Search

Background: Vaccination against COVID-19 is highly effective in preventing severe disease and hospitalization, but primary COVID mRNA vaccination schedules often differed from those recommended by the manufacturers due to supply chain issues. We investigated the impact of delaying the second dose on antibody responses to COVID mRNA-vaccines in a prospective cohort of health-care workers in Quebec. Methods: We recruited participants from the McGill University Health Centre who provided serum or participant-collected dried blood samples (DBS) at 28- days, 3 months, and 6 months post-second dose and at 28-days after a third dose. IgG antibodies to SARS-CoV2 spike (S), the receptor-binding domain (RBD), nucleocapsid (N) and neutralizing antibodies to the ancestral strain were assessed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). We examined associations between long (≤89 days) versus short (<89 days) between-dose intervals and antibody response through multivariable mixed-effects models adjusted for age, sex, prior covid infection status, time since vaccine dose, and assay batch. Findings: The cohort included 328 participants who received up to three vaccine doses (>80% Pfizer-BioNTech). Weighted averages of the serum (n=744) and DBS (n=216) cohort results from the multivariable models showed that IgG anti-S was 31% higher (95% CI: 12% to 53%) and IgG anti-RBD was 37% higher (95% CI: 14% to 65%) in the long vs. short interval participants, across all time points. Interpretation: Our study indicates that extending the covid primary series between-dose interval beyond 89 days (approximately 3 months) provides stronger antibody responses than intervals less than 89 days. Our demonstration of a more robust antibody response with a longer between dose interval is reassuring as logistical and supply challenges are navigated in low-resource settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the cardiovascular effects of omega-3 fatty acids and have provided unexplained conflicting results. A meta-analysis of these RCTs to estimate efficacy and safety and potential sources of heterogeneity may be helpful. Methods The Cochrane library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify all interventional trials of omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo or usual diet in high-risk cardiovascular patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were coronary restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention and safety. Meta-analyses were carried out using Bayesian random-effects models, and heterogeneity was examined using meta-regression. Results A total of 29 RCTs (n = 35,144) met our inclusion criteria, with 25 reporting mortality and 14 reporting restenosis. Omega-3 fatty acids were not associated with a statistically significant decreased mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.88, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] = 0.64, 1.03) or with restenosis prevention (RR = 0.89, 95% CrI = 0.72, 1.06), though the probability of some benefit remains high (0.93 and 0.90, respectively). However in meta-regressions, there was a >90% probability that larger studies and those with longer follow-up were associated with smaller benefits. No serious safety issues were identified. Conclusions Although not reaching conventional statistical significance, the evidence to date suggests that omega-3 fatty acids may result in a modest reduction in mortality and restenosis. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting these benefits as results were attenuated in higher quality studies, suggesting that bias may be at least partially responsible. Additional high quality studies are required to clarify the role of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Background: Serological (antibody detection) tests for tuberculosis (TB) are widely used in developing countries. As part of a World Health Organization policy process, we performed an updated systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy of commercial serological tests for pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB with a focus on the relevance of these tests in low and middle-income countries. Methodsand Findings: We used methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration and GRADE approach for rating quality of evidence. In a previous review, we searched multiple databases for papers published from 1 January 1990 to 30 May 2006, and in this update, we add additional papers published from that period until 29 June 2010. We prespecified subgroups to address heterogeneity and summarized test performance using bivariate random effects meta-analysis. For pulmonary TB, we included 67 studies (48% from low- and middle-income countries) with 5,147 participants. For all tests, estimates were variable for sensitivity (0% to 100%) and specificity (31% to 100%). For anda-TB IgG, the only test with enough studies for meta-analysis, pooled sensitivity was 76% (95% CI 63%-87%) in smear-positive (seven studies) and 59% (95% CI 10%-96%) in smear-negative (four studies) patients; pooled specificities were 92% (95% CI 74%-98%) and 91% (95% CI 79%-96%), respectively. Compared with ELISA (pooled sensitivity 60% [95% CI 6%-65%];pooled specificity 98% [95% CI 96%-99%]), immunochromatographic tests yielded lower pooled sensitivity (53%, 95% CI 42%-64%) and comparable pooled specificity (98%, 95% CI 94%-99%). For extrapulmonary TB, we included 25 studies (40% from low- and middle-income countries) with 1,809 participants. For all tests, estimates were variable for sensitivity (0% to 100%) and specificity (59% to 100%). Overall, quality of evidence was graded very low for studies of pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB. Conclusions: Despite expansion of the literature since 2006, commercial serological tests continue to produce inconsistent and imprecise estimates of sensitivity and specificity. Quality of evidence remains very low. These data informed a recently published World Health Organization policy statement against serological tests. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary., Introduction Despite impressive advances in tuberculosis (TB) control over the last decade [1], missed diagnoses continue to fuel the global epidemic, leading to more severe illness for patients and enabling [...]

Background Whole genome sequencing (WGS) studies can enhance our understanding of the role of patients with asymptomatic Clostridium difficile colonization in transmission. Methods Isolates obtained from patients with Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) and colonization identified in a study conducted during 2006–2007 at 6 Canadian hospitals underwent typing by pulsed-field gel electrophoresis, multilocus sequence typing, and WGS. Isolates from incident CDI cases not in the initial study were also sequenced where possible. Ward movement and typing data were combined to identify plausible donors for each CDI case, as defined by shared time and space within predefined limits. Proportions of plausible donors for CDI cases that were colonized, infected, or both were examined. Results Five hundred fifty-four isolates were sequenced successfully, 353 from colonized patients and 201 from CDI cases. The NAP1/027/ST1 strain was the most common strain, found in 124 (62%) of infected and 92 (26%) of colonized patients. A donor with a plausible ward link was found for 81 CDI cases (40%) using WGS with a threshold of ≤2 single nucleotide polymorphisms to determine relatedness. Sixty-five (32%) CDI cases could be linked to both infected and colonized donors. Exclusive linkages to infected and colonized donors were found for 28 (14%) and 12 (6%) CDI cases, respectively. Conclusions Colonized patients contribute to transmission, but CDI cases are more likely linked to other infected patients than colonized patients in this cohort with high rates of the NAP1/027/ST1 strain, highlighting the importance of local prevalence of virulent strains in determining transmission dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Composite reference standards (CRSs) have been advocated in diagnostic accuracy studies in the absence of a perfect reference standard. The rationale is that combining results of multiple imperfect tests leads to a more accurate reference than any one test in isolation. Focusing on a CRS that classifies subjects as disease positive if at least one component test is positive, we derive algebraic expressions for sensitivity and specificity of this CRS, sensitivity and specificity of a new (index) test compared with this CRS, as well as the CRS-based prevalence. We use as a motivating example the problem of evaluating a new test for Chlamydia trachomatis, an asymptomatic disease for which no gold-standard test exists. As the number of component tests increases, sensitivity of this CRS increases at the expense specificity, unless all tests have perfect specificity. Therefore, such a CRS can lead to significantly biased accuracy estimates of the index test. The bias depends on disease prevalence and accuracy of the CRS. Further, conditional dependence between the CRS and index test can lead to over-estimation of index test accuracy estimates. This commonly-used CRS combines results from multiple imperfect tests in a way that ignores information and therefore is not guaranteed to improve over a single imperfect reference unless each component test has perfect specificity, and the CRS is conditionally independent of the index test. When these conditions are not met, as in the case of C. trachomatis testing, more realistic statistical models should be researched instead of relying on such CRSs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary Background 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. Methods 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. Findings 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. Interpretation 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. Funding WHO, Global TB Program of Texas Children's Hospital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The absence of a gold standard, i.e., a diagnostic reference standard having perfect sensitivity and specificity, is a common problem in clinical practice and in diagnostic research studies. There is a need for methods to estimate the incremental value of a new, imperfect test in this context. Methods We use a Bayesian approach to estimate the probability of the unknown disease status via a latent class model and extend two commonly-used measures of incremental value based on predictive values [difference in the area under the ROC curve (AUC) and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI)] to the context where no gold standard exists. The methods are illustrated using simulated data and applied to the problem of estimating the incremental value of a novel interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA) over the tuberculin skin test (TST) for latent tuberculosis (TB) screening. We also show how to estimate the incremental value of IGRAs when decisions are based on observed test results rather than predictive values. Results We showed that the incremental value is greatest when both sensitivity and specificity of the new test are better and that conditional dependence between the tests reduces the incremental value. The incremental value of the IGRA depends on the sensitivity and specificity of the TST, as well as the prevalence of latent TB, and may thus vary in different populations. Conclusions Even in the absence of a gold standard, incremental value statistics may be estimated and can aid decisions about the practical value of a new diagnostic test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Verification bias arises in diagnostic test evaluation studies when the results from a first test are verified by a reference test only in a non-representative subsample of the original study subjects. This occurs, for example, when inclusion probabilities for the subsample depend on first-stage results and/or on a covariate related to disease status. Reference standard bias arises when the reference test itself has imperfect sensitivity and specificity, but this information is ignored in the analysis. Reference standard bias typically results in underestimation of the sensitivity and specificity of the test under evaluation, since subjects that are correctly diagnosed by the test can be considered as misdiagnosed owing to the imperfections in the reference standard. In this paper, we describe a Bayesian approach for simultaneously addressing both verification and reference standard bias. Our models consider two types of verification bias, first when subjects are selected for verification based on initial test results alone, and then when selection is based on initial test results and a covariate. We also present a model that adjusts for a third potential bias that arises when tests are analyzed assuming conditional independence between tests, but some dependence exists between the initial test and the reference test. We examine the properties of our models using simulated data, and then apply them to a study of a screening test for dementia, providing bias-adjusted estimates of the sensitivity and specificity. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Among healthcare workers in developing countries, nurses spend a large amount of time in direct contact with tuberculosis (TB) patients, and are at high risk for acquisition of TB infection and disease. To better understand the epidemiology of nosocomial TB among nurses, we recruited a cohort of young nursing trainees at Christian Medical College, a large, tertiary medical school hospital in Southern India. Methodology/Principal Findings: Among 535 nursing students enrolled in 2007, 468 gave consent to participate, and 436 underwent two-step tuberculin skin testing (TST). A majority (95%) were females, and almost 80% were under 22 years of age. Detailed TB exposure information was obtained using interviews and clinical log books. Prevalence of latent TB infection (LTBI) was estimated using Bayesian latent class analyses (LCA). Logistic regression analyses were done to determine the association between LTBI prevalence and TB exposure and risk factors. 219 of 436 students (50.2%, 95% CI: 45.4-55.0) were TST positive using the 10 mm or greater cut-off. Based on the LCA, the prevalence of LTBI was 47.8% (95% credible interval 17.8% to 65.6%). In the multivariate analysis, TST positivity was strongly associated with time spent in health care, after adjusting for age at entry into healthcare. Conclusions: Our study showed a high prevalence of LTBI even in young nursing trainees. With the recent TB infection control (TBIC) policy guidance from the World Health Organization as the reference, Indian healthcare providers and the Indian Revised National TB Control Programme will need to implement TBIC interventions, and enhance capacity for TBIC at the country level. Young trainees and nurses, in particular, will need to be targeted for TBIC interventions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: We compared the performance of 8 Clostridium difficile enzyme immunoassays to cell cytotoxicity neutralization assay and toxigenic culture. The effect of strain type on assay performance was also examined. There were a total of 71 (14.4%) samples in which C. difficile was recovered; 58 (81.7%) of 71 were toxigenic. Compared to a composite reference standard of either C. difficile cytotoxin assay positive or toxigenic C. difficile culture positive, the sensitivities of these assays varied from 31.7% to 55.2%, while the specificities were excellent, ranging from 98.1% to 100%. Among the 57 C. difficile isolates, 30 (51.7%) were of the NAP1 genotype. Stool samples positive for the C. difficile NAP1 strain had a higher positivity rate for the toxin assays. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: Cancer predisposition syndromes (CPSs) are responsible for at least 10% of cancer diagnoses in children and adolescents, most of which are not clinically recognised prior to cancer diagnosis. A variety of clinical screening guidelines are used in healthcare settings to help clinicians detect patients who have a higher likelihood of having a CPS. The McGill Interactive Pediatric OncoGenetic Guidelines (MIPOGG) is an electronic health decision support tool that uses algorithms to help clinicians determine if a child/adolescent diagnosed with cancer should be referred to genetics for a CPS evaluation., Methods: This study assessed MIPOGG's performance in identifying Li-Fraumeni, DICER1, Constitutional mismatch repair deficiency and Gorlin (nevoid basal cell carcinoma) syndromes in a retrospective series of 84 children diagnosed with cancer and one of these four CPSs in Canadian hospitals over an 18-year period., Results: MIPOGG detected 82 of 83 (98.8%) evaluable patients with any one of these four genetic conditions and demonstrated an appropriate rationale for suggesting CPS evaluation. When compared with syndrome-specific clinical screening criteria, MIPOGG's ability to correctly identify children with any of the four CPSs was equivalent to, or outperformed, existing clinical criteria respective to each CPS., Conclusion: This study adds evidence that MIPOGG is an appropriate tool for CPS screening in clinical practice. MIPOGG's strength is that it starts with a specific cancer diagnosis and incorporates criteria relevant for associated CPSs, making MIPOGG a more universally accessible diagnostic adjunct that does not require in-depth knowledge of each CPS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

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.

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.

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.

Background: Clostridium difficile (CD) is the leading cause of health care-associated diarrhea and can result in asymptomatic carriage. Rates of asymptomatic CD colonization on hospital admission range from 1.4%-21%. The objective of this study was to evaluate host and bacterial factors associated with colonization on admission., Methods: The Consortium de recherche québécois sur le Clostridium difficile study provided data for analysis, including demographic information, known risk factors, and potential confounding factors, prospectively collected for 5,232 patients from 6 hospitals in Quebec and Ontario over 15 months from 2006-2007. Stool or rectal swabs were obtained for culture on admission. Pulsed-field gel electrophoresis was performed on the isolates. The presence of antibody against CD toxins A and B was measured., Results: There were 212 (4.05%) patients colonized with CD on admission, and 5,020 patients were not colonized with CD. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that hospitalization within the last 12 months, use of corticosteroids, prior CD infection, and presence of antibody against toxin B were associated with colonization on admission. Of patients colonized on admission, 79.4% had non-NAP1, non-NAP2 strains., Conclusion: There are identifiable risk factors among asymptomatic CD carriers that could serve in their detection and provide a basis for targeted screening., (Copyright © 2015 Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: To evaluate the outcomes of mitral valve surgery in octogenarians with severe symptomatic mitral regurgitation (MR)., Methods and Results: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of data on octogenarians who underwent mitral valve replacement (MVR) or mitral valve repair (MVRpr). Our search yielded 16 retrospective studies. Using Bayesian hierarchical models, we estimated the pooled proportion of 30-day mortality, postoperative stroke, and long-term survival. The pooled proportion of 30-day postoperative mortality was 13% following MVR (10 studies, 3,105 patients, 95% credible interval [CI] 9-18%), and 7% following MVRpr (six studies, 2,642 patients, 95% CI: 3-12%). Furthermore, pooled proportions of postoperative stroke were 4% (six studies, 2,945 patients, 95% CI: 3-7%) and 3% (three studies, 348 patients, 95% CI: 1-8%) for patients undergoing MVR and MVRpr, respectively. Pooled survival rates at one and five years following MVR (four studies, 250 patients) were 67% (95% CI: 50-80%) and 29% (95% CI: 16-47%), and following MVRpr (three studies, 333 patients) were 69% (95% CI: 50-83%) and 23% (95% CI: 12-39%), respectively., Conclusions: Surgical treatment of MR in octogenarians is associated with high perioperative mortality and poor long-term survival with an uncertain benefit on quality of life. These data highlight the importance of patient selection for operative intervention and suggest that future transcatheter mitral valve therapies such as transcatheter mitral valve repair (TMVr) and/or transcatheter mitral valve implantation (TMVI), may provide an alternative therapeutic approach in selected high-risk elderly patients.

Background: 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., Objectives: 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., Search Methods: 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., Selection Criteria: 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., Data Collection and Analysis: 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., Main Results: 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., Authors' Conclusions: 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.

Background: 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., Objectives: 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., Search Methods: 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., Selection Criteria: 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., Data Collection and Analysis: 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)., Main Results: 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%., Authors' Conclusions: 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: Multiple randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have examined the cardiovascular effects of omega-3 fatty acids and have provided unexplained conflicting results. A meta-analysis of these RCTs to estimate efficacy and safety and potential sources of heterogeneity may be helpful., Methods: The Cochrane library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were systematically searched to identify all interventional trials of omega-3 fatty acids compared to placebo or usual diet in high-risk cardiovascular patients. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality and secondary outcomes were coronary restenosis following percutaneous coronary intervention and safety. Meta-analyses were carried out using Bayesian random-effects models, and heterogeneity was examined using meta-regression., Results: A total of 29 RCTs (n = 35,144) met our inclusion criteria, with 25 reporting mortality and 14 reporting restenosis. Omega-3 fatty acids were not associated with a statistically significant decreased mortality (relative risk [RR] = 0.88, 95% Credible Interval [CrI] = 0.64, 1.03) or with restenosis prevention (RR = 0.89, 95% CrI = 0.72, 1.06), though the probability of some benefit remains high (0.93 and 0.90, respectively). However in meta-regressions, there was a >90% probability that larger studies and those with longer follow-up were associated with smaller benefits. No serious safety issues were identified., Conclusions: Although not reaching conventional statistical significance, the evidence to date suggests that omega-3 fatty acids may result in a modest reduction in mortality and restenosis. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting these benefits as results were attenuated in higher quality studies, suggesting that bias may be at least partially responsible. Additional high quality studies are required to clarify the role of omega-3 fatty acid supplementation for the secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease.

Background: Poor methodological quality and reporting are known concerns with diagnostic accuracy studies. In 2003, the QUADAS tool and the STARD standards were published for evaluating the quality and improving the reporting of diagnostic studies, respectively. However, it is unclear whether these tools have been applied to diagnostic studies of infectious diseases. We performed a systematic review on the methodological and reporting quality of diagnostic studies in TB, malaria and HIV., Methods: We identified diagnostic accuracy studies of commercial tests for TB, malaria and HIV through a systematic search of the literature using PubMed and EMBASE (2004-2006). Original studies that reported sensitivity and specificity data were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data on study characteristics and diagnostic accuracy, and used QUADAS and STARD to evaluate the quality of methods and reporting, respectively., Findings: Ninety (38%) of 238 articles met inclusion criteria. All studies had design deficiencies. Study quality indicators that were met in less than 25% of the studies included adequate description of withdrawals (6%) and reference test execution (10%), absence of index test review bias (19%) and reference test review bias (24%), and report of uninterpretable results (22%). In terms of quality of reporting, 9 STARD indicators were reported in less than 25% of the studies: methods for calculation and estimates of reproducibility (0%), adverse effects of the diagnostic tests (1%), estimates of diagnostic accuracy between subgroups (10%), distribution of severity of disease/other diagnoses (11%), number of eligible patients who did not participate in the study (14%), blinding of the test readers (16%), and description of the team executing the test and management of indeterminate/outlier results (both 17%). The use of STARD was not explicitly mentioned in any study. Only 22% of 46 journals that published the studies included in this review required authors to use STARD., Conclusion: Recently published diagnostic accuracy studies on commercial tests for TB, malaria and HIV have moderate to low quality and are poorly reported. The more frequent use of tools such as QUADAS and STARD may be necessary to improve the methodological and reporting quality of future diagnostic accuracy studies in infectious diseases.

Serological antibody detection tests for tuberculosis may offer the potential to improve diagnosis. Recent meta-analyses have shown that commercially available tests have variable accuracies and a limited clinical role. We reviewed the immunodiagnostic potential of antigens evaluated in research laboratories (in-house) for the serodiagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis and conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate the performance of comparable antigens. Selection criteria included the participation of at least 25 pulmonary tuberculosis patients and the use of purified antigens. Studies evaluating 38 kDa, MPT51, malate synthase, culture filtrate protein 10, TbF6, antigen 85B, alpha-crystallin, 2,3-diacyltrehalose, 2,3,6-triacyltrehalose, 2,3,6,6'-tetraacyltrehalose 2'-sulfate, cord factor, and TbF6 plus DPEP (multiple antigen) were included in the meta-analysis. The results demonstrated that (i) in sputum smear-positive patients, sensitivities significantly >or=50% were provided for recombinant malate synthase (73%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 58 to 85) and TbF6 plus DPEP (75%; 95% CI, 50 to 91); (ii) protein antigens achieved high specificities; (iii) among the lipid antigens, cord factor had the best overall performance (sensitivity, 69% [95% CI, 28 to 94]; specificity, 91% [95% CI, 78 to 97]); (iv) compared with the sensitivities achieved with single antigens (median sensitivity, 53%; range, 2% to 100%), multiple antigens yielded higher sensitivities (median sensitivity, 76%; range, 16% to 96%); (v) in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients who are sputum smear positive, antibodies to several single and multiple antigens were detected; and (vi) data on seroreactivity to antigens in sputum smear-negative or pediatric patients were insufficient. Potential candidate antigens for an antibody detection test for pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-infected and -uninfected patients have been identified, although no antigen achieves sufficient sensitivity to replace sputum smear microscopy. Combinations of select antigens provide higher sensitivities than single antigens. The use of a case-control design with healthy controls for the majority of studies was a limitation of the review. Efforts are needed to improve the methodological quality of tuberculosis diagnostic studies.