Dataset Information

Screening for Tuberculosis With Xpert MTB/RIF Assay Versus Fluorescent Microscopy Among Adults Newly Diagnosed With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Rural Malawi: A Cluster Randomized Trial (Chepetsa).

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Tuberculosis (TB) remains the leading cause of death among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals globally. Screening for TB at the point of HIV diagnosis with a high-sensitivity assay presents an opportunity to reduce mortality. METHODS:We performed a cluster randomized trial of TB screening among adults newly diagnosed with HIV in 12 primary health clinics in rural Thyolo, Malawi. Clinics were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to perform either point-of-care Xpert MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) or point-of-care light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy (LED-FM) for individuals screening positive for TB symptoms. Asymptomatic participants were offered isoniazid preventive therapy in both arms. Investigators, but not clinic staff or participants, were masked to allocation. Our primary outcome was the incidence rate ratio (RR) of all-cause mortality within 12 months of HIV diagnosis. RESULTS:Prevalent TB was diagnosed in 24 of 1001 (2.4%) individuals enrolled in clinics randomized to Xpert, compared with 10 of 841 (1.2%) in clinics randomized to LED-FM. All-cause mortality was 22% lower in the Xpert arm than in the LED-FM arm (6.7 vs 8.6 per 100 person-years; RR, 0.78 [95% confidence interval {CI}, .58-1.06]). A planned subgroup analysis suggested that participants with more advanced HIV (World Health Organization clinical stage 3 or 4) disease had lower mortality in clinics randomized to Xpert than to LED-FM (RR, 0.43 [95% CI, .22-.87]). CONCLUSIONS:In rural Malawi, using point-of-care Xpert MTB/RIF to test symptomatic patients for TB at the time of HIV diagnosis reduced all-cause 12-month mortality among individuals with advanced HIV. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION:NCT01450085.

SUBMITTER: Ngwira LG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6769397 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Screening for Tuberculosis With Xpert MTB/RIF Assay Versus Fluorescent Microscopy Among Adults Newly Diagnosed With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Rural Malawi: A Cluster Randomized Trial (Chepetsa).

Ngwira Lucky G LG Corbett Elizabeth L EL Khundi McEwen M Barnes Grace L GL Nkhoma Austin A Murowa Michael M Cohn Silvia S Moulton Lawrence H LH Chaisson Richard E RE Dowdy David W DW

Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America 20190301 7

<h4>Background</h4>Tuberculosis (TB) remains the leading cause of death among human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected individuals globally. Screening for TB at the point of HIV diagnosis with a high-sensitivity assay presents an opportunity to reduce mortality.<h4>Methods</h4>We performed a cluster randomized trial of TB screening among adults newly diagnosed with HIV in 12 primary health clinics in rural Thyolo, Malawi. Clinics were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to perform either point-of-care X ...[more]

PMID: 30059995

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: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:BACKGROUND:Xpert® MTB/RIF (Xpert) has high sensitivity for diagnosing tuberculosis (TB) compared to sputum-smear microscopy (smear) and can reduce time-to-diagnosis, time-to-treatment and potentially unfavorable patient-level treatment outcome. METHODS:People living with HIV (PLHIV) initiating antiretroviral therapy at 22 HIV clinics were enrolled and underwent systematic screening for TB (August 2012-November 2014). GeneXpert instruments were deployed following a stepped-wedge design at 13 centers from October 2012-June 2013. Treatment outcomes classified as an unfavorable outcome (died, treatment failure or loss-to-follow-up) or favorable outcome (cured and treatment completed). To determine outcome, smear was performed at month 5 or 6. Empiric treatment was defined as initiating treatment without/before receiving TB-positive results. Adjusting for intra-facility correlation, we compared patient-level treatment outcomes between patients screened using smear (smear arm)- and Xpert-based algorithms (Xpert arm). RESULTS:Among 6041 patients enrolled (smear arm, 1816; Xpert arm, 4225), 256 (199 per 2985 and 57 per 1582 person-years of follow-up in Xpert and smear arms, respectively; adjusted incidence rate ratio, 9.07; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.70-17.48; p?<?0.001) received TB diagnosis and were treated. TB treatment outcomes were available for 203 patients (79.3%; Xpert, 157; smear, 46). Unfavorable outcomes were reported for 21.7% (10/46) in the smear and 13.4% (21/157) in Xpert arm (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% CI: 0.75-2.26; p?=?0.268). Compared to smear, in Xpert arm median days from sputum collection to TB treatment was 6?days (interquartile range [IQR] 2-17 versus 22?days [IQR] 3-51), p?=?0.005; patients with available sputum test result had microbiologically confirmed TB in 59.0% (102/173) versus 41.9% (18/43), adjusted Odds Ratio [aOR], 2.00, 95% CI: 1.01-3.96, p?=?0.048). In smear arm empiric treatment was 68.4% (39/57) versus 48.7% (97/199), aOR, 2.28, 95% CI: 1.24-4.20, p?=?0.011), compared to Xpert arm. CONCLUSIONS:TB treatment outcomes were similar between the smear and Xpert arms. However, compared to the smear arm, more patients in the Xpert arm received a TB diagnosis, had a microbiologically confirmed TB, and had a shorter time-to-treatment, and had a lower empiric treatment. Further research is recommended to identify potential gaps in the Botswana health system and similar settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02538952. Retrospectively registered on 2 September 2015.

Dataset Information

Screening for Tuberculosis With Xpert MTB/RIF Assay Versus Fluorescent Microscopy Among Adults Newly Diagnosed With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Rural Malawi: A Cluster Randomized Trial (Chepetsa).

Publications

Screening for Tuberculosis With Xpert MTB/RIF Assay Versus Fluorescent Microscopy Among Adults Newly Diagnosed With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in Rural Malawi: A Cluster Randomized Trial (Chepetsa).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets