Dataset Information

Is Xpert MTB/RIF appropriate for diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy with pleural fluid samples? A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Tuberculous pleurisy (TP) presents a diagnostic problem due to the limitations of traditional diagnostic methods. Different studies with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay have drawn variable conclusions about its values in TP diagnosis. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether the Xpert MTB/RIF assay is appropriate for the diagnosis of TP using pleural fluid samples.A systematic search of four literature databases in English and Chinese language was performed to identify studies involving the use of Xpert MTB/RIF in patients with TP confirmed by plural biopsy and/or mycobacterial culture. Pooled sensitivity, specificity and accordance proportion were calculated, and the forest plots were generated to assess the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF for TP diagnosis.We identified 23 studies meeting our inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert MTB/RIF were 30% (95% CI: 21-42%, I2?=?87.93%) and 99% (95% CI: 97-100%, I2?=?96.20%), respectively, and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) of Xpert MTB/RIF was 0.86 (95% CI: 0.83-0.89). Compared with drug susceptibility testing (DST), the pooled accordance rate of Xpert MTB/RIF in detecting rifampicin-susceptible cases and rifampicin-resistant cases was 99% (95% CI: 95-104%, I2?=?8.7%) and 94% (95% CI: 86-102%), respectively.Our analysis suggests that the Xpert MTB/RIF assay is of limited value as a screening test for TP but has a high potential for confirming TP diagnosis and differentiating TP from non-TB diseases using pleural fluid samples.

SUBMITTER: Huo ZY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6019837 | biostudies-other | 2018 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is Xpert MTB/RIF appropriate for diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy with pleural fluid samples? A systematic review.

Huo Zhen-Yu ZY Peng Li L

BMC infectious diseases 20180625 1

<h4>Background</h4>Tuberculous pleurisy (TP) presents a diagnostic problem due to the limitations of traditional diagnostic methods. Different studies with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay have drawn variable conclusions about its values in TP diagnosis. We conducted a meta-analysis to assess whether the Xpert MTB/RIF assay is appropriate for the diagnosis of TP using pleural fluid samples.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of four literature databases in English and Chinese language was performed to id ...[more]

PMID: 29940951

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:IntroductionTuberculous meningitis accounts for 1-5% of tuberculosis cases. Diagnostic delay contributes to poor outcomes. We evaluated the performance of the new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for tuberculous meningitis diagnosis.MethodsIn this prospective validation study, we tested the cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) of adults presenting with suspected meningitis (ie, headache or altered mental status with clinical signs of meningism) to the Mulago National Referral Hospital and Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital in Uganda. We centrifuged the CSF, resuspended the cell pellet in 2 mL CSF, and tested 0·5 mL aliquots with Xpert Ultra, Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert), and mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT) culture. We quantified diagnostic performance against the uniform case definition of probable or definite tuberculous meningitis and a composite microbiological reference standard.FindingsFrom Nov 25, 2016, to Jan 24, 2019, we screened 466 adults with suspected meningitis and tested 204 for tuberculous meningitis. Uniform clinical case definition classified 51 participants as having probable or definite tuberculous meningitis. Against this uniform case definition, Xpert Ultra had 76·5% sensitivity (95% CI 62·5-87·2; 39 of 51 patients) and a negative predictive value of 92·7% (87·6-96·2; 153 of 165), compared with 55·6% sensitivity (44·0-70·4; 25 of 45; p=0·0010) and a negative predictive value of 85·8% (78·9-91·1; 121 of 141) for Xpert and 61·4% sensitivity (45·5-75·6; 27 of 44; p=0·020) and negative predictive value of 85·2% (77·4-91·1; 98 of 115) for MGIT culture. Against the composite microbiological reference standard, Xpert Ultra had sensitivity of 92·9% (80·5-98·5; 39 of 42), higher than Xpert at 65·8% (48·6-80·4; 25 of 38; p=0·0063) and MGIT culture at 72·2% (55·9-86·2; 27 of 37; p=0·092). Xpert Ultra detected nine tuberculous meningitis cases missed by Xpert and MGIT culture.InterpretationXpert Ultra detected tuberculous meningitis with higher sensitivity than Xpert and MGIT culture in this HIV-positive population. However, with a negative predictive value of 93%, Xpert Ultra cannot be used as a rule-out test. Clinical judgment and novel highly sensitive point-of-care tests are still required.FundingWellcome Trust, National Institute of Health, National Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Stroke, Fogarty International Center, and National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Dataset Information

Is Xpert MTB/RIF appropriate for diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy with pleural fluid samples? A systematic review.

Publications

Is Xpert MTB/RIF appropriate for diagnosing tuberculous pleurisy with pleural fluid samples? A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets