Clinical Impact of the Line Probe Assay and Xpert® MTB/RIF Assay in the Presumptive Diagnosis of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Brazil: A Pragmatic Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Rapid molecular methods such as the line probe assay (LPA) and Xpert® MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) have been recommended by the World Health Organization for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) diagnosis. We conducted an interventional trial in DR-TB reference centers in Brazil to evaluate the impact of the use of LPA and Xpert. METHODS: Patients with DR-TB were eligible if their drug susceptibility testing results were available to the treating physician at the time of consultation. The standard reference MGITTM 960 was compared with Xpert (arm 1) and LPA (arm 2). Effectiveness was considered as the start of the appropriate TB regimen that matched drug susceptibility testing (DST) and the proportions of culture conversion and favorable treatment outcomes after 6 months. RESULTS: A higher rate of empirical treatment was observed with MGIT alone than with the Xpert assay (97.0% vs. 45.0%) and LPA (98.2% vs. 67.5%). Patients started appropriate TB treatment more quickly than those in the MGIT group (median 15.0 vs. 40.5 days; p<0.01) in arm 1. Compared to the MGIT group, culture conversion after 6 months was higher for Xpert in arm 1 (90.9% vs. 79.3%, p=0.39) and LPA in arm 2 (80.0% vs. 83.0%, p=0.81). CONCLUSIONS: In the Xpert arm, there was a significant reduction in days to the start of appropriate anti-TB treatment and a trend towards greater culture conversion in the sixth month.

Clinical Impact of the Line Probe Assay and Xpert® MTB/RIF Assay in the Presumptive Diagnosis of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis in Brazil: A Pragmatic Clinical Trial

ABSTRACT Background: Rapid molecular methods such as the line probe assay (LPA) and Xpert® MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) have been recommended by the World Health Organization for drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) diagnosis. We conducted an interventional trial in DR-TB reference centers in Brazil to evaluate the impact of the use of LPA and Xpert. Methods: Patients with DR-TB were eligible if their drug susceptibility testing results were available to the treating physician at the time of consultation. The standard reference MGITTM 960 was compared with Xpert (arm 1) and LPA (arm 2). Effectiveness was considered as the start of the appropriate TB regimen that matched drug susceptibility testing (DST) and the proportions of culture conversion and favorable treatment outcomes after 6 months. Results: A higher rate of empirical treatment was observed with MGIT alone than with the Xpert assay (97.0% vs. 45.0%) and LPA (98.2% vs. 67.5%). Patients started appropriate TB treatment more quickly than those in the MGIT group (median 15.0 vs. 40.5 days; p<0.01) in arm 1. Compared to the MGIT group, culture conversion after 6 months was higher for Xpert in arm 1 (90.9% vs. 79.3%, p=0.39) and LPA in arm 2 (80.0% vs. 83.0%, p=0.81). Conclusions: In the Xpert arm, there was a significant reduction in days to the start of appropriate anti-TB treatment and a trend towards greater culture conversion in the sixth month.

Liquid vs Solid Culture Medium to Evaluate Proportion and Time to Change in Management of Suspects of Tuberculosis-A Pragmatic Randomized Trial in Secondary and Tertiary Health Care Units in Brazil.

BACKGROUND: The use of liquid medium (MGIT960) for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis was recommended by WHO in 2007. However, there has been no evaluation of its effectiveness on clinically important outcomes. METHODS AND FINDINGS: A pragmatic trial was carried out in a tertiary hospital and a secondary health care unit in Rio de Janeiro City, Brazil. Participants were 16 years or older, suspected of having TB. They were excluded if only cerebral spinal fluid or blood specimens were available for analysis. MGIT960 technique was compared with the Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) method for laboratory diagnosis of active TB. Primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had their initial medical management changed within 2 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes were: mean time for changing the procedure, patient satisfaction with the overall treatment and adverse events. Data were analysed by intention-to-treat. Between April 2008 and September 2011, 693 patients were enrolled (348 to MGIT, 345 to LJ). Smear and culture results were positive for 10% and 15.7% of participants, respectively. Patients in the MGIT arm had their initial medical management changed more frequently than those in the LJ group (10.1% MGIT vs 3.8% LJ, RR 2.67 95% CI 1.44-.96, p = 0.002, NNT 16, 95% CI 10-39). Mean time for changing the initial procedure was greater in LJ group at both sites: 20.0 and 29.6 days in MGIT group and 52.2 and 64.3 in LJ group (MD 33.5, 95% CI 30.6-36.4, p = 0.0001). No other important differences were observed. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that opting for the MGIT960 system for TB diagnosis provides a promising case management model for improving the quality of care and control of TB. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN79888843.