Project description:BackgroundAbundant evidence on Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy for diagnosing tuberculosis (TB) and rifampicin resistance has been produced, yet there are few data on the population benefit of its programmatic use. We assessed whether the implementation of Xpert MTB/RIF in routine conditions would (1) increase the notification rate of laboratory-confirmed pulmonary TB to the national notification system and (2) reduce the time to TB treatment initiation (primary endpoints).Methods and findingsWe conducted a stepped-wedge cluster-randomized trial from 4 February to 4 October 2012 in 14 primary care laboratories in two Brazilian cities. Diagnostic specimens were included for 11,705 baseline (smear microscopy) and 12,522 intervention (Xpert MTB/RIF) patients presumed to have TB. Single-sputum-sample Xpert MTB/RIF replaced two-sputum-sample smear microscopy for routine diagnosis of pulmonary TB. In total, 1,137 (9.7%) tests in the baseline arm and 1,777 (14.2%) in the intervention arm were positive (p<0.001), resulting in an increased bacteriologically confirmed notification rate of 59% (95% CI = 31%, 88%). However, the overall notification rate did not increase (15%, 95% CI = -6%, 37%), and we observed no change in the notification rate for those without a test result (-3%, 95% CI = -37%, 30%). Median time to treatment decreased from 11.4 d (interquartile range [IQR] = 8.5-14.5) to 8.1 d (IQR = 5.4-9.3) (p = 0.04), although not among confirmed cases (median 7.5 [IQR = 4.9-10.0] versus 7.3 [IQR = 3.4-9.0], p = 0.51). Prevalence of rifampicin resistance detected by Xpert was 3.3% (95% CI = 2.4%, 4.3%) among new patients and 7.4% (95% CI = 4.3%, 11.7%) among retreatment patients, with a 98% (95% CI = 87%, 99%) positive predictive value compared to phenotypic drug susceptibility testing. Missing data in the information systems may have biased our primary endpoints. However, sensitivity analyses assessing the effects of missing data did not affect our results.ConclusionsReplacing smear microscopy with Xpert MTB/RIF in Brazil increased confirmation of pulmonary TB. An additional benefit was the accurate detection of rifampicin resistance. However, no increase on overall notification rates was observed, possibly because of high rates of empirical TB treatment.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01363765. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Rapid on-site diagnosis facilitates tuberculosis control. Performing Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) at point of care is feasible, even when performed by minimally trained health-care workers, and when compared with point-of-care smear microscopy, reduces time to diagnosis and pretreatment loss to follow-up. However, whether Xpert is cost-effective at point of care remains unclear. METHODS:We empirically collected cost (US$, 2014) and clinical outcome data from participants presenting to primary health-care facilities in four African countries (South Africa, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and Tanzania) during the TB-NEAT trial. Costs were determined using an bottom-up ingredients approach. Effectiveness measures from the trial included number of cases diagnosed, initiated on treatment, and completing treatment. The primary outcome was the incremental cost-effectiveness of point-of-care Xpert relative to smear microscopy. The study was performed from the perspective of the health-care provider. FINDINGS:Using data from 1502 patients, we calculated that the mean Xpert unit cost was lower when performed at a centralised laboratory (Lab Xpert) rather than at point of care ($23·00 [95% CI 22·12-23·88] vs $28·03 [26·19-29·87]). Per 1000 patients screened, and relative to smear microscopy, point-of-care Xpert cost an additional $35?529 (27?054-40?025) and was associated with an additional 24·3 treatment initiations ([-20·0 to 68·5]; $1464 per treatment), 63·4 same-day treatment initiations ([27·3-99·4]; $511 per same-day treatment), and 29·4 treatment completions ([-6·9 to 65·6]; $1211 per completion). Xpert costs were most sensitive to test volume, whereas incremental outcomes were most sensitive to the number of patients initiating and completing treatment. The probability of point-of-care Xpert being cost-effective was 90% at a willingness to pay of $3820 per treatment completion. INTERPRETATION:In southern Africa, although point-of-care Xpert unit cost is higher than Lab Xpert, it is likely to offer good value for money relative to smear microscopy. With the current availability of point-of-care nucleic acid amplification platforms (eg, Xpert Edge), these data inform much needed investment and resource allocation strategies in tuberculosis endemic settings. FUNDING:European Union European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.

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 (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

Smear Microscopy Complements Xpert MTB/RIF When Considering Nontuberculous Mycobacterial Infections.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets