Dataset Information

Diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculous meningitis: systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

This systematic review evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF to detect tuberculous meningitis (TBM).

Methods

PubMed and five other databases were systematically searched through March 2019. All studies evaluating diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF on cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were included. Reference standards were definitive or definite plus probable TBM. The quality of studies was assessed by the QUADAS-2 tool. We performed bivariate random-effects meta-analysis and calculated summary diagnostic statistics.

Results

We identified 30 studies (n = 3972 participants), including 5 cohort studies and 25 cross-sectional studies. Reference standards were definite TB (n = 28 studies) or definite plus probable TBM (n = 6 studies). The pooled Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was 85% (95% CI, 70-93%), and specificity was 98% (95% CI, 97-99%) with a negative likelihood ratio of 0.15 (95% CI, 0.04-0.27) for definite TBM. For probable TBM cases, pooled sensitivity was 81% (95% CI, 66-90%), and specificity was 99% (95% CI, 97-99%). For both reference standard types, meta-analyses showed a C-statistic area under the curve of 0.98. The QUADAS-2 tool revealed low risk of bias as well as low concerns regarding applicability. Methodological heterogeneity was high among studies.

Conclusions

Xpert MTB/RIF showed high accuracy for TBM diagnosis, but a negative Xpert MTB/RIF test does not rule out TBM. Repeat Xpert testing may be necessary. In clinical practice, Xpert MTB/RIF adds speed and sensitivity when compared to classic TBM diagnostic methods or previous commercial nucleic acid amplification techniques. More studies and better strategies for rapidly confirming a diagnosis of TBM in children are urgently needed.

SUBMITTER: Hernandez AV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7902353 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:BackgroundWHO recommends Xpert MTB/RIF as initial diagnostic testing for tuberculous meningitis. However, diagnosis remains difficult, with Xpert sensitivity of about 50-70% and culture sensitivity of about 60%. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for tuberculous meningitis.MethodsWe prospectively obtained diagnostic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens during screening for a trial on the treatment of HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis in Mbarara, Uganda. HIV-infected adults with suspected meningitis (eg, headache, nuchal rigidity, altered mental status) were screened consecutively at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital. We centrifuged CSF, resuspended the pellet in 2 mL of CSF, and tested 0·5 mL with mycobacteria growth indicator tube culture, 1 mL with Xpert, and cryopreserved 0·5 mL, later tested with Xpert Ultra. We assessed diagnostic performance against uniform clinical case definition or a composite reference standard of any positive CSF tuberculous test.FindingsFrom Feb 27, 2015, to Nov 7, 2016, we prospectively evaluated 129 HIV-infected adults with suspected meningitis for tuberculosis. 23 participants were classified as probable or definite tuberculous meningitis by uniform case definition, excluding Xpert Ultra results. Xpert Ultra sensitivity was 70% (95% CI 47-87; 16 of 23 cases) for probable or definite tuberculous meningitis compared with 43% (23-66; 10/23) for Xpert and 43% (23-66; 10/23) for culture. With composite standard, we detected tuberculous meningitis in 22 (17%) of 129 participants. Xpert Ultra had 95% sensitivity (95% CI 77-99; 21 of 22 cases) for tuberculous meningitis, which was higher than either Xpert (45% [24-68]; 10/22; p=0·0010) or culture (45% [24-68]; 10/22; p=0·0034). Of 21 participants positive by Xpert Ultra, 13 were positive by culture, Xpert, or both, and eight were only positive by Xpert Ultra. Of those eight, three were categorised as probable tuberculous meningitis, three as possible tuberculous meningitis, and two as not tuberculous meningitis. Testing 6 mL or more of CSF was associated with more frequent detection of tuberculosis than with less than 6 mL (26% vs 7%; p=0·014).InterpretationXpert Ultra detected significantly more tuberculous meningitis than did either Xpert or culture. WHO now recommends the use of Xpert Ultra as the initial diagnostic test for suspected tuberculous meningitis.FundingNational Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Stroke, Fogarty International Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, UK Medical Research Council/DfID/Wellcome Trust Global Health Trials, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation.

Project description:BackgroundTuberculous meningitis (TBM) is difficult to diagnose promptly. The utility of the Xpert MTB/RIF test for the diagnosis of TBM remains unclear, and the effect of host- and sample-related factors on test performance is unknown. This study sought to evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF for the diagnosis of TBM.Methods and findings235 South-African patients with a meningeal-like illness were categorised as having definite (culture or Amplicor PCR positive), probable (anti-TBM treatment initiated but microbiological confirmation lacking), or non-TBM. Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy was evaluated using 1 ml of uncentrifuged and, when available, 3 ml of centrifuged cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). To evaluate the incremental value of MTB/RIF over a clinically based diagnosis, test accuracy was compared to a clinical score (CS) derived using basic clinical and laboratory information. Of 204 evaluable patients (of whom 87% were HIV-infected), 59 had definite TBM, 64 probable TBM, and 81 non-TBM. Overall sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 62% (48%-75%) and 95% (87%-99%), respectively. The sensitivity of Xpert MTB/RIF was significantly better than that of smear microscopy (62% versus 12%; p?=?0.001) and significantly better than that of the CS (62% versus 30%; p?=?0.001; C statistic 85% [79%-92%]). Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was higher when centrifuged versus uncentrifuged samples were used (82% [62%-94%] versus 47% [31%-61%]; p?=?0.004). The combination of CS and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert MTB/RIF performed if CS<8) performed as well as Xpert MTB/RIF alone but with a ?10% reduction in test usage. This overall pattern of results remained unchanged when the definite and probable TBM groups were combined. Xpert MTB/RIF was not useful in identifying TBM among HIV-uninfected individuals, although the sample was small. There was no evidence of PCR inhibition, and the limit of detection was ?80 colony forming units per millilitre. Study limitations included a predominantly HIV-infected cohort and the limited number of culture-positive CSF samples.ConclusionsXpert MTB/RIF may be a good rule-in test for the diagnosis of TBM in HIV-infected individuals from a tuberculosis-endemic setting, particularly when a centrifuged CSF pellet is used. Further studies are required to confirm these findings in different settings. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.