Our objective was to obtain contemporary lifetime estimates of congenital heart disease (CHD) prevalence using population-based data sources up to year 2010.
The Quebec CHD database contains 28 years ...of longitudinal data on all individuals with CHD from 1983 to 2010. Severe CHD was defined as tetralogy of Fallot, truncus arteriosus, transposition complexes, endocardial cushion defects, and univentricular hearts. We used latent class bayesian models combining case definitions from physician claims, hospitalization, and surgical data to obtain point and interval prevalence estimates of CHD in the first year of life, in children (<18 years of age) and in adults. We identified 107 559 CHD patients from 1983 to 2010. Prevalence of CHD in the first year of life was 8.21 per 1000 live births (95% confidence interval, 7.47-9.02) from 1998 to 2005. In 2010, overall prevalence of CHD was 13.11 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 12.43-13.81) in children and 6.12 per 1000 (95% confidence interval, 5.69-6.57) in adults. CHD prevalence increased by 11% in children and 57% in adults from 2000 to 2010. Prevalence in the severe CHD subgroup increased by 19% (95% confidence interval, 17%-21%) in children and 55% (51%-62%) in adults. By 2010, adults accounted for 66% of the entire CHD population.
With an increase of >50% in CHD prevalence since 2000, by 2010 adults accounted for two thirds of patients with severe and other forms of CHD in the general population. Our findings should inform allocation of resources and the planning of workforce needs for the predominantly adult CHD population.
Accurate, rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and TB drug resistance is critical for improving patient care and decreasing TB transmission. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay is an automated test that can detect ...both TB and rifampicin resistance, generally within two hours after starting the test, with minimal hands-on technical time. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued initial recommendations on Xpert® MTB/RIF in early 2011. A Cochrane Review on the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance was published January 2013. We performed this updated Cochrane Review as part of a WHO process to develop updated guidelines on the use of the test.
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB (TB detection), where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as both an initial test replacing microscopy and an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection, where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as the initial test replacing culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST).The populations of interest were adults presumed to have pulmonary, rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), with or without HIV infection. The settings of interest were intermediate- and peripheral-level laboratories. The latter may be associated with primary health care facilities.
We searched for publications in any language up to 7 February 2013 in the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; and SCOPUS. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the search portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing trials.
We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that allowed for extraction of data evaluating Xpert® MTB/RIF against the reference standard. We excluded gastric fluid specimens. The reference standard for TB was culture and for rifampicin resistance was phenotypic culture-based DST.
For each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we extracted data for subgroups by smear and HIV status. We assessed the quality of studies using QUADAS-2 and carried out meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert® MTB/RIF separately for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection. For TB detection, we performed the majority of analyses using a bivariate random-effects model and compared the sensitivity of Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy against culture as reference standard. For rifampicin resistance detection, we undertook univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected.
We included 27 unique studies (integrating nine new studies) involving 9557 participants. Sixteen studies (59%) were performed in low- or middle-income countries. For all QUADAS-2 domains, most studies were at low risk of bias and low concern regarding applicability.As an initial test replacing smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 89% 95% Credible Interval (CrI) 85% to 92% and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%), (22 studies, 8998 participants: 2953 confirmed TB, 6045 non-TB).As an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result, Xpert®MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 67% (95% CrI 60% to 74%) and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%; 21 studies, 6950 participants).For smear-positive, culture-positive TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 21 studies, 1936 participants).For people with HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 79% (95% CrI 70% to 86%; 7 studies, 1789 participants), and for people without HIV infection, it was 86% (95% CrI 76% to 92%; 7 studies, 1470 participants). Comparison with smear microscopy In comparison with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF increased TB detection among culture-confirmed cases by 23% (95% CrI 15% to 32%; 21 studies, 8880 participants).For TB detection, if pooled sensitivity estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients where 10% of those with symptoms have TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF will diagnose 88 cases and miss 12 cases, whereas sputum microscopy will diagnose 65 cases and miss 35 cases. Rifampicin resistance For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 95% (95% CrI 90% to 97%; 17 studies, 555 rifampicin resistance positives) and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 24 studies, 2411 rifampicin resistance negatives). Among 180 specimens with nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), Xpert® MTB/RIF was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM (14 studies, 2626 participants).For rifampicin resistance detection, if the pooled accuracy estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals where 15% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 143 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss eight cases, and correctly identify 833 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 17 individuals as resistant. Where 5% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 48 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss three cases and correctly identify 931 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 19 individuals as resistant.
In adults thought to have TB, with or without HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF is sensitive and specific. Compared with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF substantially increases TB detection among culture-confirmed cases. Xpert® MTB/RIF has higher sensitivity for TB detection in smear-positive than smear-negative patients. Nonetheless, this test may be valuable as an add-on test following smear microscopy in patients previously found to be smear-negative. For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF provides accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of MDR-TB treatment, pending results from conventional culture and DST. The tests are expensive, so current research evaluating the use of Xpert® MTB/RIF in TB programmes in high TB burden settings will help evaluate how this investment may help start treatment promptly and improve outcomes.
Accurate and rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and drug resistance are critical for improving patient care and decreasing the spread of TB. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is a rapid, automated test ...that can detect both TB and rifampicin resistance, within two hours after starting the test, with minimal hands-on technical time, but is more expensive than conventional sputum microscopy.
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert for pulmonary TB (TB detection), both where Xpert was used as an initial test replacing microscopy, and where Xpert was used as an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert for rifampicin resistance detection where Xpert was used as the initial test, replacing conventional culture-based drug susceptibility testing.The population of interest was adults suspected of having pulmonary TB or multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), with or without HIV infection.
We performed a comprehensive search of the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; and SCOPUS. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the search portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing trials. We performed searches on 25 September 2011 and we repeated them on 15 December 2011, without language restriction.
We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional, and cohort studies that used respiratory specimens to compare Xpert with culture for detecting TB and Xpert with conventional phenotypic drug susceptibility testing for detecting rifampicin resistance.
For each study, two review authors independently extracted a set of data using a standardized data extraction form. When possible, we extracted data for subgroups by smear and HIV status. We assessed the quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We carried out meta-analyses to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert separately for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection using a bivariate random-effects model. We estimated the median pooled sensitivity and specificity and their 95% credible intervals (CrI).
We identified 18 unique studies as eligible for this review, including two multicentre international studies, one with five and the other with six distinct study centres. The majority of studies (55.6%) were performed in low-income and middle-income countries. In 17 of the 18 studies, Xpert was performed by trained technicians in reference laboratories.When used as an initial test replacing smear microscopy (15 studies, 7517 participants), Xpert achieved a pooled sensitivity of 88% (95% CrI 83% to 92%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). As an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result (14 studies, 5719 participants), Xpert yielded a pooled sensitivity of 67% (95% CrI 58% to 74%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). In clinical subgroups, we found the following accuracy estimates: the pooled sensitivity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%) for smear-positive, culture-positive TB and 68% (95% CrI 59% to 75%) for smear-negative, culture-positive TB (15 studies); the pooled sensitivity was 80% (95% CrI 67% to 88%) in people living with HIV and 89% (95% CrI 81% to 94%) in people without HIV infection (four studies). For rifampicin resistance detection (11 studies, 2340 participants), Xpert achieved a pooled sensitivity of 94% (95% CrI 87% to 97%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). In a separate analysis, Xpert could distinguish between TB and nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) in clinical samples with high accuracy: among 139 specimens with NTM, Xpert was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM.In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals suspected of having rifampicin resistance (a proxy for MDR-TB), where the prevalence of rifampicin resistance is 30%, we estimated that on average Xpert would wrongly identify 14 patients as being rifampicin resistant. In comparison, where the prevalence of rifampicin resistance is only 2%, we estimated that the number of individuals wrongly identified as rifampicin resistant would increase to 20, an increase of 43%.
This review shows that Xpert used as an initial diagnostic test for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection in patients suspected of having TB, MDR-TB, or HIV-associated TB is sensitive and specific. Xpert may also be valuable as an add-on test following microscopy for patients who have previously been found to be smear-negative. An Xpert result that is positive for rifampicin resistance should be carefully interpreted and take into consideration the risk of MDR-TB in a given patient and the expected prevalence of MDR-TB in a given setting.Studies in this review mainly assessed sensitivity and specificity of the test when used in reference laboratories in research investigations. Most studies were performed in high TB burden countries. Ongoing use of Xpert in high TB burden countries will contribute to the evidence base on the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of Xpert in routine programmatic and peripheral health care settings, including settings where the test is performed at the point of care.
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.
Objectives The purpose of this study was to test the value of gait speed, a clinical marker for frailty, to improve the prediction of mortality and major morbidity in elderly patients undergoing ...cardiac surgery. Background It is increasingly difficult to predict the elderly patient's risk posed by cardiac surgery because existing risk assessment tools are incomplete. Methods A multicenter prospective cohort of elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery was assembled at 4 tertiary care hospitals between 2008 and 2009. Patients were eligible if they were 70 years of age or older and were scheduled for coronary artery bypass and/or valve replacement or repair. The primary predictor was slow gait speed, defined as a time taken to walk 5 m of ≥6 s. The primary end point was a composite of in-hospital post-operative mortality or major morbidity. Results The cohort consisted of 131 patients with a mean age of 75.8 ± 4.4 years; 34% were female patients. Sixty patients (46%) were classified as slow walkers before cardiac surgery. Slow walkers were more likely to be female (43% vs. 25%, p = 0.03) and diabetic (50% vs. 28%, p = 0.01). Thirty patients (23%) experienced the primary composite end point of mortality or major morbidity after cardiac surgery. Slow gait speed was an independent predictor of the composite end point after adjusting for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk score (odds ratio: 3.05; 95% confidence interval: 1.23 to 7.54). Conclusions Gait speed is a simple and effective test that may identify a subset of vulnerable elderly patients at incrementally higher risk of mortality and major morbidity after cardiac surgery.
Clostridium difficile infection is the leading cause of health care-associated diarrhea, and the bacterium can also be carried asymptomatically. The objective of this study was to identify host and ...bacterial factors associated with health care-associated acquisition of C. difficile infection and colonization.
We conducted a 15-month prospective study in six Canadian hospitals in Quebec and Ontario. Demographic information, known risk factors, potential confounding factors, and weekly stool samples or rectal swabs were collected. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis (PFGE) was performed on C. difficile isolates to determine the genotype. Levels of serum antibodies against C. difficile toxins A and B were measured.
A total of 4143 patients were included in the study; 117 (2.8%) and 123 (3.0%) had health care-associated C. difficile infection and colonization, respectively. Older age and use of antibiotics and proton-pump inhibitors were significantly associated with health care-associated C. difficile infection. Hospitalization in the previous 2 months; use of chemotherapy, proton-pump inhibitors, and H(2) blockers; and antibodies against toxin B were associated with health care-associated C. difficile colonization. Among patients with health care-associated C. difficile infection and those with colonization, 62.7% and 36.1%, respectively, had the North American PFGE type 1 (NAP1) strain.
In this study, health care-associated C. difficile infection and colonization were differentially associated with defined host and pathogen variables. The NAP1 strain was predominant among patients with C. difficile infection, whereas asymptomatic patients were more likely to be colonized with other strains. (Funded by the Consortium de Recherche sur le Clostridium difficile.).
The goal of this study was to determine risk factors for depression among elderly community subjects.
MEDLINE and PsycINFO were searched for potentially relevant articles published from January 1966 ...to June 2001 and from January 1967 to June 2001, respectively. The bibliographies of relevant articles were searched for additional references. Twenty studies met the following six inclusion criteria: original research reported in an English or French publication, study group of community residents, age of subjects 50 years or more, prospective study design, examination of at least one risk factor, and use of an acceptable definition of depression. The validity of studies was assessed according to the four primary criteria for risk factor studies described by the Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. Information about group size at baseline and follow-up, age, proportion of men, depression criteria, exclusion criteria at baseline, length of follow-up, number of incident cases of depression, and risk factors was abstracted from each report.
Follow-up of the inception cohort was incomplete in most studies. In the qualitative meta-analysis, risk factors identified by both univariate and multivariate techniques in at least two studies each were disability, new medical illness, poor health status, prior depression, poor self-perceived health, and bereavement. In the quantitative meta-analysis, bereavement, sleep disturbance, disability, prior depression, and female gender were significant risk factors.
Despite the methodologic limitations of the studies and this meta-analysis, bereavement, sleep disturbance, disability, prior depression, and female gender appear to be important risk factors for depression among elderly community subjects.
Absence of a perfect reference test is an acknowledged source of bias in diagnostic studies. In the case of tuberculous pleuritis, standard reference tests such as smear microscopy, culture and ...biopsy have poor sensitivity. Yet meta‐analyses of new tests for this disease have always assumed the reference standard is perfect, leading to biased estimates of the new test’s accuracy. We describe a method for joint meta‐analysis of sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic test under evaluation, while considering the imperfect nature of the reference standard. We use a Bayesian hierarchical model that takes into account within‐ and between‐study variability. We show how to obtain pooled estimates of sensitivity and specificity, and how to plot a hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic curve. We describe extensions of the model to situations where multiple reference tests are used, and where index and reference tests are conditionally dependent. The performance of the model is evaluated using simulations and illustrated using data from a meta‐analysis of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for tuberculous pleuritis. The estimate of NAAT specificity was higher and the sensitivity lower compared to a model that assumed that the reference test was perfect.
Microbiological confirmation of childhood tuberculosis is rare because of the difficulty of collection of specimens, low sensitivity of smear microscopy, and poor access to culture. We aimed to ...establish summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity of of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay compared with microscopy in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children.
We searched for studies published up to Jan 6, 2015, that used Xpert in any setting in children with and without HIV infection. We systematically reviewed studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) with microscopy for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in children younger than 16 years against two reference standards-culture results and culture-negative children who were started on anti-tuberculosis therapy. We did meta-analyses using a bivariate random-effects model.
We identified 15 studies including 4768 respiratory specimens in 3640 children investigated for pulmonary tuberculosis. Culture tests were positive for tuberculosis in 12% (420 of 3640) of all children assessed and Xpert was positive in 11% (406 of 3640). Compared with culture, the pooled sensitivities and specificities of Xpert for tuberculosis detection were 62% (95% credible interval 51-73) and 98% (97-99), respectively, with use of expectorated or induced sputum samples and 66% (51-81) and 98% (96-99), respectively, with use of samples from gastric lavage. Xpert sensitivity was 36-44% higher than was sensitivity for microscopy. Xpert sensitivity in culture-negative children started on antituberculosis therapy was 2% (1-3) for expectorated or induced sputum. Xpert's pooled sensitivity and specificity to detect rifampicin resistance was 86% (95% credible interval 53-98) and 98% (94-100), respectively.
Compared with microscopy, Xpert offers better sensitivity for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children and its scale-up will improve access to tuberculosis diagnostics for children. Although Xpert helps to provide rapid confirmation of disease, its sensitivity remains suboptimum compared with culture tests. A negative Xpert result does not rule out tuberculosis. Good clinical acumen is still needed to decide when to start antituberculosis therapy and continued research for better diagnostics is crucial.
WHO, Global TB Program of Texas Children's Hospital.
PDF
