xpert against the reference standard. From 1,589 citations, 9 studies (n?=?1,681) were included. Median participant ages ranged from 1.3 to 10.6?years. Protocols for stool processing and testing varied substantially, with differences in reagents and methods of homogenization and filtering. Against the microbiological reference standard, the pooled sensitivity and specificity of stool Xpert were 67% (95% confidence interval [CI], 52 to 79%) and 99% (95% CI, 98 to 99%), respectively. Sensitivity was higher among children with HIV (79% [95% CI, 68 to 87%] versus 60% [95% CI, 44 to 74%] among HIV-uninfected children). Heterogeneity was high. Data were insufficient for subgroup analyses among children under the age of 5 years, the most relevant target population. Stool Xpert could be a noninvasive method of ruling in PTB in children, particularly those with HIV. However, studies focused on children under 5 years of age are needed, and generalizability of the evidence is limited by the lack of standardized stool preparation and testing protocols.

SUBMITTER: MacLean E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6535592 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Diagnostic Accuracy of Stool Xpert MTB/RIF for Detection of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Children: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

MacLean Emily E Sulis Giorgia G Denkinger Claudia M CM Johnston James C JC Pai Madhukar M Ahmad Khan Faiz F

Journal of clinical microbiology 20190524 6

Invasive collection methods are often required to obtain samples for the microbiological evaluation of children with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). Nucleic acid amplification testing of easier-to-collect stool samples could be a noninvasive method of diagnosing PTB. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of testing stool with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay ("stool Xpert") for childhood PTB. Four databases were searched for publications from Jan ...[more]

PMID: 30944200

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUNDThe Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) assay technology allows rapid and sensitive diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) from sputum specimens. However, diagnosis of PTB is difficult for patients who cannot produce sputum. The objective of this study was to investigate the use of Xpert assay for successful detection of PTB using stool samples from adult subjects.METHODSBoth stool and sputum samples from known smear and Xpert positive PTB patients were collected from a TB hospital in Dhaka. Stool samples were collected from healthy individuals without TB symptoms from a slum area of Dhaka. Stool and sputum samples were decontaminated and concentrated using NALC-NaOH-Na-citrate solution and the resultant sediment was used for Xpert, acid-fast bacilli (AFB) microscopy and culture.RESULTSA total of 102 stool samples were collected from PTB patients and another 50 stool samples from healthy individuals without TB. The sensitivity of the Xpert assay for detection of M. tuberculosis in stool samples of PTB patients was 90.2% (95% CI, 82.9-95.0). All 50 stool samples from healthy individuals were negative by the assay (Specificity 100%; 95% CI, 92.9-100). Compared with the sputum culture positive results the sensitivity of the stool Xpert assay was 94.8% (95% CI, 88.5-97.8). Moreover, stool Xpert demonstrated full concordant results with the sputum culture for detection of rifampicin susceptibility. The cycle threshold values of rpoB probes obtained from Xpert assay correlated significantly with the bacilli load in the corresponding stool (Spearman correlation = -0.40, P < 0.01) and sputum (Spearman correlation = -0.77, P < 0.01) samples as determined by microscopy.CONCLUSIONSStool Xpert can be applied as a potential alternative of sputum testing for detection of M. tuberculosis and accurate determination of RIF susceptibility in adult PTB patients. The assay would be beneficial for rapid diagnosis of PTB for those adult patients who cannot expectorate sputum.

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: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:BackgroundAlthough the evidence base regarding the use of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) when testing respiratory samples is well established, the evidence base for its diagnostic accuracy for extrapulmonary and sputum-scarce pulmonary TB when testing non-respiratory samples is less clearly defined.MethodsA systematic literature search of 7 electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, BIOSIS, Global Health Database, Scopus and Cochrane Database) was conducted to identify studies of the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert assay when testing non-respiratory samples compared with a culture-based reference standard. Data were extracted and study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated on a per-sample basis, stratified by sample type and smear microscopy status and summarised using forest plots. Pooled estimates were calculated for groups with sufficient data.ResultsTwenty-seven studies with a total of 6,026 non-respiratory samples were included. Among the 23 studies comparing Xpert and culture done on the same samples, sensitivity was very heterogeneous with a median sensitivity of 0.83 (IQR, 0.68-0.94) whereas specificities were typically very high (median, 0.98; IQR, 0.89-1.00). The pooled summary estimates of sensitivity when testing smear-positive and smear-negative samples were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-1.00) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.60-0.80), respectively. Pooled summary estimates of sensitivity varied substantially between sample types: lymph node tissue, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.72-0.99); tissue samples of all types, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76-0.94); pleural fluid, 0.34 (95% CI, 0.24-0.44); gastric aspirates for diagnosis of sputum-scarce pulmonary TB, 0.78 (IQR, 0.68 - 0.85). Median sensitivities when testing cerebrospinal fluid and non-pleural serous fluid samples were 0.85 (IQR, 0.75-1.00) and 0.67 (IQR, 0.00-1.00), respectively.ConclusionXpert detects with high specificity the vast majority of EPTB cases with smear-positive non-respiratory samples and approximately two-thirds of those with smear-negative samples. Xpert is a useful rule-in diagnostic test for EPTB, especially when testing cerebrospinal fluid and tissue samples. In addition, it has a high sensitivity for detecting pulmonary TB when using gastric aspirate samples. These findings support recent WHO guidelines regarding the use of Xpert for TB diagnosis from non-respiratory samples.

Project description:PurposeTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in patients with smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) and to assess clinical and CT characteristics of Xpert-negative pulmonary TB.Material and methodsWe retrospectively reviewed the records of 1,400 patients with suspected pulmonary TB for whom the sputum Xpert MTB/RIF assay was performed between September 1, 2014 and February 28, 2020. Clinical and CT characteristics of smear-negative pulmonary TB patients with negative Xpert MTB/RIF results were compared with positive results.ResultsOf 1,400 patients, 365 (26.1%) were diagnosed with pulmonary TB and 190 of 365 patients (52.1%) were negative for sputum acid-fast bacilli. The diagnosis of pulmonary TB was based on a positive culture, positive Xpert MTB/RIF or the clinical diagnoses of patients treated with an anti-TB medication. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive and negative predictive values of sputum Xpert MTB/RIF for smear-negative pulmonary TB were 41.1%, 100%, 100%, and 90.1%, respectively. Finally, 172 patients with smear-negative pulmonary TB who underwent chest CT within 2 weeks of diagnosis were included to compare Xpert-positive (n = 66) and Xpert- negative (n = 106) groups. Patients with sputum Xpert-negative TB showed lower positive rates for sputum culture (33.0% vs. 81.8%, p<0.001) and bronchoalveolar lavage culture (53.3% vs. 84.6%, p = 0.042) than in Xpert-positive TB. Time to start TB medication was longer in patients with Xpert-negative TB than in Xpert-positive TB (11.3±16.4 days vs. 5.0±8.7 days, p = 0.001). On chest CT, sputum Xpert-negative TB showed significantly lower frequency of consolidation (21.7% vs. 39.4%, p = 0.012), cavitation (23.6% vs. 37.9%, p = 0.045), more frequent peripheral location (50.9% vs. 21.2 p = 0.001) with lower area of involvement (4.3±4.3 vs. 7.6±6.4, p<0.001). Multivariate analysis revealed peripheral location (odds ratios, 2.565; 95% confidence interval: 1.157-5.687; p = 0.020) and higher total extent of the involved lobe (odds ratios, 0.928; 95% confidence interval: 0.865-0.995; p = 0.037) were significant factors associated with Xpert MTB/RIF-negative TB. Regardless of Xpert positivity, more than 80% of all cases were diagnosed of TB on chest CT by radiologists.ConclusionThe detection rate of sputum Xpert MTB/RIF assay was relatively low for smear negative pulmonary TB. Chest CT image interpretation may play an important role in early diagnosis and treatment of Xpert MTB/RIF-negative pulmonary TB.

Dataset Information

Diagnostic Accuracy of Stool Xpert MTB/RIF for Detection of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Children: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Publications

Diagnostic Accuracy of Stool Xpert MTB/RIF for Detection of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Children: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets