Xpert MTB/XDR for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) End TB Strategy stresses universal access to drug susceptibility testing (DST). DST determines whether Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria are susceptible or resistant to drugs. Xpert MTB/XDR is a rapid nucleic acid amplification test for detection of tuberculosis and drug resistance in one test suitable for use in peripheral and intermediate level laboratories. In specimens where tuberculosis is detected by Xpert MTB/XDR, Xpert MTB/XDR can also detect resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/XDR for pulmonary tuberculosis in people with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (having signs and symptoms suggestive of tuberculosis, including cough, fever, weight loss, night sweats). To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/XDR for resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin in people with tuberculosis detected by Xpert MTB/XDR, irrespective of rifampicin resistance (whether or not rifampicin resistance status was known) and with known rifampicin resistance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases to 23 September 2021. We limited searches to 2015 onwards as Xpert MTB/XDR was launched in 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Diagnostic accuracy studies using sputum in adults with presumptive or confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture (pulmonary tuberculosis detection); phenotypic DST (pDST), genotypic DST (gDST),composite (pDST and gDST) (drug resistance detection). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed reports for eligibility and extracted data using a standardized form. For multicentre studies, we anticipated variability in the type and frequency of mutations associated with resistance to a given drug at the different centres and considered each centre as an independent study cohort for quality assessment and analysis. We assessed methodological quality with QUADAS-2, judging risk of bias separately for each target condition and reference standard. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, owing to heterogeneity in participant characteristics and observed specificity estimates, we reported a range of sensitivity and specificity estimates and did not perform a meta-analysis. For drug resistance detection, we performed meta-analyses by reference standard using bivariate random-effects models. Using GRADE, we assessed certainty of evidence of Xpert MTB/XDR accuracy for detection of resistance to isoniazid and fluoroquinolones in people irrespective of rifampicin resistance and to ethionamide and amikacin in people with known rifampicin resistance, reflecting real-world situations. We used pDST, except for ethionamide resistance where we considered gDST a better reference standard. MAIN RESULTS: We included two multicentre studies from high multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis burden countries, reporting on six independent study cohorts, involving 1228 participants for pulmonary tuberculosis detection and 1141 participants for drug resistance detection. The proportion of participants with rifampicin resistance in the two studies was 47.9% and 80.9%. For tuberculosis detection, we judged high risk of bias for patient selection owing to selective recruitment. For ethionamide resistance detection, we judged high risk of bias for the reference standard, both pDST and gDST, though we considered gDST a better reference standard. Pulmonary tuberculosis detection - Xpert MTB/XDR sensitivity range, 98.3% (96.1 to 99.5) to 98.9% (96.2 to 99.9) and specificity range, 22.5% (14.3 to 32.6) to 100.0% (86.3 to 100.0); median prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis 91.3%, (interquartile range, 89.3% to 91.8%), (2 studies; 1 study reported on 2 cohorts, 1228 participants; very low-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). Drug resistance detection People irrespective of rifampicin resistance - Isoniazid resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 94.2% (87.5 to 97.4) and 98.5% (92.6 to 99.7) against pDST, (6 cohorts, 1083 participants, moderate-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). - Fluoroquinolone resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 93.2% (88.1 to 96.2) and 98.0% (90.8 to 99.6) against pDST, (6 cohorts, 1021 participants; high-certainty evidence, sensitivity; moderate-certainty evidence, specificity). People with known rifampicin resistance - Ethionamide resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 98.0% (74.2 to 99.9) and 99.7% (83.5 to 100.0) against gDST, (4 cohorts, 434 participants; very low-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). - Amikacin resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 86.1% (75.0 to 92.7) and 98.9% (93.0 to 99.8) against pDST, (4 cohorts, 490 participants; low-certainty evidence, sensitivity; high-certainty evidence, specificity). Of 1000 people with pulmonary tuberculosis, detected as tuberculosis by Xpert MTB/XDR: - where 50 have isoniazid resistance, 61 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating isoniazid resistance: of these, 14/61 (23%) would not have isoniazid resistance (FP); 939 (of 1000 people) would have a result indicating the absence of isoniazid resistance: of these, 3/939 (0%) would have isoniazid resistance (FN). - where 50 have fluoroquinolone resistance, 66 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating fluoroquinolone resistance: of these, 19/66 (29%) would not have fluoroquinolone resistance (FP); 934 would have a result indicating the absence of fluoroquinolone resistance: of these, 3/934 (0%) would have fluoroquinolone resistance (FN). - where 300 have ethionamide resistance, 296 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating ethionamide resistance: of these, 2/296 (1%) would not have ethionamide resistance (FP); 704 would have a result indicating the absence of ethionamide resistance: of these, 6/704 (1%) would have ethionamide resistance (FN). - where 135 have amikacin resistance, 126 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating amikacin resistance: of these, 10/126 (8%) would not have amikacin resistance (FP); 874 would have a result indicating the absence of amikacin resistance: of these, 19/874 (2%) would have amikacin resistance (FN). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review findings suggest that, in people determined by Xpert MTB/XDR to be tuberculosis-positive, Xpert MTB/XDR provides accurate results for detection of isoniazid and fluoroquinolone resistance and can assist with selection of an optimised treatment regimen. Given that Xpert MTB/XDR targets a limited number of resistance variants in specific genes, the test may perform differently in different settings. Findings in this review should be interpreted with caution. Sensitivity for detection of ethionamide resistance was based only on Xpert MTB/XDR detection of mutations in the inhA promoter region, a known limitation. High risk of bias limits our confidence in Xpert MTB/XDR accuracy for pulmonary tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/XDR's impact will depend on its ability to detect tuberculosis (required for DST), prevalence of resistance to a given drug, health care infrastructure, and access to other tests.

Rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance: a qualitative evidence synthesis of recipient and provider views.

BACKGROUND: Programmes that introduce rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance aim to bring tests closer to the community, and thereby cut delay in diagnosis, ensure early treatment, and improve health outcomes, as well as overcome problems with poor laboratory infrastructure and inadequately trained personnel. Yet, diagnostic technologies only have an impact if they are put to use in a correct and timely manner. Views of the intended beneficiaries are important in uptake of diagnostics, and their effective use also depends on those implementing testing programmes, including providers, laboratory professionals, and staff in health ministries. Otherwise, there is a risk these technologies will not fit their intended use and setting, cannot be made to work and scale up, and are not used by, or not accessible to, those in need. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize end-user and professional user perspectives and experiences with low-complexity nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for detection of tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance; and to identify implications for effective implementation and health equity. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Science Citation Index Expanded databases for eligible studies from 1 January 2007 up to 20 October 2021. We limited all searches to 2007 onward because the development of Xpert MTB/RIF, the first rapid molecular test in this review, was completed in 2009. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis, and were focused on perspectives and experiences of users and potential users of low-complexity NAATs to diagnose tuberculosis and drug-resistant tuberculosis. NAATs included Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra, Xpert MTB/XDR, and the Truenat assays. Users were people with presumptive or confirmed tuberculosis and drug-resistant tuberculosis (including multidrug-resistant (MDR-TB)) and their caregivers, healthcare providers, laboratory technicians and managers, and programme officers and staff; and were from any type of health facility and setting globally. MDR-TB is tuberculosis caused by resistance to at least rifampicin and isoniazid, the two most effective first-line drugs used to treat tuberculosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a thematic analysis approach for data extraction and synthesis, and assessed confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual approach. We developed a conceptual framework to illustrate how the findings relate. MAIN RESULTS: We found 32 studies. All studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Twenty-seven studies were conducted in high-tuberculosis burden countries and 21 studies in high-MDR-TB burden countries. Only one study was from an Eastern European country. While the studies covered a diverse use of low-complexity NAATs, in only a minority of studies was it used as the initial diagnostic test for all people with presumptive tuberculosis. We identified 18 review findings and grouped them into three overarching categories. Critical aspects users value People with tuberculosis valued reaching diagnostic closure with an accurate diagnosis, avoiding diagnostic delays, and keeping diagnostic-associated cost low. Similarly, healthcare providers valued aspects of accuracy and the resulting confidence in low-complexity NAAT results, rapid turnaround times, and keeping cost to people seeking a diagnosis low. In addition, providers valued diversity of sample types (for example, gastric aspirate specimens and stool in children) and drug resistance information. Laboratory professionals appreciated the improved ease of use, ergonomics, and biosafety of low-complexity NAATs compared to sputum microscopy, and increased staff satisfaction. Challenges reported to realizing those values People with tuberculosis and healthcare workers were reluctant to test for tuberculosis (including MDR-TB) due to fears, stigma, or cost concerns. Thus, low-complexity NAAT testing is not implemented with sufficient support or discretion to overcome barriers that are common to other approaches to testing for tuberculosis. Delays were reported at many steps of the diagnostic pathway owing to poor sample quality; difficulties with transporting specimens; lack of sufficient resources; maintenance of low-complexity NAATs; increased workload; inefficient work and patient flows; over-reliance on low-complexity NAAT results in lieu of clinical judgement; and lack of data-driven and inclusive implementation processes. These challenges were reported to lead to underutilization.  Concerns for access and equity The reported concerns included sustainable funding and maintenance and equitable use of resources to access low-complexity NAATs, as well as conflicts of interest between donors and people implementing the tests. Also, lengthy diagnostic delays, underutilization of low-complexity NAATs, lack of tuberculosis diagnostic facilities in the community, and too many eligibility restrictions hampered access to prompt and accurate testing and treatment. This was particularly the case for vulnerable groups, such as children, people with MDR-TB, or people with limited ability to pay. We had high confidence in most of our findings. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-complexity diagnostics have been presented as a solution to overcome deficiencies in laboratory infrastructure and lack of skilled professionals. This review indicates this is misleading. The lack of infrastructure and human resources undermine the added value new diagnostics of low complexity have for recipients and providers. We had high confidence in the evidence contributing to these review findings. Implementation of new diagnostic technologies, like those considered in this review, will need to tackle the challenges identified in this review including weak infrastructure and systems, and insufficient data on ground level realities prior and during implementation, as well as problems of conflicts of interest in order to ensure equitable use of resources.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay for tuberculosis disease and rifampicin resistance in children.

BACKGROUND: Every year, an estimated one million children and young adolescents become ill with tuberculosis, and around 226,000 of those children die. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) is a molecular World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid diagnostic test that simultaneously detects Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance. We previously published a Cochrane Review 'Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assays for tuberculosis disease and rifampicin resistance in children'. The current review updates evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra in children presumed to have tuberculosis disease. Parts of this review update informed the 2022 WHO updated guidance on management of tuberculosis in children and adolescents. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra for detecting: pulmonary tuberculosis, tuberculous meningitis, lymph node tuberculosis, and rifampicin resistance, in children with presumed tuberculosis. Secondary objectives To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in accuracy estimates. For detection of tuberculosis, we considered age, comorbidity (HIV, severe pneumonia, and severe malnutrition), and specimen type as potential sources. To summarize the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and three trial registers without language restrictions to 9 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional and cohort studies and randomized trials that evaluated Xpert Ultra in HIV-positive and HIV-negative children under 15 years of age. We included ongoing studies that helped us address the review objectives. We included studies evaluating sputum, gastric, stool, or nasopharyngeal specimens (pulmonary tuberculosis), cerebrospinal fluid (tuberculous meningitis), and fine needle aspirate or surgical biopsy tissue (lymph node tuberculosis). For detecting tuberculosis, reference standards were microbiological (culture) or composite reference standard; for stool, we also included Xpert Ultra performed on a routine respiratory specimen. For detecting rifampicin resistance, reference standards were drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and, using QUADAS-2, assessed methodological quality judging risk of bias separately for each target condition and reference standard. For each target condition, we used the bivariate model to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We stratified all analyses by type of reference standard. We summarized the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace results; trace represents detection of a very low quantity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 14 studies (11 new studies since the previous review). For detection of pulmonary tuberculosis, 335 data sets (25,937 participants) were available for analysis. We did not identify any studies that evaluated Xpert Ultra accuracy for tuberculous meningitis or lymph node tuberculosis. Three studies evaluated Xpert Ultra for detection of rifampicin resistance. Ten studies (71%) took place in countries with a high tuberculosis burden based on WHO classification. Overall, risk of bias was low. Detection of pulmonary tuberculosis Sputum, 5 studies Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 75.3% (95% CI 64.3 to 83.8; 127 participants; high-certainty evidence), and specificity was 97.1% (95% CI 94.7 to 98.5; 1054 participants; high-certainty evidence). Gastric aspirate, 7 studies Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 70.4% (95% CI 53.9 to 82.9; 120 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and specificity was 94.1% (95% CI 84.8 to 97.8; 870 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Stool, 6 studies Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 56.1% (95% CI 39.1 to 71.7; 200 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 93.3 to 99.4; 1232 participants; high certainty-evidence). Nasopharyngeal aspirate, 4 studies Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 43.7% (95% CI 26.7 to 62.2; 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity was 97.5% (95% CI 93.6 to 99.0; 489 participants; high-certainty evidence). Xpert Ultra sensitivity was lower against a composite than a culture reference standard for all specimen types other than nasopharyngeal aspirate, while specificity was similar against both reference standards. Interpretation of results In theory, for a population of 1000 children: • where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in sputum (by culture): - 101 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 26 (26%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and - 899 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). • where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in gastric aspirate (by culture): - 123 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 53 (43%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and - 877 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). • where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in stool (by culture): - 74 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 18 (24%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and - 926 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 44 (5%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). • where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in nasopharyngeal aspirate (by culture): - 66 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 22 (33%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and - 934 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 56 (6%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). Detection of rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra sensitivity was 100% (3 studies, 3 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity range was 97% to 100% (3 studies, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trace results Xpert Ultra trace results, regarded as positive in children by WHO standards, were common. Xpert Ultra specificity remained high in children, despite the frequency of trace results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found Xpert Ultra sensitivity to vary by specimen type, with sputum having the highest sensitivity, followed by gastric aspirate and stool. Nasopharyngeal aspirate had the lowest sensitivity. Xpert Ultra specificity was high against both microbiological and composite reference standards. However, the evidence base is still limited, and findings may be imprecise and vary by study setting. Although we found Xpert Ultra accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance, results were based on a very small number of studies that included only three children with rifampicin resistance. Therefore, findings should be interpreted with caution. Our findings provide support for the use of Xpert Ultra as an initial rapid molecular diagnostic in children being evaluated for tuberculosis.

Impact of diagnostic strategies for tuberculosis using lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay in people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis is the primary cause of hospital admission in people living with HIV, and the likelihood of death in the hospital is unacceptably high. The Alere Determine TB LAM Ag test (AlereLAM) is a point-of-care test and the only lateral flow lipoarabinomannan assay (LF-LAM) assay currently commercially available and recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO). A 2019 Cochrane Review summarised the diagnostic accuracy of LF-LAM for tuberculosis in people living with HIV. This systematic review assesses the impact of the use of LF-LAM (AlereLAM) on mortality and other patient-important outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of the use of LF-LAM (AlereLAM) on mortality in adults living with HIV in inpatient and outpatient settings. To assess the impact of the use of LF-LAM (AlereLAM) on other patient-important outcomes in adults living with HIV, including time to diagnosis of tuberculosis, and time to initiation of tuberculosis treatment. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (PubMed); Embase (Ovid); Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), BIOSIS Previews, Scopus, LILACS; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses; ClinicalTrials.gov; and the WHO ICTRP up to 12 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that compared a diagnostic intervention including LF-LAM with diagnostic strategies that used smear microscopy, mycobacterial culture, a nucleic acid amplification test such as Xpert MTB/RIF, or a combination of these tests. We included adults (≥ 15 years) living with HIV. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, extracted data, and analysed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized studies. We contacted study authors for clarification as needed. We used risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We used a fixed-effect model except in the presence of clinical or statistical heterogeneity, in which case we used a random-effects model. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials, two in inpatient settings and one in outpatient settings. All trials were conducted in sub-Saharan Africa and assessed the impact of diagnostic strategies that included LF-LAM on mortality when the test was used in conjunction with other tuberculosis diagnostic tests or clinical assessment for clinical decision-making in adults living with HIV. Inpatient settings  In inpatient settings, the use of LF-LAM testing as part of a tuberculosis diagnostic strategy likely reduces mortality in people living with HIV at eight weeks compared to routine tuberculosis diagnostic testing without LF-LAM (pooled RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.94; 5102 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). That is, people living with HIV who received LF-LAM had 15% lower risk of mortality. The absolute effect was 34 fewer deaths per 1000 (from 14 fewer to 55 fewer). In inpatient settings, the use of LF-LAM testing as part of a tuberculosis diagnostic strategy probably results in a slight increase in the proportion of people living with HIV who were started on tuberculosis treatment compared to routine tuberculosis diagnostic testing without LF-LAM (pooled RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.69; 5102 participants, 2 trials; moderate-certainty evidence).  Outpatient settings In outpatient settings, the use of LF-LAM testing as part of a tuberculosis diagnostic strategy may reduce mortality in people living with HIV at six months compared to routine tuberculosis diagnostic testing without LF-LAM (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.11; 2972 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence). Although this trial did not detect a difference in mortality, the direction of effect was towards a mortality reduction, and the effect size was similar to that in inpatient settings.  In outpatient settings, the use of LF-LAM testing as part of a tuberculosis diagnostic strategy may result in a large increase in the proportion of people living with HIV who were started on tuberculosis treatment compared to routine tuberculosis diagnostic testing without LF-LAM (RR 5.44, 95% CI 4.70 to 6.29, 3022 participants, 1 trial; low-certainty evidence). Other patient-important outcomes Assessment of other patient-important and implementation outcomes in the trials varied. The included trials demonstrated that a higher proportion of people living with HIV were able to produce urine compared to sputum for tuberculosis diagnostic testing; a higher proportion of people living with HIV were diagnosed with tuberculosis in the group that received LF-LAM; and the incremental diagnostic yield was higher for LF-LAM than for urine or sputum Xpert MTB/RIF. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In inpatient settings, the use of LF-LAM as part of a tuberculosis diagnostic testing strategy likely reduces mortality and probably results in a slight increase in tuberculosis treatment initiation in people living with HIV. The reduction in mortality may be due to earlier diagnosis, which facilitates prompt treatment initiation. In outpatient settings, the use of LF-LAM testing as part of a tuberculosis diagnostic strategy may reduce mortality and may result in a large increase in tuberculosis treatment initiation in people living with HIV. Our results support the implementation of LF-LAM to be used in conjunction with other WHO-recommended tuberculosis diagnostic tests to assist in the rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis in people living with HIV.

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra assays for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis is a leading cause of infectious disease-related death and is one of the top 10 causes of death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of specific rapid molecular tests, including Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra, as initial diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in people with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. However, the WHO estimates that nearly one-third of all active tuberculosis cases go undiagnosed and unreported. We were interested in whether a single test, Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra, could be useful as a screening test to close this diagnostic gap and improve tuberculosis case detection. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in high-risk groups and in the general population. Screening "irrespective of signs or symptoms" refers to screening of people who have not been assessed for the presence of tuberculosis symptoms (e.g. cough). To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for detecting rifampicin resistance in adults screened for tuberculosis, irrespective of signs and symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in high-risk groups and in the general population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 12 databases including the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and Embase, on 19 March 2020 without language restrictions. We also reviewed reference lists of included articles and related Cochrane Reviews, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional and cohort studies in which adults (15 years and older) in high-risk groups (e.g. people living with HIV, household contacts of people with tuberculosis) or in the general population were screened for pulmonary tuberculosis using Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra. For tuberculosis detection, the reference standard was culture. For rifampicin resistance detection, the reference standards were culture-based drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. We used a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) separately for tuberculosis detection and rifampicin resistance detection. We estimated all models using a Bayesian approach. For tuberculosis detection, we first estimated screening accuracy in distinct high-risk groups, including people living with HIV, household contacts, people residing in prisons, and miners, and then in several high-risk groups combined. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 21 studies: 18 studies (13,114 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test for pulmonary tuberculosis and one study (571 participants) evaluated both Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra. Three studies (159 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance. Fifteen studies (75%) were conducted in high tuberculosis burden and 16 (80%) in high TB/HIV-burden countries. We judged most studies to have low risk of bias in all four QUADAS-2 domains and low concern for applicability. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra as screening tests for pulmonary tuberculosis In people living with HIV (12 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) were 61.8% (53.6 to 69.9) (602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 98.8% (98.0 to 99.4) (4173 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 50 have tuberculosis on culture, 40 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive; of these, 9 (22%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 960 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative; of these, 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). In people living with HIV (1 study), Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 69% (57 to 80) (68 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 98% (97 to 99) (503 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 50 have tuberculosis on culture, 53 would be Xpert Ultra-positive; of these, 19 (36%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 947 would be Xpert Ultra-negative; of these, 16 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). In non-hospitalized people in high-risk groups (5 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 69.4% (47.7 to 86.2) (337 participants, low-certainty evidence) and 98.8% (97.2 to 99.5) (8619 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 10 have tuberculosis on culture, 19 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive; of these, 12 (63%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 981 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative; of these, 3 (0%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). We did not identify any studies using Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra for screening in the general population. Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test for rifampicin resistance Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was 81% and 100% (2 studies, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity was 94% to 100%, (3 studies, 139 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Of the high-risks groups evaluated, Xpert MTB/RIF applied as a screening test was accurate for tuberculosis in high tuberculosis burden settings. Sensitivity and specificity were similar in people living with HIV and non-hospitalized people in high-risk groups. In people living with HIV, Xpert Ultra sensitivity was slightly higher than that of Xpert MTB/RIF and specificity similar. As there was only one study of Xpert Ultra in this analysis, results should be interpreted with caution. There were no studies that evaluated the tests in people with diabetes mellitus and other groups considered at high-risk for tuberculosis, or in the general population.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.

BACKGROUND: Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum. To extend our previous review on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (Kohli 2018), we performed this update to inform updated WHO policy (WHO Consolidated Guidelines (Module 3) 2020). OBJECTIVES: To estimate diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, 2 August 2019 and 28 January 2020 (Xpert Ultra studies), without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional and cohort studies using non-respiratory specimens. Forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: tuberculous meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, disseminated tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture and a study-defined composite reference standard (tuberculosis detection); phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays (rifampicin resistance detection). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. For tuberculosis detection, we performed separate analyses by specimen type and reference standard using the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We applied a latent class meta-analysis model to three forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: 69 studies: 67 evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and 11 evaluated Xpert Ultra, of which nine evaluated both tests. Most studies were conducted in China, India, South Africa, and Uganda. Overall, risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains, and low (49%) or unclear (43%) for the reference standard domain. Applicability for the patient selection domain was unclear for most studies because we were unsure of the clinical settings. Cerebrospinal fluid Xpert Ultra (6 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 89.4% (79.1 to 95.6) (89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 91.2% (83.2 to 95.7) (386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 168 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 79 (47%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives) and 832 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 11 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). Xpert MTB/RIF (30 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 71.1% (62.8 to 79.1) (571 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 96.9% (95.4 to 98.0) (2824 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 99 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 28 (28%) would not have tuberculosis; and 901 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Pleural fluid Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 75.0% (58.0 to 86.4) (158 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 87.0% (63.1 to 97.9) (240 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 192 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 117 (61%) would not have tuberculosis; and 808 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (25 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 49.5% (39.8 to 59.9) (644 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.9% (97.6 to 99.7) (2421 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 60 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 10 (17%) would not have tuberculosis; and 940 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 50 (5%) would have tuberculosis. Lymph node aspirate Xpert Ultra (1 study) Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) against composite reference standard were 70% (51 to 85) (30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 100% (92 to 100) (43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 70 would be Xpert Ultra-positive and 0 (0%) would not have tuberculosis; 930 would be Xpert Ultra-negative and 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against composite reference standard were 81.6% (61.9 to 93.3) (377 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 96.4% (91.3 to 98.6) (302 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 118 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 37 (31%) would not have tuberculosis; 882 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis. In lymph node aspirate, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity against culture was 86.2% (78.0 to 92.3), lower than that against a composite reference standard. Using the latent class model, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity was 99.5% (99.1 to 99.7), similar to that observed with a composite reference standard. Rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95.1 to 100.0), (24 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 100.0% (99.0 to 100.0) (105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 100 would be Xpert Ultra-positive (resistant): of these, zero (0%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 900 would be Xpert Ultra-negative (susceptible): of these, zero (0%) would have rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF (19 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 96.5% (91.9 to 98.8) (148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 99.1% (98.0 to 99.7) (822 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 105 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive (resistant): of these, 8 (8%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 895 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative (susceptible): of these, 3 (0.3%) would have rifampicin resistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF may be helpful in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens: while for most specimens specificity is high, the tests rarely yield a positive result for people without tuberculosis. For tuberculous meningitis, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF against culture. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance. Future research should acknowledge the concern associated with culture as a reference standard in paucibacillary specimens and consider ways to address this limitation.

Screening tests for active pulmonary tuberculosis in children.

BACKGROUND: Globally, children under 15 years represent approximately 12% of new tuberculosis cases, but 16% of the estimated 1.4 million deaths. This higher share of mortality highlights the urgent need to develop strategies to improve case detection in this age group and identify children without tuberculosis disease who should be considered for tuberculosis preventive treatment. One such strategy is systematic screening for tuberculosis in high-risk groups. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the presence of one or more tuberculosis symptoms, or symptom combinations; chest radiography (CXR); Xpert MTB/RIF; Xpert Ultra; and combinations of these as screening tests for detecting active pulmonary childhood tuberculosis in the following groups. - Tuberculosis contacts, including household contacts, school contacts, and other close contacts of a person with infectious tuberculosis. - Children living with HIV. - Children with pneumonia. - Other risk groups (e.g. children with a history of previous tuberculosis, malnourished children). - Children in the general population in high tuberculosis burden settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched six databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase, on 14 February 2020 without language restrictions and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional and cohort studies where at least 75% of children were aged under 15 years. Studies were eligible if conducted for screening rather than diagnosing tuberculosis. Reference standards were microbiological (MRS) and composite reference standard (CRS), which may incorporate symptoms and CXR. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using QUADAS-2. We consolidated symptom screens across included studies into groups that used similar combinations of symptoms as follows: one or more of cough, fever, or poor weight gain and one or more of cough, fever, or decreased playfulness. For combination of symptoms, a positive screen was the presence of one or more than one symptom. We used a bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and performed analyses separately by reference standard. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen studies assessed the following screens: one symptom (15 studies, 10,097 participants); combinations of symptoms (12 studies, 29,889 participants); CXR (10 studies, 7146 participants); and Xpert MTB/RIF (2 studies, 787 participants). Several studies assessed more than one screening test. No studies assessed Xpert Ultra. For 16 studies (84%), risk of bias for the reference standard domain was unclear owing to concern about incorporation bias. Across other quality domains, risk of bias was generally low. Symptom screen (verified by CRS) One or more of cough, fever, or poor weight gain in tuberculosis contacts (4 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 2% to 13%): pooled sensitivity was 89% (95% CI 52% to 98%; 113 participants; low-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 69% (95% CI 51% to 83%; 2582 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 339 would be screen-positive, of whom 294 (87%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positives); 661 would be screen-negative, of whom five (1%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis (false negatives). One or more of cough, fever, or decreased playfulness in children aged under five years, inpatient or outpatient (3 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 3% to 13%): sensitivity ranged from 64% to 76% (106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and specificity from 37% to 77% (2339 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 251 to 636 would be screen-positive, of whom 219 to 598 (87% to 94%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 364 to 749 would be screen-negative, of whom 12 to 18 (2% to 3%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis. One or more of cough, fever, poor weight gain, or tuberculosis close contact (World Health Organization four-symptom screen) in children living with HIV, outpatient (2 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 3% and 8%): pooled sensitivity was 61% (95% CI 58% to 64%; 1219 screens; moderate-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 94% (95% CI 86% to 98%; 201,916 screens; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 symptom screens where 50 of the screens are on children with pulmonary tuberculosis, 88 would be screen-positive, of which 57 (65%) would be on children who do not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 912 would be screen-negative, of which 19 (2%) would be on children who have pulmonary tuberculosis. CXR (verified by CRS) CXR with any abnormality in tuberculosis contacts (8 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 2% to 25%): pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI 75% to 93%; 232 participants; low-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 99% (95% CI 68% to 100%; 3281 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children, where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 63 would be screen-positive, of whom 19 (30%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 937 would be screen-negative, of whom 6 (1%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (verified by MRS) Xpert MTB/RIF, inpatient or outpatient (2 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 1% and 4%): sensitivity was 43% and 100% (16 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity was 99% and 100% (771 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children, where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 31 to 69 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive, of whom 9 to 19 (28% to 29%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 969 to 931 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative, of whom 0 to 28 (0% to 3%) would have tuberculosis. Studies often assessed more symptoms than those included in the index test and symptom definitions varied. These differences complicated data aggregation and may have influenced accuracy estimates. Both symptoms and CXR formed part of the CRS (incorporation bias), which may have led to overestimation of sensitivity and specificity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that in children who are tuberculosis contacts or living with HIV, screening tests using symptoms or CXR may be useful, but our review is limited by design issues with the index test and incorporation bias in the reference standard. For Xpert MTB/RIF, we found insufficient evidence regarding screening accuracy. Prospective evaluations of screening tests for tuberculosis in children will help clarify their use. In the meantime, screening strategies need to be pragmatic to address the persistent gaps in prevention and case detection that exist in resource-limited settings.

Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in people with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. This review builds on our recent extensive Cochrane Review of Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and detection of rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis. For pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance, we also investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. We also summarized the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace-positive results, and estimated the accuracy of Xpert Ultra after repeat testing in those with trace-positive results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, the WHO ICTRP, the ISRCTN registry, and ProQuest to 28 January 2020 with no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies using respiratory specimens in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis that directly compared the index tests. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, the reference standards were culture and a composite reference standard. For rifampicin resistance, the reference standards were culture-based drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form, including data by smear and HIV status. We assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. We performed meta-analyses comparing pooled sensitivities and specificities, separately for pulmonary tuberculosis detection and rifampicin resistance detection, and separately by reference standard. Most analyses used a bivariate random-effects model. For tuberculosis detection, we estimated accuracy in studies in participants who were not selected based on prior microscopy testing or history of tuberculosis. We performed subgroup analyses by smear status, HIV status, and history of tuberculosis. We summarized Xpert Ultra trace results. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine studies (3500 participants): seven had unselected participants (2834 participants). All compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis detection; seven studies used a paired comparative accuracy design, and two studies used a randomized design. Five studies compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection; four studies used a paired design, and one study used a randomized design. Of the nine included studies, seven (78%) were mainly or exclusively in high tuberculosis burden countries. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, most studies had low risk of bias in all domains. Pulmonary tuberculosis detection Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval) against culture were 90.9% (86.2 to 94.7) and 95.6% (93.0 to 97.4) (7 studies, 2834 participants; high-certainty evidence) versus Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity of 84.7% (78.6 to 89.9) and 98.4% (97.0 to 99.3) (7 studies, 2835 participants; high-certainty evidence). The difference in the accuracy of Xpert Ultra minus Xpert MTB/RIF was estimated at 6.3% (0.1 to 12.8) for sensitivity and -2.7% (-5.7 to -0.5) for specificity. If the point estimates for Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, where 10% of those presenting with symptoms have pulmonary tuberculosis, Xpert Ultra will miss 9 cases, and Xpert MTB/RIF will miss 15 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis would be 40 with Xpert Ultra and 14 with Xpert MTB/RIF. In smear-negative, culture-positive participants, pooled sensitivity was 77.5% (67.6 to 85.6) for Xpert Ultra versus 60.6% (48.4 to 71.7) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 95.8% (92.9 to 97.7) for Xpert Ultra versus 98.8% (97.7 to 99.5) for Xpert MTB/RIF (6 studies). In people living with HIV, pooled sensitivity was 87.6% (75.4 to 94.1) for Xpert Ultra versus 74.9% (58.7 to 86.2) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 92.8% (82.3 to 97.0) for Xpert Ultra versus 99.7% (98.6 to 100.0) for Xpert MTB/RIF (3 studies). In participants with a history of tuberculosis, pooled sensitivity was 84.2% (72.5 to 91.7) for Xpert Ultra versus 81.8% (68.7 to 90.0) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 88.2% (70.5 to 96.6) for Xpert Ultra versus 97.4% (91.7 to 99.5) for Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies). The proportion of Ultra trace-positive results ranged from 3.0% to 30.4%. Data were insufficient to estimate the accuracy of Xpert Ultra repeat testing in individuals with initial trace-positive results. Rifampicin resistance detection Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 94.9% (88.9 to 97.9) and 99.1% (97.7 to 99.8) (5 studies, 921 participants; high-certainty evidence) for Xpert Ultra versus 95.3% (90.0 to 98.1) and 98.8% (97.2 to 99.6) (5 studies, 930 participants; high-certainty evidence) for Xpert MTB/RIF. The difference in the accuracy of Xpert Ultra minus Xpert MTB/RIF was estimated at -0.3% (-6.9 to 5.7) for sensitivity and 0.3% (-1.2 to 2.0) for specificity. If the point estimates for Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, where 10% of those presenting with symptoms have rifampicin resistance, Xpert Ultra will miss 5 cases, and Xpert MTB/RIF will miss 5 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with rifampicin resistance would be 8 with Xpert Ultra and 11 with Xpert MTB/RIF. We identified a higher number of rifampicin resistance indeterminate results with Xpert Ultra, pooled proportion 7.6% (2.4 to 21.0) compared to Xpert MTB/RIF pooled proportion 0.8% (0.2 to 2.4). The estimated difference in the pooled proportion of indeterminate rifampicin resistance results for Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF was 6.7% (1.4 to 20.1). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Xpert Ultra has higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in smear-negative participants and people living with HIV. Xpert Ultra specificity was lower than that of Xpert MTB/RIF in participants with a history of tuberculosis. The sensitivity and specificity trade-off would be expected to vary by setting. For detection of rifampicin resistance, Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity. Ultra trace-positive results were common. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF provide accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of treatment for rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews-they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests. METHODS: We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world. RESULTS: All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assays for active tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in children.

BACKGROUND: Every year, at least one million children become ill with tuberculosis and around 200,000 children die. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid molecular tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults and children with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis, at lower health system levels. To inform updated WHO guidelines on molecular assays, we performed a systematic review on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests in children presumed to have active tuberculosis. OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives • To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for (a) pulmonary tuberculosis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; (b) tuberculous meningitis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; (c) lymph node tuberculosis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; and (d) rifampicin resistance in children presumed to have tuberculosis - For tuberculosis detection, index tests were used as the initial test, replacing standard practice (i.e. smear microscopy or culture) - For detection of rifampicin resistance, index tests replaced culture-based drug susceptibility testing as the initial test Secondary objectives • To compare the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for each of the four target conditions • To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in accuracy estimates - For tuberculosis detection, we considered age, disease severity, smear-test status, HIV status, clinical setting, specimen type, high tuberculosis burden, and high tuberculosis/HIV burden - For detection of rifampicin resistance, we considered multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis burden • To compare multiple Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra results (repeated testing) with the initial Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra result SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry up to 29 April 2019, without language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials, cross-sectional trials, and cohort studies evaluating Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra in HIV-positive and HIV-negative children younger than 15 years. Reference standards comprised culture or a composite reference standard for tuberculosis and drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus (molecular assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and drug resistance) for rifampicin resistance. We included studies evaluating sputum, gastric aspirate, stool, nasopharyngeal or bronchial lavage specimens (pulmonary tuberculosis), cerebrospinal fluid (tuberculous meningitis), fine needle aspirates, or surgical biopsy tissue (lymph node tuberculosis). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2). For each target condition, we used the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We stratified all analyses by type of reference standard. We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: For pulmonary tuberculosis, 299 data sets (68,544 participants) were available for analysis; for tuberculous meningitis, 10 data sets (423 participants) were available; for lymph node tuberculosis, 10 data sets (318 participants) were available; and for rifampicin resistance, 14 data sets (326 participants) were available. Thirty-nine studies (80%) took place in countries with high tuberculosis burden. Risk of bias was low except for the reference standard domain, for which risk of bias was unclear because many studies collected only one specimen for culture. Detection of pulmonary tuberculosis For sputum specimens, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) verified by culture were 64.6% (55.3% to 72.9%) (23 studies, 493 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 99.0% (98.1% to 99.5%) (23 studies, 6119 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For other specimen types (nasopharyngeal aspirate, 4 studies; gastric aspirate, 14 studies; stool, 11 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity ranged between 45.7% and 73.0%, and pooled specificity ranged between 98.1% and 99.6%. For sputum specimens, Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) verified by culture were 72.8% (64.7% to 79.6%) (3 studies, 136 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 97.5% (95.8% to 98.5%) (3 studies, 551 participants; high-certainty evidence). For nasopharyngeal specimens, Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) were 45.7% (28.9% to 63.3%) and 97.5% (93.7% to 99.3%) (1 study, 195 participants). For all specimen types, Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra sensitivity were lower against a composite reference standard than against culture. Detection of tuberculous meningitis For cerebrospinal fluid, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity, verified by culture, were 54.0% (95% CI 27.8% to 78.2%) (6 studies, 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 93.8% (95% CI 84.5% to 97.6%) (6 studies, 213 participants; low-certainty evidence). Detection of lymph node tuberculosis For lymph node aspirates or biopsies, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity, verified by culture, were 90.4% (95% CI 55.7% to 98.6%) (6 studies, 68 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 89.8% (95% CI 71.5% to 96.8%) (6 studies, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). Detection of rifampicin resistance Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% (67.6% to 97.5%) (6 studies, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.3% (87.7% to 99.8%) (6 studies, 203 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity to vary by specimen type, with gastric aspirate specimens having the highest sensitivity followed by sputum and stool, and nasopharyngeal specimens the lowest; specificity in all specimens was > 98%. Compared with Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra sensitivity in sputum was higher and specificity slightly lower. Xpert MTB/RIF was accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF was sensitive for diagnosing lymph node tuberculosis. For children with presumed tuberculous meningitis, treatment decisions should be based on the entirety of clinical information and treatment should not be withheld based solely on an Xpert MTB/RIF result. The small numbers of studies and participants, particularly for Xpert Ultra, limits our confidence in the precision of these estimates.

Guidance for the Evaluation of Tuberculosis Diagnostics That Meet the World Health Organization (WHO) Target Product Profiles: An Introduction to WHO Process and Study Design Principles.

Existing high-priority target product profiles (TPPs) of the World Health Organization (WHO) establish important needs for tuberculosis (TB) diagnostic development. Building on this earlier work, this guidance series aims to provide study guidance for performing accuracy studies of novel diagnostic products that may meet the 4 high-priority WHO TPPs and thus enable adequate evidence generation to inform a WHO evidence review process. Diagnostic accuracy studies represent a fundamental step in the validation of all tests. Unfortunately, such studies often have limitations in design, execution, and reporting, leading to low certainty of the evidence about true test performance, which can delay or impede policy and scale-up decisions. This introductory paper outlines the following: (1) the purpose of this series of papers on study guidance; (2) WHO evidence needs and process for the development of policy guidelines for new TB diagnostic tests; and (3) study design considerations, ie, general diagnostic study considerations, intended use of test and role in the clinical pathway, choice of population and setting, index-test specific issues, suitable reference standard and comparators, study flow and specimen issues, and finally key issues beyond accuracy that should be considered. The other 4 papers in this series will provide more detailed guidance for each of the 4 WHO high-priority TPPs. By increasing the clarity around the clinical evaluation needs for tests that have the potential to meet the TPP specifications, we hope to support harmonized evidence generation and enable the WHO review process towards meeting the WHO End TB Strategy targets for reducing the incidence and mortality associated with TB.

Guidance for Studies Evaluating the Accuracy of Sputum-Based Tests to Diagnose Tuberculosis.

Tests that can replace sputum smear microscopy have been identified as a top priority diagnostic need for tuberculosis by the World Health Organization. High-quality evidence on diagnostic accuracy for tests that may meet this need is an essential requirement to inform decisions about policy and scale-up. However, test accuracy studies are often of low and inconsistent quality and poorly reported, leading to uncertainty about true test performance. Here we provide guidance for the design of diagnostic test accuracy studies of sputum smear-replacement tests. Such studies should have a cross-sectional or cohort design, enrolling either a consecutive series or a random sample of patients who require evaluation for tuberculosis. Adults with respiratory symptoms are the target population. The reference standard should at a minimum be a single, automated, liquid culture, but additional cultures, follow-up, clinical case definition, and specific measures to understand discordant results should also be included. Inclusion of smear microscopy and Xpert MTB/RIF (or MTB/RIF Ultra) as comparators is critical to allow broader comparability and generalizability of results, because disease spectrum can vary between studies and affects relative test performance. Given the complex nature of sputum (the primary specimen type used for pulmonary TB), careful design and reporting of the specimen flow is essential. Test characteristics other than accuracy (such as feasibility, implementation considerations, and data on impact on patient, population and health systems outcomes) are also important aspects.

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.

BACKGROUND: Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert MTB/RIF) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra), the newest version, are the only World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in persons with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis, at lower health system levels. A previous Cochrane Review found Xpert MTB/RIF sensitive and specific for tuberculosis (Steingart 2014). Since the previous review, new studies have been published. We performed a review update for an upcoming WHO policy review. OBJECTIVES: To determine diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for tuberculosis in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and for rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, to 11 October 2018, without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials, cross-sectional, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra, or both against the reference standard, culture for tuberculosis and culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus for rifampicin resistance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we also extracted data by smear and HIV status. We assessed study quality using QUADAS-2 and performed meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity separately for tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance. We investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. Most analyses used a bivariate random-effects model. For tuberculosis detection, we first estimated accuracy using all included studies and then only the subset of studies where participants were unselected, i.e. not selected based on prior microscopy testing. MAIN RESULTS: We identified in total 95 studies (77 new studies since the previous review): 86 studies (42,091 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis and 57 studies (8287 participants) for rifampicin resistance. One study compared Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra on the same participant specimen.Tuberculosis detectionOf the total 86 studies, 45 took place in high tuberculosis burden and 50 in high TB/HIV burden countries. Most studies had low risk of bias.Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible Interval (CrI)) were 85% (82% to 88%) and 98% (97% to 98%), (70 studies, 37,237 unselected participants; high-certainty evidence). We found similar accuracy when we included all studies.For a population of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculosis on culture, 103 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 18 (17%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); 897 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 15 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives).Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 88% (85% to 91%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 83% (79% to 86%); Xpert Ultra specificity was 96% (94% to 97%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 98% (97% to 99%), (1 study, 1439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 98% (97% to 98%) in smear-positive and 67% (62% to 72%) in smear-negative, culture-positive participants, (45 studies). Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 88% (83% to 92%) in HIV-negative and 81% (75% to 86%) in HIV-positive participants; specificities were similar 98% (97% to 99%), (14 studies).Rifampicin resistance detectionXpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% Crl) were 96% (94% to 97%) and 98% (98% to 99%), (48 studies, 8020 participants; high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, 114 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and 18 (16%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); 886 would be would be negative for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and four (0.4%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% CI) was 95% (90% to 98%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 95% (91% to 98%); Xpert Ultra specificity was 98% (97% to 99%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 98% (96% to 99%), (1 study, 551 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found Xpert MTB/RIF to be sensitive and specific for diagnosing PTB and rifampicin resistance, consistent with findings reported previously. Xpert MTB/RIF was more sensitive for tuberculosis in smear-positive than smear-negative participants and HIV-negative than HIV-positive participants. Compared with Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity for tuberculosis and similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance (1 study). Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra provide accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay for detecting active tuberculosis in people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: The lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) assay Alere Determine™ TB LAM Ag is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to help detect active tuberculosis in HIV-positive people with severe HIV disease. This review update asks the question, "does new evidence justify the use of LF-LAM in a broader group of people?", and is part of the WHO process for updating guidance on the use of LF-LAM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of LF-LAM for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis among HIV-positive adults with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis (symptomatic participants) and among HIV-positive adults irrespective of signs and symptoms of tuberculosis (unselected participants not assessed for tuberculosis signs and symptoms).The proposed role for LF-LAM is as an add on to clinical judgement and with other tests to assist in diagnosing tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, without language restriction to 11 May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials, cross-sectional, and observational cohort studies that evaluated LF-LAM for active tuberculosis (pulmonary and extrapulmonary) in HIV-positive adults. We included studies that used the manufacturer's recommended threshold for test positivity, either the updated reference card with four bands (grade 1 of 4) or the corresponding prior reference card grade with five bands (grade 2 of 5). The reference standard was culture or nucleic acid amplification test from any body site (microbiological). We considered a higher quality reference standard to be one in which two or more specimen types were evaluated for tuberculosis diagnosis and a lower quality reference standard to be one in which only one specimen type was evaluated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form and REDCap electronic data capture tools. We appraised the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool and performed meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects model and a Bayesian approach. We analyzed studies enrolling strictly symptomatic participants separately from those enrolling unselected participants. We investigated pre-defined sources of heterogeneity including the influence of CD4 count and clinical setting on the accuracy estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 unique studies (nine new studies and six studies from the original review that met the inclusion criteria): eight studies among symptomatic adults and seven studies among unselected adults. All studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries. Risk of bias was high in the patient selection and reference standard domains, mainly because studies excluded participants unable to produce sputum and used a lower quality reference standard.Participants with tuberculosis symptomsLF-LAM pooled sensitivity (95% credible interval (CrI) ) was 42% (31% to 55%) (moderate-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 91% (85% to 95%) (very low-certainty evidence), (8 studies, 3449 participants, 37% with tuberculosis).For a population of 1000 people where 300 have microbiologically-confirmed tuberculosis, the utilization of LF-LAM would result in: 189 to be LF-LAM positive: of these, 63 (33%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 811 to be LF-LAM negative: of these, 174 (21%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives).By clinical setting, pooled sensitivity was 52% (40% to 64%) among inpatients versus 29% (17% to 47%) among outpatients; and pooled specificity was 87% (78% to 93%) among inpatients versus 96% (91% to 99%) among outpatients. Stratified by CD4 cell count, pooled sensitivity increased, and specificity decreased with lower CD4 cell count.Unselected participants not assessed for signs and symptoms of tuberculosisLF-LAM pooled sensitivity was 35% (22% to 50%), (moderate-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 95% (89% to 96%), (low-certainty evidence), (7 studies, 3365 participants, 13% with tuberculosis).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have microbiologically-confirmed tuberculosis, the utilization of LF-LAM would result in: 80 to be LF-LAM positive: of these, 45 (56%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 920 to be LF-LAM negative: of these, 65 (7%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives).By clinical setting, pooled sensitivity was 62% (41% to 83%) among inpatients versus 31% (18% to 47%) among outpatients; pooled specificity was 84% (48% to 96%) among inpatients versus 95% (87% to 99%) among outpatients. Stratified by CD4 cell count, pooled sensitivity increased, and specificity decreased with lower CD4 cell count. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that LF-LAM has a sensitivity of 42% to diagnose tuberculosis in HIV-positive individuals with tuberculosis symptoms and 35% in HIV-positive individuals not assessed for tuberculosis symptoms, consistent with findings reported previously. Regardless of how people are enrolled, sensitivity is higher in inpatients and those with lower CD4 cell, but a concomitant lower specificity. As a simple point-of-care test that does not depend upon sputum evaluation, LF-LAM may assist with the diagnosis of tuberculosis, particularly when a sputum specimen cannot be produced.

Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) is the world's leading infectious cause of death. Extrapulmonary TB accounts for 15% of TB cases, but the proportion is increasing, and over half a million people were newly diagnosed with rifampicin-resistant TB in 2016. Xpert® MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended, rapid, automated, nucleic acid amplification assay that is used widely for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum specimens. This Cochrane Review assessed the accuracy of Xpert in extrapulmonary specimens. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert a) for extrapulmonary TB by site of disease in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB; and b) for rifampicin resistance in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry, and ProQuest up to 7 August 2017 without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of Xpert in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. We included TB meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, and disseminated TB. We used culture as the reference standard. For pleural TB, we also included a composite reference standard, which defined a positive result as the presence of granulomatous inflammation or a positive culture result. For rifampicin resistance, we used culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus as the reference standard. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. We determined pooled predicted sensitivity and specificity for TB, grouped by type of extrapulmonary specimen, and for rifampicin resistance. For TB detection, we used a bivariate random-effects model. Recognizing that use of culture may lead to misclassification of cases of extrapulmonary TB as 'not TB' owing to the paucibacillary nature of the disease, we adjusted accuracy estimates by applying a latent class meta-analysis model. For rifampicin resistance detection, we performed univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected. We used theoretical populations with an assumed prevalence to provide illustrative numbers of patients with false positive and false negative results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 unique studies that evaluated 16,213 specimens for detection of extrapulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance. We identified only one study that evaluated the newest test version, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), for TB meningitis. Fifty studies (76%) took place in low- or middle-income countries. Risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains and was high or unclear for the reference standard domain (most of these studies decontaminated sterile specimens before culture inoculation). Regarding applicability, in the patient selection domain, we scored high or unclear concern for most studies because either patients were evaluated exclusively as inpatients at tertiary care centres, or we were not sure about the clinical settings.Pooled Xpert sensitivity (defined by culture) varied across different types of specimens (31% in pleural tissue to 97% in bone or joint fluid); Xpert sensitivity was > 80% in urine and bone or joint fluid and tissue. Pooled Xpert specificity (defined by culture) varied less than sensitivity (82% in bone or joint tissue to 99% in pleural fluid and urine). Xpert specificity was ≥ 98% in cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, urine, and peritoneal fluid.Xpert testing in cerebrospinal fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval (CrI)) against culture were 71.1% (60.9% to 80.4%) and 98.0% (97.0% to 98.8%), respectively (29 studies, 3774 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have TB meningitis on culture, 89 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 18 (20%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 911 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have TB (false-negatives).For TB meningitis, ultra sensitivity and specificity against culture (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 90% (55% to 100%) and 90% (83% to 95%), respectively (one study, 129 participants).Xpert testing in pleural fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 50.9% (39.7% to 62.8%) and 99.2% (98.2% to 99.7%), respectively (27 studies, 4006 specimens; low-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 150 have pleural TB on culture, 83 would be Xpert-positive: of these, seven (8%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 917 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 74 (8%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing in urineXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 82.7% (69.6% to 91.1%) and 98.7% (94.8% to 99.7%), respectively (13 studies, 1199 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 70 have genitourinary TB on culture, 70 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 12 (17%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 930 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 12 (1%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing for rifampicin resistanceXpert pooled sensitivity (20 studies, 148 specimens) and specificity (39 studies, 1088 specimens) were 95.0% (89.7% to 97.9%) and 98.7% (97.8% to 99.4%), respectively (high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 120 have rifampicin-resistant TB, 125 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 11 (9%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); and 875 would be negative for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 6 (1%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).For lymph node TB, the accuracy of culture, the reference standard used, presented a greater concern for bias than in other forms of extrapulmonary TB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB, Xpert may be helpful in confirming the diagnosis. Xpert sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens, while for most specimens, specificity is high, the test rarely yielding a positive result for people without TB (defined by culture). Xpert is accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. For people with presumed TB meningitis, treatment should be based on clinical judgement, and not withheld solely on an Xpert result, as is common practice when culture results are negative.

Symptom screening for active tuberculosis in pregnant women living with HIV.

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Diagnostic test accuracy). The objectives are as follows: To assess the accuracy of the four-symptom screen (cough, fever, night sweats, or weight loss) for identifying active TB in pregnant PLHIV who are screened in an outpatient or community setting. To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity of the accuracy of the four-symptom screen between studies including: ART status, CD4 cell count, gestational age, pregnancy stage (pregnancy vs. postpartum), screening test definition of cough (any cough vs. cough greater than 2 weeks).To describe the accuracy of single symptoms included within the four-symptom screen, additioal symptoms or symptom combinations, for identifying active TB in pregnant PLHIV. For example, additional symptoms may include failure to gain weight or fatigue.

Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Only 25% of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) cases are currently diagnosed. Line probe assays (LPAs) enable rapid drug-susceptibility testing for rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH) resistance and Mycobacterium tuberculosis detection. Genotype MTBDRplusV1 was WHO-endorsed in 2008 but newer LPAs have since been developed.This systematic review evaluated three LPAs: Hain Genotype MTBDRplusV1, MTBDRplusV2 and Nipro NTM+MDRTB. Study quality was assessed with QUADAS-2. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were performed for direct and indirect testing. Results for RIF and INH resistance were compared to phenotypic and composite (incorporating sequencing) reference standards. M. tuberculosis detection results were compared to culture.74 unique studies were included. For RIF resistance (21 225 samples), pooled sensitivity and specificity (with 95% confidence intervals) were 96.7% (95.6-97.5%) and 98.8% (98.2-99.2%). For INH resistance (20 954 samples), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.2% (88.2-91.9%) and 99.2% (98.7-99.5%). Results were similar for direct and indirect testing and across LPAs. Using a composite reference standard, specificity increased marginally. For M. tuberculosis detection (3451 samples), pooled sensitivity was 94% (89.4-99.4%) for smear-positive specimens and 44% (20.2-71.7%) for smear-negative specimens.In patients with pulmonary TB, LPAs have high sensitivity and specificity for RIF resistance and high specificity and good sensitivity for INH resistance. This meta-analysis provides evidence for policy and practice.

GenoType® MTBDRsl assay for resistance to second-line anti-tuberculosis drugs.

BACKGROUND: Genotype® MTBDRsl (MTBDRsl) is a rapid DNA-based test for detecting specific mutations associated with resistance to fluoroquinolones and second-line injectable drugs (SLIDs) in Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex. MTBDRsl version 2.0 (released in 2015) identifies the mutations detected by version 1.0, as well as additional mutations. The test may be performed on a culture isolate or a patient specimen, which eliminates delays associated with culture. Version 1.0 requires a smear-positive specimen, while version 2.0 may use a smear-positive or -negative specimen. We performed this updated review as part of a World Health Organization process to develop updated guidelines for using MTBDRsl. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for: 1. fluoroquinolone resistance, 2. SLID resistance, and 3. extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis, indirectly on a M. tuberculosis isolate grown from culture or directly on a patient specimen. Participants were people with rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis. The role of MTBDRsl would be as the initial test, replacing culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST), for detecting second-line drug resistance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restrictions up to 21 September 2015: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; Embase OVID; Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science, and BIOSIS Previews (all three from Web of Science); LILACS; and SCOPUS; registers for ongoing trials; and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. We reviewed references from included studies and contacted specialists in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included cross-sectional and case-control studies that determined MTBDRsl accuracy against a defined reference standard (culture-based DST, genetic sequencing, or both). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We synthesized data for versions 1.0 and 2.0 separately. We estimated MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity for fluoroquinolone resistance, SLID resistance, and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis when the test was performed indirectly or directly (smear-positive specimen for version 1.0, smear-positive or -negative specimen for version 2.0). We explored the influence on accuracy estimates of individual drugs within a drug class and of different reference standards. We performed most analyses using a bivariate random-effects model with culture-based DST as reference standard. MAIN RESULTS: We included 27 studies. Twenty-six studies evaluated version 1.0, and one study version 2.0. Of 26 studies stating specimen country origin, 15 studies (58%) evaluated patients from low- or middle-income countries. Overall, we considered the studies to be of high methodological quality. However, only three studies (11%) had low risk of bias for the reference standard; these studies used World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended critical concentrations for all drugs in the culture-based DST reference standard. MTBDRsl version 1.0 Fluoroquinolone resistance: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 85.6% (79.2% to 90.4%) and 98.5% (95.7% to 99.5%), (19 studies, 2223 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 86.2% (74.6% to 93.0%) and 98.6% (96.9% to 99.4%), (nine studies, 1771 participants, moderate quality evidence). SLID resistance: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity were 76.5% (63.3% to 86.0%) and 99.1% (97.3% to 99.7%), (16 studies, 1921 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87.0% (38.1% to 98.6%) and 99.5% (93.6% to 100.0%), (eight studies, 1639 participants, low quality evidence). Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: indirect testing, MTBDRsl pooled sensitivity and specificity were 70.9% (42.9% to 88.8%) and 98.8% (96.1% to 99.6%), (eight studies, 880 participants); direct testing (smear-positive specimen), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 69.4% (38.8% to 89.0%) and 99.4% (95.0% to 99.3%), (six studies, 1420 participants, low quality evidence).Similar to the original Cochrane review, we found no evidence of a significant difference in MTBDRsl version 1.0 accuracy between indirect and direct testing for fluoroquinolone resistance, SLID resistance, and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis. MTBDRsl version 2.0 Fluoroquinolone resistance: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 97% (83% to 100%) and 98% (93% to 100%), smear-positive specimen; 80% (28% to 99%) and 100% (40% to 100%), smear-negative specimen. SLID resistance: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 89% (72% to 98%) and 90% (84% to 95%), smear-positive specimen; 80% (28% to 99%) and 100% (40% to 100%), smear-negative specimen. Extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis: direct testing, MTBDRsl sensitivity and specificity were 79% (49% to 95%) and 97% (93% to 99%), smear-positive specimen; 50% (1% to 99%) and 100% (59% to 100%), smear-negative specimen.We had insufficient data to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity of version 2.0 (smear-positive and -negative specimens) or to compare accuracy of the two versions.A limitation was that most included studies did not consistently use the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended concentrations for drugs in the culture-based DST reference standard. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people with rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, MTBDRsl performed on a culture isolate or smear-positive specimen may be useful in detecting second-line drug resistance. MTBDRsl (smear-positive specimen) correctly classified around six in seven people as having fluoroquinolone or SLID resistance, although the sensitivity estimates for SLID resistance varied. The test rarely gave a positive result for people without drug resistance. However, when second-line drug resistance is not detected (MTBDRsl result is negative), conventional DST can still be used to evaluate patients for resistance to the fluoroquinolones or SLIDs.We recommend that future work evaluate MTBDRsl version 2.0, in particular on smear-negative specimens and in different settings to account for different resistance-causing mutations that may vary by strain. Researchers should also consider incorporating WHO-recommended critical concentrations into their culture-based reference standards.

Lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay for detecting active tuberculosis in HIV-positive adults.

BACKGROUND: Rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a global health priority. HIV-associated TB may have different clinical presentations and is challenging to diagnose. Conventional sputum tests have reduced sensitivity in HIV-positive individuals, who have higher rates of extrapulmonary TB compared with HIV-negative individuals. The lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay (LF-LAM) is a new, commercially available point-of-care test that detects lipoarabinomannan (LAM), a lipopolysaccharide present in mycobacterial cell walls, in people with active TB disease. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of LF-LAM for the diagnosis of active TB disease in HIV-positive adults who have signs and symptoms suggestive of TB (TB diagnosis).To assess the accuracy of LF-LAM as a screening test for active TB disease in HIV-positive adults irrespective of signs and symptoms suggestive of TB (TB screening). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases without language restriction on 5 February 2015: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE (PubMed,1966); EMBASE (OVID, from 1980); Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED, from 1900), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S, from 1900), and BIOSIS Previews (from 1926) (all three using the Web of Science platform; MEDION; LILACS (BIREME, from 1982); SCOPUS (from 1995); the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT); the search portal of the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP); and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&l (from 1861). SELECTION CRITERIA: Eligible study types included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies that determined LF-LAM accuracy for TB against a microbiological reference standard (culture or nucleic acid amplification test from any body site). A higher quality reference standard was one in which two or more specimen types were evaluated for TB, and a lower quality reference standard was one in which only one specimen type was evaluated for TB. Participants were HIV-positive people aged 15 years and older. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study using a standardized form. We appraised the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We evaluated the test at two different cut-offs: (grade 1 or 2, based on the reference card scale of five intensity bands). Most analyses used grade 2, the manufacturer's currently recommended cut-off for positivity. We carried out meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects model and estimated the models using a Bayesian approach. We determined accuracy of LF-LAM combined with sputum microscopy or Xpert® MTB/RIF. In addition, we explored the influence of CD4 count on the accuracy estimates. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies: six studies evaluated LF-LAM for TB diagnosis and six studies evaluated the test for TB screening. All studies were cross-sectional or cohort studies. Studies for TB diagnosis were largely conducted among inpatients (median CD4 range 71 to 210 cells per µL) and studies for TB screening were largely conducted among outpatients (median CD4 range 127 to 437 cells per µL). All studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries. Only two studies for TB diagnosis (33%) and one study for TB screening (17%) used a higher quality reference standard.LF-LAM for TB diagnosis (grade 2 cut-off): meta-analyses showed median pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval (CrI)) of 45% (29% to 63%) and 92% (80% to 97%), (five studies, 2313 participants, 35% with TB, low quality evidence). The pooled sensitivity of a combination of LF-LAM and sputum microscopy (either test positive) was 59% (47% to 70%), which represented a 19% (4% to 36%) increase over sputum microscopy alone, while the pooled specificity was 92% (73% to 97%), which represented a 6% (1% to 24%) decrease from sputum microscopy alone (four studies, 1876 participants, 38% with TB). The pooled sensitivity of a combination of LF-LAM and sputum Xpert® MTB/RIF (either test positive) was 75% (61% to 87%) and represented a 13% (1% to 37%) increase over Xpert® MTB/RIF alone. The pooled specificity was 93% (81% to 97%) and represented a 4% (1% to 16%) decrease from Xpert® MTB/RIF alone (three studies, 909 participants, 36% with TB). Pooled sensitivity and specificity of LF-LAM were 56% (41% to 70%) and 90% (81% to 95%) in participants with a CD4 count of less than or equal to 100 cells per µL (five studies, 859 participants, 47% with TB) versus 26% (16% to 46%) and 92% (78% to 97%) in participants with a CD4 count greater than 100 cells per µL (five studies, 1410 participants, 30% with TB).LF-LAM for TB screening (grade 2 cut-off): for individual studies, sensitivity estimates (95% CrI) were 44% (30% to 58%), 28% (16% to 42%), and 0% (0% to 71%) and corresponding specificity estimates were 95% (92% to 97%), 94% (90% to 97%), and 95% (92% to 97%) (three studies, 1055 participants, 11% with TB, very low quality evidence). There were limited data for additional analyses.The main limitations of the review were the use of a lower quality reference standard in most included studies, and the small number of studies and participants included in the analyses. The results should, therefore, be interpreted with caution. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that LF-LAM has low sensitivity to detect TB in adults living with HIV whether the test is used for diagnosis or screening. For TB diagnosis, the combination of LF-LAM with sputum microscopy suggests an increase in sensitivity for TB compared to either test alone, but with a decrease in specificity. In HIV-positive individuals with low CD4 counts who are seriously ill, LF-LAM may help with the diagnosis of TB.

Xpert MTB/RIF assay for the diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) is endorsed for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of Xpert for the detection of extrapulmonary TB. We searched multiple databases to October 15, 2013. We determined the accuracy of Xpert compared with culture and a composite reference standard (CRS). We grouped data by sample type and performed meta-analyses using a bivariate random-effects model. We assessed sources of heterogeneity using meta-regression for predefined covariates. We identified 18 studies involving 4461 samples. Sample processing varied greatly among the studies. Xpert sensitivity differed substantially between sample types. In lymph node tissues or aspirates, Xpert pooled sensitivity was 83.1% (95% CI 71.4-90.7%) versus culture and 81.2% (95% CI 72.4-87.7%) versus CRS. In cerebrospinal fluid, Xpert pooled sensitivity was 80.5% (95% CI 59.0-92.2%) against culture and 62.8% (95% CI 47.7-75.8%) against CRS. In pleural fluid, pooled sensitivity was 46.4% (95% CI 26.3-67.8%) against culture and 21.4% (95% CI 8.8-33.9%) against CRS. Xpert pooled specificity was consistently >98.7% against CRS across different sample types. Based on this systematic review, the World Health Organization now recommends Xpert over conventional tests for diagnosis of TB in lymph nodes and other tissues, and as the preferred initial test for diagnosis of TB meningitis.