Search

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

Objectives\ud This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (qualitative). The objectives are as follows:\ud \ud To synthesize end‐user and professional user perspectives and experiences with low‐complexity nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for detection of tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance.\ud \ud Review question\ud What are the perspectives and experiences of people providing and receiving low‐complexity NAATs to diagnose tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance?\ud \ud Answering this question will allow us to identify the implications for effective implementation and health equity.

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

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

Background Globally, children under 15 years represent approximately 12% of new tuberculosis cases, but 16% of the estimated 1.4 million deaths. This higher share of mortality highlights the urgent need to develop strategies to improve case detection in this age group and identify children without tuberculosis disease who should be considered for tuberculosis preventive treatment. One such strategy is systematic screening for tuberculosis in high‐risk groups. Objectives To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the presence of one or more tuberculosis symptoms, or symptom combinations; chest radiography (CXR); Xpert MTB/RIF; Xpert Ultra; and combinations of these as screening tests for detecting active pulmonary childhood tuberculosis in the following groups. – Tuberculosis contacts, including household contacts, school contacts, and other close contacts of a person with infectious tuberculosis. – Children living with HIV. – Children with pneumonia. – Other risk groups (e.g. children with a history of previous tuberculosis, malnourished children). – Children in the general population in high tuberculosis burden settings. Search methods We searched six databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase, on 14 February 2020 without language restrictions and contacted researchers in the field. Selection criteria Cross‐sectional and cohort studies where at least 75% of children were aged under 15 years. Studies were eligible if conducted for screening rather than diagnosing tuberculosis. Reference standards were microbiological (MRS) and composite reference standard (CRS), which may incorporate symptoms and CXR. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using QUADAS‐2. We consolidated symptom screens across included studies into groups that used similar combinations of symptoms as follows: one or more of cough, fever, or poor weight gain and one or more of cough, fever, or decreased playfulness. For combination of symptoms, a positive screen was the presence of one or more than one symptom. We used a bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and performed analyses separately by reference standard. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. Main results Nineteen studies assessed the following screens: one symptom (15 studies, 10,097 participants); combinations of symptoms (12 studies, 29,889 participants); CXR (10 studies, 7146 participants); and Xpert MTB/RIF (2 studies, 787 participants). Several studies assessed more than one screening test. No studies assessed Xpert Ultra. For 16 studies (84%), risk of bias for the reference standard domain was unclear owing to concern about incorporation bias. Across other quality domains, risk of bias was generally low. Symptom screen (verified by CRS) One or more of cough, fever, or poor weight gain in tuberculosis contacts (4 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 2% to 13%): pooled sensitivity was 89% (95% CI 52% to 98%; 113 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 69% (95% CI 51% to 83%; 2582 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Of 1000 children where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 339 would be screen‐positive, of whom 294 (87%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positives); 661 would be screen‐negative, of whom five (1%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis (false negatives). One or more of cough, fever, or decreased playfulness in children aged under five years, inpatient or outpatient (3 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 3% to 13%): sensitivity ranged from 64% to 76% (106 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence) and specificity from 37% to 77% (2339 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Of 1000 children where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 251 to 636 would be screen‐positive, of whom 219 to 598 (87% to 94%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 364 to 749 would be screen‐negative, of whom 12 to 18 (2% to 3%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis. One or more of cough, fever, poor weight gain, or tuberculosis close contact (World Health Organization four‐symptom screen) in children living with HIV, outpatient (2 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 3% and 8%): pooled sensitivity was 61% (95% CI 58% to 64%; 1219 screens; moderate‐certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 94% (95% CI 86% to 98%; 201,916 screens; low‐certainty evidence). Of 1000 symptom screens where 50 of the screens are on children with pulmonary tuberculosis, 88 would be screen‐positive, of which 57 (65%) would be on children who do not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 912 would be screen‐negative, of which 19 (2%) would be on children who have pulmonary tuberculosis. CXR (verified by CRS) CXR with any abnormality in tuberculosis contacts (8 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 2% to 25%): pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI 75% to 93%; 232 participants; low‐certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 99% (95% CI 68% to 100%; 3281 participants; low‐certainty evidence). Of 1000 children, where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 63 would be screen‐positive, of whom 19 (30%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 937 would be screen‐negative, of whom 6 (1%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (verified by MRS) Xpert MTB/RIF, inpatient or outpatient (2 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 1% and 4%): sensitivity was 43% and 100% (16 participants; very low‐certainty evidence) and specificity was 99% and 100% (771 participants; moderate‐certainty evidence). Of 1000 children, where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 31 to 69 would be Xpert MTB/RIF‐positive, of whom 9 to 19 (28% to 29%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 969 to 931 would be Xpert MTB/RIF‐negative, of whom 0 to 28 (0% to 3%) would have tuberculosis. Studies often assessed more symptoms than those included in the index test and symptom definitions varied. These differences complicated data aggregation and may have influenced accuracy estimates. Both symptoms and CXR formed part of the CRS (incorporation bias), which may have led to overestimation of sensitivity and specificity. Authors' conclusions We found that in children who are tuberculosis contacts or living with HIV, screening tests using symptoms or CXR may be useful, but our review is limited by design issues with the index test and incorporation bias in the reference standard. For Xpert MTB/RIF, we found insufficient evidence regarding screening accuracy. Prospective evaluations of screening tests for tuberculosis in children will help clarify their use. In the meantime, screening strategies need to be pragmatic to address the persistent gaps in prevention and case detection that exist in resource‐limited settings., Plain language summary Screening tests for active pulmonary tuberculosis in children Why is improving screening for pulmonary tuberculosis in children important? Tuberculosis is one of the leading causes of death worldwide. Most children who die from tuberculosis are never diagnosed or treated. Screening may be useful to identify children with possible tuberculosis and refer them for further testing. As well, screening could be used to identify children without tuberculosis, who should be considered for preventive treatment. A false‐positive result means that children may undergo unnecessary testing and treatment and may not receive preventive treatment promptly. A false‐negative result means that children have tuberculosis, but may miss further testing to confirm the diagnosis. What is the aim of this review? To determine the accuracy of screening tests for active pulmonary tuberculosis in children in high‐risk groups, such as children with HIV and close contacts of people with tuberculosis. What was studied in this review? Screening tests were: one tuberculosis symptom; one or more of a combination of tuberculosis symptoms; the World Health Organization (WHO) four‐symptom screen (one or more of cough, fever, poor weight gain, or tuberculosis contact) in children with HIV, recommended at each healthcare visit; chest radiography (CXR); and Xpert MTB/RIF. What are the main results in this review? Nineteen studies assessed the following screening tests: one symptom (15 studies, 10,097 participants); more than one symptom (12 studies, 29,889 participants); CXR (10 studies, 7146 participants); and Xpert MTB/RIF (two studies, 787 participants). Symptom screening For every 1000 children screened, if 50 had tuberculosis according to the reference standard: One or more of cough, fever, or poor weight gain in tuberculosis contacts (composite reference standard (CRS) (4 studies) – 339 would screen positive, of whom 294 (87%) would not have tuberculosis (false positive). – 661 would screen negative, of whom 5 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). One or more of cough, fever, or decreased playfulness in children under five, inpatient or outpatient (CRS) (3 studies) – 251 to 636 would screen positive, of whom 219 to 598 (87% to 94%) would not have tuberculosis (false positive). – 364 to 749 would screen negative, of whom 12 to 18 (2% to 3%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). One or more of cough, fever, poor weight gain, or tuberculosis close contact (WHO four‐symptom screen) in children with HIV, outpatient (CRS) (2 studies) – 88 would screen positive, of which 57 (65%) would not have tuberculosis (false positive). – 912 would screen negative, of which 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). Abnormal CXR in tuberculosis contacts (CRS) (8 studies) – 63 would screen positive, of whom 19 (30%) would not have tuberculosis (false positive). – 937 would screen negative, of whom 6 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). Xpert MTB/RIF in children, inpatient or outpatient microbiologic reference standard (MRS) (2 studies) – 31 to 69 would be Xpert MTB/RIF‐positive, of whom 9 to 19 (28% to 29%) would not have tuberculosis (false positive). – 969 to 931 would be Xpert MTB/RIF‐negative, of whom 0 to 28 (0% to 3%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). How reliable are the results of the studies in this review? Diagnosing tuberculosis in children is difficult. This may lead to screening tests appearing more or less accurate than they actually are. For Xpert MTB/RIF, there were few studies and children tested to be confident about results. Who do the results of this review apply to? Children at risk for pulmonary tuberculosis. Results likely do not apply to children in the general population. Studies mainly took place in countries with a high burden of tuberculosis. What are the implications of this review? In children who are tuberculosis contacts or living with HIV, screening tests using symptoms or CXR may be useful. However, symptoms and CXR formed part of the reference standard, which may falsely elevate the accuracy of the results. We urgently need better screening tests for tuberculosis in children to better identify children who should be considered for tuberculosis preventive treatment and to increase the timeliness of treatment in those with tuberculosis disease. How up‐to‐date is this review? To 14 February 2020.

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., Plain language summary How accurate are sputum Xpert tests for screening for active pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults whether or not they have tuberculosis symptoms? Why is using Xpert tests to screen for pulmonary tuberculosis important? Tuberculosis is the leading cause of infectious disease‐related death and one of the top 10 causes of death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends using specific rapid tests as initial tests for diagnosing 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. Not recognizing tuberculosis when it is present (a false negative test result) may result in illness and death and an increased risk of infecting others. An incorrect diagnosis of tuberculosis (false‐positive result) may mean that people are given antibiotics when there is no benefit to be gained. What is the aim of this review? To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra as screening tests for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults whether or not they have tuberculosis symptoms (such as cough, fever, weight loss, and night sweats). We were interested in how the tests worked in groups at high risk for tuberculosis, including people living with HIV (PLHIV), household contacts of people with tuberculosis, miners, people residing in prisons, people with diabetes, and in the general public. What was studied in this review? Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra are rapid tests for simultaneously diagnosing tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance. We combined study results to determine: ‐ sensitivity: people with tuberculosis (rifampicin resistance) correctly diagnosed as having the condition. ‐ specificity: people without tuberculosis (rifampicin resistance) correctly identified as not having the condition. The closer sensitivity and specificity are to 100%, the better the test. What are the main results in this review? Twenty‐one 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. For every 1000 people tested, if 50 had tuberculosis according to the reference standard: PLHIV ‐ Xpert MTB/RIF (12 studies): · 40 people would test positive, including 9 without tuberculosis (62% sensitivity) · 960 people would test negative, including 19 with tuberculosis (99% specificity) ‐ Xpert Ultra (1 study): · 53 people would test positive, including 19 without tuberculosis (69% sensitivity) · 947 people would test negative, including 16 with tuberculosis (98% specificity) For every 1000 people tested, if 10 had tuberculosis according to the reference standard: Other high‐risk groups combined ‐ Xpert MTB/RIF (5 studies): · 19 people would test positive, including 12 without tuberculosis (69% sensitivity) · 981 people would test negative, including 3 with tuberculosis (99% specificity) For detection of rifampicin resistance, Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was 81% and 100% (2 studies) and specificity was 94% to 100% (3 studies). How reliable are the results of the studies in this review? In the included studies, the reference standards for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis (culture) and rifampicin resistance (drug susceptibility testing) are likely to have been reliable methods for deciding whether patients really had the conditions. We were fairly confident in the results for Xpert MTB/RIF in PLHIV, and less so for other high‐risk groups. Not enough people have been studied to be confident about the results for Xpert Ultra or for detection of rifampicin resistance. Who do the results of this review apply to? Studies were mainly performed in high tuberculosis and high HIV burden settings. No studies evaluated the tests in people with diabetes mellitus or the general population. What are the implications of this review? In PLHIV, Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test was accurate for tuberculosis in high tuberculosis burden settings. In high‐risk groups, Xpert MTB/RIF may assist in identifying tuberculosis, but the certainty of evidence is low. In PLHIV, Xpert Ultra sensitivity was slightly higher than that of Xpert MTB/RIF and specificity similar based on one study. There were few studies and few people tested for rifampicin resistance and no studies that evaluated the tests in people with diabetes or in the general population. How up‐to‐date is this review? 19 March 2020.

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.

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.

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

Objectives\ud This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (diagnostic). The objectives are as follows:\ud \ud To determine the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for screening for tuberculosis in adults irrespective of signs or symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in the general population (i.e. low‐risk population).\ud \ud To determine the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for screening of pulmonary tuberculosis in adults in the following high‐risk groups.\ud \ud People living with HIV.\ud \ud Household contacts of people with tuberculosis.\ud \ud Patients residing in high‐tuberculosis‐burden settings attending primary health facilities.\ud \ud Homeless people.\ud \ud Miners.\ud \ud People with diabetes mellitus.\ud \ud People who abuse alcohol.\ud \ud Smokers.\ud \ud People residing in prisons.\ud \ud Healthcare workers.\ud \ud To determine the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for the detection of rifampicin resistance in the general population and in the high‐risk groups and settings described above.\ud \ud Secondary objectives\ud To compare the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra in the above high‐risk groups and settings.\ud \ud To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in accuracy estimates, including the percentage of participants with tuberculosis symptoms, tuberculosis burden, tuberculosis/HIV burden, and MDR‐TB burden.

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

Objectives The objective of the study was to identify the critical factors that determine recommendations and other decisions about healthcare-related tests and diagnostic strategies (HCTDS). Methods We used a qualitative descriptive approach and conducted semi-structured in-depth interviews with 24 international experts (informants) in evidence and decisions about HCTDS. Results Although test accuracy (TA) was the factor most commonly considered by organizations when developing recommendations about HCTDS, informants agreed that TA is necessary but rarely, if ever, sufficient and may be misleading when solely considered. The informants identified factors that are important for developing recommendations about HCTDS. Informants largely agreed that laying out the potential care pathways based on the test result is an essential early step but is rarely done in developing recommendations about HCTDS. Most informants also agreed that decision analysis could be useful for organizing the clinical, cost, and preference data relevant to the use of tests in the absence of direct evidence. However, they noted that using models is limited by the lack of resources and expertise required. Conclusion Developing guidelines about HCTDS requires consideration of factors beyond TA, but implementing this may be challenging. Further development and testing of “frameworks” that can guide this process is a priority for decision makers.

Background: Most studies evaluating the effect of Xpert MTB/RIF testing for tuberculosis (TB) concluded that it did not reduce overall mortality compared to usual care. We conducted a systematic review to assess whether key study design and execution features could have contributed to the negative study results. Methods: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, and Scopus for literature published up to February 2019. We included all primary intervention studies that had evaluated the effect of Xpert MTB/RIF on mortality compared to usual care in participants with presumptive pulmonary TB. We critically reviewed features of included studies across; Study setting and context; Study population; Participant recruitment and enrollment; Study procedures and Study follow-up. Findings: We included seven randomized and one non-randomized study. Study features that could explain the lack of observed effect on mortality included: the higher quality of care at study sites; inclusion of patients with a higher pre-test probability of TB leading to higher than expected empirical rates; performance of additional diagnostic testing not done in usual care leading to increased TB diagnosis or empiric treatment initiation; the recruitment of participants likely to return for follow-up; and involvement of study staff in ensuring adherence with care. Interpretation: Most studies of Xpert MTB/RIF were designed and conducted in a manner that resulted in more patients being diagnosed and treated for TB, minimizing the potential difference in mortality Xpert MTB/RIF testing could have achieved compared to usual care. Funding Statement: This project was supported by the Wellcome Trust under grant number 109939/Z/15/Z and the National Institute of Mental Health and the Fogarty International Centre of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) under Award Numbers D43TW009343, D43 TW010037 as well as the University of California Global Health Institute (UCGHI). Declaration of Interests: The authors declare no competing interests. Ethics Approval Statement: The authors stated: "No ethics approval was required for this systematic review because we were analyzing published data."

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 symptoms LF‐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 tuberculosis LF‐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., Lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay for detecting active tuberculosis in people living with HIV Why is improving the diagnosis of tuberculosis important? Tuberculosis causes more deaths in people living with HIV than any other disease. The lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay (LF‐LAM, Alere Determine™ TB LAM Ag assay) is a World Health Organization‐recommended rapid test to assist in detection of active tuberculosis in HIV‐positive people with severe HIV disease. Rapid and early tuberculosis diagnosis may allow for prompt treatment and alleviate severe illness and death. An incorrect tuberculosis diagnosis may result in anxiety and unnecessary treatment. What is the aim of this review? To find out how accurate LF‐LAM is for diagnosing tuberculosis in HIV‐positive people with tuberculosis symptoms (symptomatic participants) and those not assessed for tuberculosis symptoms (unselected participants). This is an update of the 2016 Cochrane Review. What was studied in this review? LF‐LAM is a commercially available point‐of‐care test that detects lipoarabinomannan (LAM), a component of the bacterial cell walls, present in some people with active tuberculosis. The test is simple and shows results in 25 minutes. LF‐LAM results were measured against culture or molecular tests (benchmark). What are the main results of this review? Fifteen studies: eight studies evaluated LF‐LAM for tuberculosis among symptomatic participants and seven studies among unselected participants. All studies were conducted in low‐ or middle‐income countries. Tuberculosis diagnosis among symptomatic participants: LF‐LAM registered positive in 42% (sensitivity) of people who actually had tuberculosis and did not register positive in 91% of people who were actually negative (specificity). Tuberculosis diagnosis among unselected participants: LF‐LAM sensitivity was 35% and specificity 95%. How confident are we in the review’s results? Several studies excluded participants who could not produce sputum and most studies relied on a lower quality benchmark. Few studies and participants were included in some analyses and only one study was conducted outside of sub‐Saharan Africa. Results should be interpreted with caution. What do the results mean? Among symptomatic participants, in theory, 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). Among unselected participants, in theory, 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). Who do the review’s results apply to? HIV‐positive people with tuberculosis symptoms and those not assessed for tuberculosis symptoms. What are the implications of this review? LF‐LAM has sensitivity around 40% to detect tuberculosis. As the test does not require sputum collection, LF‐LAM may be the only way to diagnose tuberculosis when sputum cannot be produced. How up‐to‐date is this review? To 11 May 2018.

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 detection Of 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 detection Xpert 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., Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults Why is improving the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis important? Tuberculosis causes more deaths globally than any other infectious disease. When detected early and effectively treated, tuberculosis is largely curable, but in 2017, around 1.6 million people died of tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra, the newest version, are World Health Organization‐recommended tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in persons with tuberculosis symptoms. Rifampicin is an important anti‐tuberculosis drug. Not recognizing tuberculosis early may result in delayed diagnosis and treatment, severe illness, and death. An incorrect tuberculosis diagnosis may result in anxiety and unnecessary treatment. What is the aim of this review? To determine how accurate Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra are for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and rifampicin resistance in adults. This is an update of the 2014 Cochrane Review. What was studied in this review? Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra, with results measured against culture (benchmark). What are the main results in this review? 95 studies: 86 studies (42,091 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis; 57 studies (8287 participants) for rifampicin resistance. One study compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF. For PTB, Xpert MTB/RIF was sensitive (85%), registering positive in people who actually had tuberculosis, and specific (98%), i.e. it did not register positive in people who were actually negative. Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity than Xpert MTB/RIF (88% versus 83%) in one study. For rifampicin resistance, Xpert MTB/RIF was highly sensitive (96%) and specific (98%). Xpert Ultra gave similar results. Xpert MTB/RIF was better for diagnosing tuberculosis in HIV‐negative than in HIV‐positive people. How confident are we in the results of this review? Confident. We included many studies and used the best reference standards. Who do the results of this review apply to? People with presumed PTB or rifampicin resistance. What are the implications of this review? In theory, among 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). Among 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 114 would be positive for rifampicin resistance and 18 (16%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false‐positives); 886 would be negative for rifampicin resistance and four (0.4%) would have rifampicin resistance (false‐negatives). How up‐to‐date is this review? To 11 October 2018.

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.

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

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

Only 25% of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) cases are currently diagnosed. Line probe assays (LPAs) enable rapid drug-susceptibility testing for rifampicin (RIF) and isoniazid (INH) resistance and Mycobacterium tuberculosis detection. Genotype MTBDRplusV1 was WHO-endorsed in 2008 but newer LPAs have since been developed. This systematic review evaluated three LPAs: Hain Genotype MTBDRplusV1, MTBDRplusV2 and Nipro NTM+MDRTB. Study quality was assessed with QUADAS-2. Bivariate random-effects meta-analyses were performed for direct and indirect testing. Results for RIF and INH resistance were compared to phenotypic and composite (incorporating sequencing) reference standards. M. tuberculosis detection results were compared to culture. 74 unique studies were included. For RIF resistance (21 225 samples), pooled sensitivity and specificity (with 95% confidence intervals) were 96.7% (95.6–97.5%) and 98.8% (98.2–99.2%). For INH resistance (20 954 samples), pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.2% (88.2–91.9%) and 99.2% (98.7–99.5%). Results were similar for direct and indirect testing and across LPAs. Using a composite reference standard, specificity increased marginally. For M. tuberculosis detection (3451 samples), pooled sensitivity was 94% (89.4–99.4%) for smear-positive specimens and 44% (20.2–71.7%) for smear-negative specimens. In patients with pulmonary TB, LPAs have high sensitivity and specificity for RIF resistance and high specificity and good sensitivity for INH resistance. This meta-analysis provides evidence for policy and practice., Line probe assays have high accuracy for detection of RIF resistance and INH resistance http://ow.ly/USX5305tqFV

In an effort to update and clarify policies on tuberculosis drug susceptibility testing (DST), the World Health Organization (WHO) commissioned a systematic review evaluating WHO-endorsed diagnostic tests. We report the results of this systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of phenotypic DST for first-line and second-line antituberculosis drugs. This review provides support for recommended critical concentrations for isoniazid and rifampin in commercial broth-based systems. Further studies are needed to evaluate critical concentrations for ethambutol and streptomycin that accurately detect susceptibility to these drugs. Evidence is limited on the performance of DST for pyrazinamide and second-line drugs.

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

Background Rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) is a global health priority. HIV-associated TB may have different clinical presentations and is challenging to diagnose. Conventional sputum tests have reduced sensitivity in HIV-positive individuals, who have higher rates of extrapulmonary TB compared with HIV-negative individuals. The lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay (LF-LAM) is a new, commercially available point-of-care test that detects lipoarabinomannan (LAM), a lipopolysaccharide present in mycobacterial cell walls, in people with active TB disease. Objectives To assess the accuracy of LF-LAM for the diagnosis of active TB disease in HIV-positive adults who have signs and symptoms suggestive of TB (TB diagnosis).To assess the accuracy of LF-LAM as a screening test for active TB disease in HIV-positive adults irrespective of signs and symptoms suggestive of TB (TB screening). Search methods We searched the following databases without language restriction on 5 February 2015: the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE (PubMed,1966); EMBASE (OVID, from 1980); Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED, from 1900), Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science (CPCI-S, from 1900), and BIOSIS Previews (from 1926) (all three using the Web of Science platform; MEDION; LILACS (BIREME, from 1982); SCOPUS (from 1995); the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT); the search portal of the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP); and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&l (from 1861). Selection criteria Eligible study types included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies that determined LF-LAM accuracy for TB against a microbiological reference standard (culture or nucleic acid amplification test from any body site). A higher quality reference standard was one in which two or more specimen types were evaluated for TB, and a lower quality reference standard was one in which only one specimen type was evaluated for TB. Participants were HIV-positive people aged 15 years and older. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently extracted data from each included study using a standardized form. We appraised the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. We evaluated the test at two different cut-offs: (grade 1 or 2, based on the reference card scale of five intensity bands). Most analyses used grade 2, the manufacturer's currently recommended cut-off for positivity. We carried out meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects model and estimated the models using a Bayesian approach. We determined accuracy of LF-LAM combined with sputum microscopy or Xpert® MTB/RIF. In addition, we explored the influence of CD4 count on the accuracy estimates. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Main results We included 12 studies: six studies evaluated LF-LAM for TB diagnosis and six studies evaluated the test for TB screening. All studies were cross-sectional or cohort studies. Studies for TB diagnosis were largely conducted among inpatients (median CD4 range 71 to 210 cells per µL) and studies for TB screening were largely conducted among outpatients (median CD4 range 127 to 437 cells per µL). All studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries. Only two studies for TB diagnosis (33%) and one study for TB screening (17%) used a higher quality reference standard. LF-LAM for TB diagnosis (grade 2 cut-off): meta-analyses showed median pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval (CrI)) of 45% (29% to 63%) and 92% (80% to 97%), (five studies, 2313 participants, 35% with TB, low quality evidence). The pooled sensitivity of a combination of LF-LAM and sputum microscopy (either test positive) was 59% (47% to 70%), which represented a 19% (4% to 36%) increase over sputum microscopy alone, while the pooled specificity was 92% (73% to 97%), which represented a 6% (1% to 24%) decrease from sputum microscopy alone (four studies, 1876 participants, 38% with TB). The pooled sensitivity of a combination of LF-LAM and sputum Xpert® MTB/RIF (either test positive) was 75% (61% to 87%) and represented a 13% (1% to 37%) increase over Xpert® MTB/RIF alone. The pooled specificity was 93% (81% to 97%) and represented a 4% (1% to 16%) decrease from Xpert® MTB/RIF alone (three studies, 909 participants, 36% with TB). Pooled sensitivity and specificity of LF-LAM were 56% (41% to 70%) and 90% (81% to 95%) in participants with a CD4 count of less than or equal to 100 cells per µL (five studies, 859 participants, 47% with TB) versus 26% (16% to 46%) and 92% (78% to 97%) in participants with a CD4 count greater than 100 cells per µL (five studies, 1410 participants, 30% with TB). LF-LAM for TB screening (grade 2 cut-off): for individual studies, sensitivity estimates (95% CrI) were 44% (30% to 58%), 28% (16% to 42%), and 0% (0% to 71%) and corresponding specificity estimates were 95% (92% to 97%), 94% (90% to 97%), and 95% (92% to 97%) (three studies, 1055 participants, 11% with TB, very low quality evidence). There were limited data for additional analyses. The main limitations of the review were the use of a lower quality reference standard in most included studies, and the small number of studies and participants included in the analyses. The results should, therefore, be interpreted with caution. Authors' conclusions We found that LF-LAM has low sensitivity to detect TB in adults living with HIV whether the test is used for diagnosis or screening. For TB diagnosis, the combination of LF-LAM with sputum microscopy suggests an increase in sensitivity for TB compared to either test alone, but with a decrease in specificity. In HIV-positive individuals with low CD4 counts who are seriously ill, LF-LAM may help with the diagnosis of TB. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY The lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) test for diagnosis of tuberculosis in people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) Background Tuberculosis (TB) is a common cause of death in people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, but diagnosis is difficult, and depends on testing for TB in the sputum and other sites, which may take weeks to give results. A rapid and accurate point-of-care test could reduce delays in diagnosis, allow treatment to start promptly, and improve linkage between diagnosis and treatment. Test evaluated by this review The lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay (LF-LAM, Alere Determine™ TB LAM Ag, Alere Inc, Waltham, MA, USA) is a commercially available point-of-care test for active TB (pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB). The test detects lipoarabinomannan (LAM), a component of the bacterial cell walls, which is present in some people with active TB. The test is performed by placing urine on one end of a test strip, with results appearing as a line (that is, a band) on the strip if TB is present. The test is simple, requires no special equipment, and shows results in 25 minutes. During the period we conducted the review, the manufacturer issued new recommendations for defining a positive test. We collected data based on both the original and the new recommendations Objectives We aimed to see how accurately LF-LAM diagnosed TB in people living with HIV with TB symptoms, and how accurately LF-LAM diagnosed TB in people living with HIV being screened for TB whether or not they had TB symptoms. Main results We examined evidence up to 5 February 2015 and included 12 studies: six studies evaluated LF-LAM for TB diagnosis and six studies evaluated the test for TB screening. All studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries. Quality of the evidence We assessed quality by describing how participants were selected for the studies, details of the test and reference standards (the benchmark test), and study flow and timing, using the standard QUADAS-2 approach. Few studies used multiple types of specimens for the reference standard (higher quality standard) and most relied on sputum culture alone (lower quality standard), which may have affected results. What do the results mean? In a population of 1000 HIV-positive individuals with TB symptoms, where 300 actually have TB, the test will correctly identify 135 people as having TB, but miss the remaining 165 people; for the 700 people who do not have TB, the test will correctly identify 644 people as not having TB, but will misclassify 56 as having TB. The sensitivity of the test is higher in people living with HIV with low CD4 cell counts who are at risk of life-threatening illnesses. In patients with a CD4 ≤ 100 cells per µL, LF-LAM sensitivity was 56% (41% to 70%) versus 26% (16% to 46%) in patients with a CD4 count = 100 cells per µL. If the test is used in screening HIV-positive people for TB, in a population of 1000 where 10 actually have TB, LF-LAM will correctly identify none of the 10, or up to four of the 10; on the other hand, the test will miss six to 10 people with TB; in the remaining 990 who do not have TB, the test will correctly identify 931 to 941 people as not having TB while misclassifying 49 to 59 as having TB. Limitations The main limitations of the review were the use of a lower quality reference standard in most included studies, and small number of studies and participants included in the analyses. The results should, therefore, be interpreted with caution. Conclusions In this Cochrane review, we found that LF-LAM, whether the test is used for diagnosis or screening, has low sensitivity to detect TB. However, in HIV-positive people with low CD4 counts who are seriously ill, LF-LAM may help with the diagnosis of TB.

Chest radiography for the diagnosis of active pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) is limited by poor specificity and reader inconsistency. Scoring systems have been employed successfully for improving the performance of chest radiography for various pulmonary diseases. We conducted a systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy and reproducibility of scoring systems for PTB. We searched multiple databases for studies that evaluated the accuracy and reproducibility of chest radiograph scoring systems for PTB. We summarised results for specific radiographic features and scoring systems associated with PTB. Where appropriate, we estimated pooled performance of similar studies using a random effects model. 13 studies were included in the review, nine of which were in low tuberculosis (TB) burden settings. No scoring system was based solely on radiographic findings. All studies used systems with various combinations of clinical and radiological features. 11 studies involved scoring systems that were used for making decisions concerning hospital respiratory isolation. None of the included studies reported data on intra- or inter-reporter reproducibility. Upper lobe infiltrates (pooled diagnostic OR 3.57, 95% CI 2.38- 5.37, five studies) and cavities (diagnostic OR range 1.97-25.66, three studies) were significantly associated with PTB. Sensitivities of the scoring systems were high (median 96%, IQR 93-98%), but specificities were low (median 46%, IQR 35-50%). Chest radiograph scoring systems appear useful in ruling out PTB in hospitals, but their low specificity precludes ruling in PTB. There is a need to develop accurate scoring systems for people living with HIV and for outpatient settings, especially in high TB burden settings.

Undiagnosed and mismanaged tuberculosis (TB) continues to fuel the global TB epidemic. Rapid, accurate and early diagnosis of TB is therefore a priority to improve TB case detection and interrupt transmission. Although considerable improvements have been made in TB diagnostics, there are two major gaps in the existing diagnostics pipeline: (1) lack of a simple accurate point-of-care test that can be used for rapid diagnosis at the primary care level; (2) lack of a biomarker (or combination of biomarkers) that can be used to identify latently infected individuals who will benefit most from preventive therapy. Currently available commercial serological (antibody detection) tests are inaccurate and do not improve patient outcomes. Despite this evidence, dozens of serological tests are sold and used in countries (e.g. India) with weak regulatory systems, especially in the private sector. Recognizing the threat posed by these suboptimal tests, a World Health Organization (WHO) Expert Group has strongly recommended against the use of serological tests for the diagnosis of pulmonary and extra-pulmonary TB. Another WHO Expert Group has discouraged the use of interferon-γ release assays for active pulmonary TB diagnosis in low- and middle-income countries. All existing tests for latent TB infection appear to have only modest predictive value and further research is needed to identify highly predictive biomarkers.

Tests that detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens in clinical specimens could provide rapid direct evidence of active disease. We performed a systematic review to assess the diagnostic accuracy of antigen detection tests for active tuberculosis (TB) according to standard methods and summarized test performance using bivariate random effects meta-analysis. Overall, study quality was a concern. For pulmonary TB (47 studies, 5,036 participants), sensitivity estimates ranged from 2% to 100% and specificity from 33% to 100%. Lipoarabinomannan (LAM) was the antigen most frequently targeted (23 studies, 49%). The pooled sensitivity of urine LAM was higher in HIV-infected than HIV-uninfected individuals (47%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 26 to 68% versus 14%; 95% CI, 4 to 38%); pooled specificity estimates were similar: 96%; 95% CI, 81 to 100% and 97%; 95% CI, 86 to 100%, respectively. For extrapulmonary TB (21 studies, 1,616 participants), sensitivity estimates ranged from 0% to 100% and specificity estimates from 62% to 100%. Five studies targeting LAM, ESAT-6, Ag85 complex, and the 65-kDa antigen in cerebrospinal fluid, when pooled, yielded the highest sensitivity (87%; 95% CI, 61 to 98%), but low specificity (84%; 95% CI, 60 to 95%). Because of the limited number of studies targeting any specific antigen other than LAM, we could not draw firm conclusions about the overall clinical usefulness of these tests. Further studies are warranted to determine the value of LAM detection for TB meningitis in high-HIV-prevalence settings. Considering that antigen detection tests could be translated into rapid point-of-care tests, research to improve their performance is urgently needed.

Childhood TB is difficult to diagnose, since disease tends to be paucibacillary and sputum specimens are not easy to obtain in children. Thus, blood-based immune assays are an attractive option. Systematic reviews of serological assays suggest that these tests produce highly inconsistent estimates of sensitivity and specificity, but much of the serology literature is based on adults. In children, there is insufficient evidence to recommend the use of serological tests for active TB diagnosis. Interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) do not offer substantial improvements in sensitivity over the TST for the diagnosis of active disease. For latent TB infection, the IGRA correlates well with the exposure gradient and seems to have utility in reducing the number of children who undergo preventive therapy due to false-positive TST. Although IGRAs can be used as evidence of TB infection in children, appropriate specimen collection and microbiological confirmation of TB disease should remain a priority.

Objective To determine whether interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) improve the identification of HIV-infected individuals who could benefit from latent tuberculosis infection therapy. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods We searched multiple databases through May 2010 for studies evaluating the performance of the newest commercial IGRAs (QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube [QFT-GIT] and T-SPOT.TB [TSPOT]) in HIV-infected individuals. We assessed the quality of all studies included in the review, summarized results in prespecified subgroups using forest plots, and where appropriate, calculated pooled estimates using random effects models. Results The search identified 37 studies that included 5736 HIV-infected individuals. In three longitudinal studies, the risk of active tuberculosis was higher in HIV-infected individuals with positive versus negative IGRA results. However, the risk difference was not statistically significant in the two studies that reported IGRA results according to manufacturer-recommended criteria. In persons with active tuberculosis (a surrogate reference standard for latent tuberculosis infection), pooled sensitivity estimates were heterogeneous but higher for TSPOT (72%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 62-81%) than for QFT-GIT (61%; 95% CI, 47-75%) in low-/middle-income countries. However, neither IGRA was consistently more sensitive than the tuberculin skin test in head-to-head comparisons. Although TSPOT appeared to be less affected by immunosuppression than QFT-GIT and the tuberculin skin test, overall, differences among the three tests were small or inconclusive. Conclusions Current evidence suggests that IGRAs perform similarly to the tuberculin skin test at identifying HIV-infected individuals with latent tuberculosis infection. Given that both tests have modest predictive value and suboptimal sensitivity, the decision to use either test should be based on country guidelines and resource and logistic considerations.

Karen R Steingart, Andrew Ramsay & Madhukar Pai† †Author for correspondence McGill University, Dept. of Epidemiology, Biostatistics & Occupational Health, Montreal, Canada and, Respiratory Epidemiology & Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute 1020 Pine Avenue West, Montreal, Canada Tel.: +1 514 398 5422; Fax: +1 514 398 4503; madhukar.pai@mcgill.ca ‘Both pulmonary and extrapulmonary TB present diagnostic challenges.’

The global burden of disability and death due to tuberculosis (TB) is immense. In 2005 alone, an estimated 8.8 million people developed TB and almost 2 million died, including 195,000 HIV-infected ...

Most of the world's tuberculosis cases occur in low-income and middle-income countries, where sputum microscopy with a conventional light microscope is the primary method for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis. A major shortcoming of conventional microscopy is its relatively low sensitivity compared with culture, especially in patients co-infected with HIV. In high-income countries, fluorescence microscopy rather than conventional microscopy is the standard diagnostic method. Fluorescence microscopy is credited with increased sensitivity and lower work effort, but there is concern that specificity may be lower. We did a systematic review to summarise the accuracy of fluorescence microscopy compared with conventional microscopy. By searching many databases and contacting experts, we identified 45 relevant studies. Sensitivity, specificity, and incremental yield were the outcomes of interest. The results suggest that, overall, fluorescence microscopy is more sensitive than conventional microscopy, and has similar specificity. There is insufficient evidence to determine the value of fluorescence microscopy in HIV-infected individuals. The results of this review provide a point of reference, quantifying the potential benefit of fluorescence microscopy, with which the increased cost and technical complexity of the method can be compared to determine the possible value of the method under programme conditions.

Background Accurate and rapid tests for tuberculosis (TB) drug resistance are critical for improving patient care and decreasing the transmission of drug-resistant TB. Genotype®MTBDRsl (MTBDRsl) is the only commercially-available molecular test for detecting resistance in TB to the fluoroquinolones (FQs; ofloxacin, moxifloxacin and levofloxacin) and the second-line injectable drugs (SLIDs; amikacin, kanamycin and capreomycin), which are used to treat patients with multidrug-resistant (MDR-)TB. Objectives To obtain summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance and extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB; defined as MDR-TB plus resistance to a FQ and a SLID) when performed (1) indirectly (ie on culture isolates confirmed as TB positive) and (2) directly (ie on smear-positive sputum specimens). To compare summary estimates of the diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance and XDR-TB by type of testing (indirect versus direct testing). The populations of interest were adults with drug-susceptible TB or drug-resistant TB. The settings of interest were intermediate and central laboratories. Search methods We searched the following databases without any language restriction up to 30 January 2014: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; SCOPUS; the metaRegister of Controlled Trials; the search portal of the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. Selection criteria We included all studies that determined MTBDRsl accuracy against a defined reference standard (culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST), genetic testing or both). We included cross-sectional and diagnostic case-control studies. We excluded unpublished data and conference proceedings. Data collection and analysis For each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We performed meta-analyses to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of MTBDRsl for FQ resistance, SLID resistance, and XDR-TB. We explored the influence of different reference standards. We performed the majority of analyses using a bivariate random-effects model against culture-based DST as the reference standard. Main results We included 21 unique studies: 14 studies reported the accuracy of MTBDRsl when done directly, five studies when done indirectly and two studies that did both. Of the 21 studies, 15 studies (71%) were cross-sectional and 11 studies (58%) were located in low-income or middle-income countries. All studies but two were written in English. Nine (43%) of the 21 included studies had a high risk of bias for patient selection. At least half of the studies had low risk of bias for the other QUADAS-2 domains. As a test for FQ resistance measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 83.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) 78.7% to 86.7%) and the pooled specificity was 97.7% (95% CI 94.3% to 99.1%), respectively (16 studies, 1766 participants; 610 confirmed cases of FQ-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). When performed directly, the pooled sensitivity was 85.1% (95% CI 71.9% to 92.7%) and the pooled specificity was 98.2% (95% CI 96.8% to 99.0%), respectively (seven studies, 1033 participants; 230 confirmed cases of FQ-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). For indirect testing for FQ resistance, four (0.2%) of 1766 MTBDRsl results were indeterminate, whereas for direct testing 20 (1.9%) of 1033 were MTBDRsl indeterminate (P < 0.001). As a test for SLID resistance measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 76.9% (95% CI 61.1% to 87.6%) and the pooled specificity was 99.5% (95% CI 97.1% to 99.9%), respectively (14 studies, 1637 participants; 414 confirmed cases of SLID-resistant TB; moderate quality evidence). For amikacin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 87.9% (95% CI 82.1% to 92.0%) and 99.5% (95% CI 97.5% to 99.9%), respectively. For kanamycin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 66.9% (95% CI 44.1% to 83.8%) and 98.6% (95% CI 96.1% to 99.5%), respectively. For capreomycin resistance, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 79.5% (95% CI 58.3% to 91.4%) and 95.8% (95% CI 93.4% to 97.3%), respectively. When performed directly, the pooled sensitivity for SLID resistance was 94.4% (95% CI 25.2% to 99.9%) and the pooled specificity was 98.2% (95% CI 88.9% to 99.7%), respectively (six studies, 947 participants; 207 confirmed cases of SLID-resistant TB, 740 SLID susceptible cases of TB; very low quality evidence). For indirect testing for SLID resistance, three (0.4%) of 774 MTBDRsl results were indeterminate, whereas for direct testing 53 (6.1%) of 873 were MTBDRsl indeterminate (P < 0.001). As a test for XDR-TB measured against culture-based DST, the pooled sensitivity of MTBDRsl when performed indirectly was 70.9% (95% CI 42.9% to 88.8%) and the pooled specificity was 98.8% (95% CI 96.1% to 99.6%), respectively (eight studies, 880 participants; 173 confirmed cases of XDR-TB; low quality evidence). Authors' conclusions In adults with TB, a positive MTBDRsl result for FQ resistance, SLID resistance, or XDR-TB can be treated with confidence. However, MTBDRsl does not detect approximately one in five cases of FQ-resistant TB, and does not detect approximately one in four cases of SLID-resistant TB. Of the three SLIDs, MTBDRsl has the poorest sensitivity for kanamycin resistance. MTBDRsl will miss between one in four and one in three cases of XDR-TB. The diagnostic accuracy of MTBDRsl is similar when done using either culture isolates or smear-positive sputum. As the location of the resistance causing mutations can vary on a strain-by-strain basis, further research is required on test accuracy in different settings and, if genetic sequencing is used as a reference standard, it should examine all resistance-determining regions. Given the confidence one can have in a positive result, and the ability of the test to provide results within a matter of days, MTBDRsl may be used as an initial test for second-line drug resistance. However, when the test reports a negative result, clinicians may still wish to carry out conventional testing.

Objective:To describe the epidemiology of measles in medical settings and to evaluate the implementation and effectiveness of the 1989 Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) guidelines for measles immunization in healthcare workers (HCWs).Design:Confirmed cases of measles reported in Clark County, Washington, from March 14 to June 2,1996, were analyzed for characteristics of cases occurring in medical settings. A questionnaire was used to assess employee immunization (95% response rate).Setting and Participants:Reported measles cases and HCWs at community hospitals, primary-care medical facilities, a health-maintenance organization, and a multispecialty group practice.Results:Of 31 cases of measles, 8 (26%) occurred in HCWs, and 5 (16%) occurred in patients or visitors to medical facilities. Cases of measles occurred in HCWs who were not required to have proof of measles immunity as defined by the 1989 ACIP guidelines. The relative risk of measles in HCWs compared to Clark County adults was 18.6 (95% confidence interval, 7.4-45.8;PA survey of medical facilities revealed that 47% had an employee measles immunization policy; only 21% met ACIP recommendations and enforced their policies.Conclusions:HCWs were at higher risk of measles than the adult population. Transmission of measles in medical settings was related to both deficiencies in, and lack of implementation of, the ACIP guidelines.

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%; seven studies, 1789 participants), and for people without HIV infection, it was 86% (95% CrI 76% to 92%; seven studies, 1470 participants). Among 180 specimens with nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), Xpert® MTB/RIF was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM (14 studies, 2626 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). 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. Since 1992 the US Pacific Northwest has experienced a substantial increase in the incidence of serogroup B meningococcal disease. The current meningococcal polysaccharide vaccine is poorly immunogenic in young children and does not protect against N. meningitidis serogroup B. Defining alternative approaches to the prevention and control of meningococcal disease is of considerable public health importance. Methods. We performed a case-control study comparing 129 patients in Oregon and southwest Washington with 274 age- and area-matched controls. We used conditional logistic regression analysis to determine which exposures remained associated with disease after adjusting for other risk factors and confounders and calculated the proportion of disease attributable to modifiable exposures. Results. After adjustment for all other significant exposures identified, having a mother who smokes was the strongest independent risk factor for invasive meningococcal disease in children

Summary Background Sputum smear microscopy is the most widely available diagnostic test for pulmonary tuberculosis in countries with a high burden of the disease. Improving its accuracy is crucial to achievement of case-detection targets established by the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, many patients are unable to submit all of the specimens needed for examination or to return for treatment because standard sputum collection and reporting requires several clinic visits. To inform policy recommendations by a WHO-convened Expert Group, we aimed to assess the accuracy of sputum smear examination with strategies for obtaining sputum on 1 day compared with strategies for obtaining sputum over 2 days. Methods We did a systematic review and meta-analysis of research articles comparing the accuracy of front-loaded or same-day microscopy and standard sputum smear microscopy for diagnosis of culture-confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis. We searched Medline, Embase, Biosis, and Web of Science for articles published between Jan 1, 2005, and Feb 14, 2012. Two investigators identified eligible articles and extracted data for individual study sites. We generated pooled summary estimates (95% CIs) for sensitivity and specificity by use of random-effects meta-analysis when four or more studies were available. Findings We identified eight relevant studies from five articles enrolling 7771 patients with suspected tuberculosis in low-income countries. Compared with the standard approach of examination of two smears with Ziehl-Neelsen light microscopy over 2 days, examination of two smears taken on the same day had much the same sensitivity (64% [95% CI 60 to 69] for standard microscopy vs 63% [58 to 68] for same-day microscopy) and specificity (98% [97 to 99] vs 98% [97 to 99]). We noted similar results for studies employing light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy and for studies examining three smears, whether they were compared with two-smear strategies or with one another. Interpretation Same-day sputum smear microscopy is as accurate as standard smear microscopy. Data from tuberculosis programmes are needed to document the changes required in the health system to successfully implement the strategy and understand its effects. Funding WHO and US National Institutes of Health.

To the Editors: There is great excitement over the introduction of new tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics [1]. Since 2007, several TB diagnostics and approaches have been endorsed by the World Health Organization (WHO) [2],with Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) being the most recent [3]. Amidst this excitement, there is growing concern surrounding the use of inappropriate and suboptimal TB diagnostics [4, 5]. Currently available commercial serological (antibody detection) tests for TB are inaccurate and highly inconsistent [6–8]. The International Standards for TB Care explicitly discourage their use [9]. Even so, serological tests are known to be widely used in countries such as India [2, 4, 5]. In addition to posing an economic burden on patients and healthcare systems, use of serological tests also entails potential harm to patients ( e.g. unnecessary TB therapy because of false-positive results, or morbidity and mortality because of false-negative serology results). After reviewing the evidence, including the findings of an updated meta-analysis [10], the WHO recently announced its first negative policy in TB, against the use of current TB serological tests [5 …

Using the example of an international collaboration on tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics, we mapped the key stages and stakeholders involved in translating research into global policies. In our experience, the process begins with advocacy for high-quality, policy-relevant research and appropriate funding. Following the assessment of current policy and the identification of key study areas, policy-relevant research questions need to be formulated and prioritised. It is important that a framework for translating evidence into policy at the target policymaking level, in this case global, is available to researchers. This ensures that research questions, study designs and research standards are appropriate to the type and quality of evidence required. The framework may evolve during the period of research and, as evidence requirements may change, vigilance is required. Formal and informal multi-stakeholder partnerships, as well as information sharing through extensive networking, facilitate efficient building of a broad evidence base. Coordination of activities by an international, neutral body with strong convening powers is important, as is regular interaction with policy makers. It is recognised that studies on diagnostic accuracy provide weak evidence that a new diagnostic will improve patient care when implemented to scale in routine settings. This may be one reason why there has been poor uptake of new tools by national TB control programmes despite global policy recommendations. Stronger engagement with national policy makers and donors during the research-intopolicy process may be needed to ensure that their evidence requirements are met and that global policies translate into national policies. National policies are central to translating global policies into practice.

Background. The diagnostic value of interferon-c release assays (IGRAs) for active tuberculosis in low- and middle-income countries is unclear. Methods. We searched multiple databases for studies published through May 2010 that evaluated the diagnostic performance of QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB (T-SPOT) among adults with suspected active pulmonary tuberculosis or patients with confirmed cases in low- and middle-income countries. We summarized test performance characteristics with use of forest plots, hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) curves, and bivariate random effects models. Results. Our search identified 789 citations, of which 27 observational studies (17 QFT-GIT and 10 T-SPOT) evaluating 590 human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)‐uninfected and 844 HIV-infected individuals met inclusion criteria. Among HIV-infected patients, HSROC/bivariate pooled sensitivity estimates (highest quality data) were 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 45%‐92%) for T-SPOT and 60% (95% CI, 34%‐82%) for QFT-GIT. HSROC/ bivariate pooled specificity estimates were low for both IGRA platforms among all participants (T-SPOT, 61% [95% CI, 40%‐79%]; QFT-GIT, 52% [95% CI, 41%‐62%]) and among HIV-infected persons (T-SPOT, 52% [95% CI, 40%‐63%]; QFT-GIT, 50% [95% CI, 35%‐65%]). There was no consistent evidence that either IGRA was more sensitive than the tuberculin skin test for active tuberculosis diagnosis. Conclusions. In low- and middle-income countries, neither the tuberculin skin test nor IGRAs have value for active tuberculosis diagnosis in adults, especially in the context of HIV coinfection.

To provide a narrative synthesis of evidence on interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) for the diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in individuals with immune-mediated inflammatory disorders (IMIDs).Only a few studies have evaluated IGRAs in IMIDs, and most were small and varied considerably with respect to the use of immunosuppressive medications and types of IMIDs. Current evidence does not clearly suggest that IGRAs are better than tuberculin skin test (TST) in identifying individuals with IMID who could benefit from LTBI treatment. To date, no studies have been done on the predictive value of IGRAs in IMID patients. Important questions remain unanswered as to the impact of immunosuppressive medications and the impact of type of IMID on IGRA performance.Despite the lack of clear evidence, there is an increasing tendency for guidelines to prefer IGRA over TST in IMIDs or to recommend both TST and IGRA to enhance sensitivity. We believe the use of either test is acceptable for LTBI screening. Clinicians could consider starting with IGRAs in individuals with a history of Bacille Calmette-Guérin (BCG) vaccination after infancy or with repeated BCG vaccinations. When the index of suspicion for LTBI is high, both IGRA and TST could be performed, especially prior to initiating TNF-α inhibitor therapy. Regardless of the test used, it is important to remember that in the face of immune-suppression, both IGRA and TST can be falsely negative and are thus only diagnostic aids - they will need to be interpreted with other clinical and risk factor data.

Summary WHO has previously recommended sputum-smear examination at the end of the second month of treatment in patients with recently diagnosed pulmonary tuberculosis, and, if positive, extension of the intensive therapy phase. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the accuracy of a positive sputum smear or culture during treatment for predicting failure or relapse in pulmonary tuberculosis. We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library for studies published in English through December, 2009. We included randomised controlled trials, cohort, and case-control studies of previously untreated pulmonary tuberculosis patients who had received a standardised regimen with rifampicin in the initial phase. Accuracy results were summarised in forest plots and pooled by use of a hierarchical regression approach. 15 papers (28 studies) met the inclusion criteria. The pooled sensitivities for both 2-month smear (24% [95% CI 12–42%], six studies) and culture (40% [95% CI 25–56%], four studies) to predict relapse were low. Corresponding specificities (85% [95% CI 72–90%] and 85% [95% CI 77–91%]) were higher, but modest. For failure, 2-month smear (seven studies) had low sensitivity (57% [95% CI 41–73%]) and higher, although modest, specificity (81% [95% CI 72–87%]). Both sputum-smear microscopy and mycobacterial culture during tuberculosis treatment have low sensitivity and modest specificity for predicting failure and relapse. Although we pooled a diverse group of patients, the individual studies had similar performance characteristics. Better predictive markers are needed.

Bleach digestion of sputum prior to smear preparation has been reported to increase the yield of microscopy for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis, even in high-HIV-prevalence settings. To determine the diagnostic accuracy of bleach microscopy, we updated a systematic review published in 2006 and applied the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework to rate the overall quality of the evidence. We searched multiple databases (as of January 2009) for primary studies in all languages comparing bleach and direct microscopy. We assessed study quality using a validated tool and heterogeneity by standard methods. We used hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) analysis to calculate summary estimates of diagnostic accuracy and random-effects meta-analysis to pool sensitivity and specificity differences. Of 14 studies (11 papers) included, 9 evaluated bleach centrifugation and 5 evaluated bleach sedimentation. Overall, examination of bleach-processed versus direct smears led to small increases in sensitivity (for bleach centrifugation, 6% [95% confidence interval {CI} = 3 to 10%, P = 0.001]; for bleach sedimentation, 9% [95% CI = 4 to 14%, P = 0.001]) and small decreases in specificity (for bleach centrifugation, −3% [95% CI = −4% to −1%, P = 0.004]; for bleach sedimentation, −2% [95% CI = −5% to 0%, P = 0.05]). Similarly, analysis of HSROC curves suggested little or no improvement in diagnostic accuracy. The quality of evidence was rated very low for both bleach centrifugation and bleach sedimentation. This updated systematic review suggests that the benefits of bleach processing are less than those described previously. Further research should focus on alternative approaches to optimizing smear microscopy, such as light-emitting diode fluorescence microscopy and same-day sputum collection strategies.

The aim is to summarize the evidence base for tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics, review recent policies on TB diagnostics, and discuss issues such as how evidence is translated into policy, limitations of the existing evidence base, and challenges involved in translating policies into impact.Case detection continues to be a major obstacle to global TB control. Fortunately, due to an unprecedented level of interest, funding, and activity, the new diagnostics pipeline for TB has rapidly expanded. There have been several new policies and guidelines on TB diagnostics. However, there are major gaps in the existing pipeline (e.g. lack of a point-of-care test) and the evidence base is predominantly made up of research studies of test accuracy.With the availability of new diagnostics and supporting policies, the next major step is translation of policy into practice. The impact of new tests will depend largely on the extent of their introduction and acceptance into the global public sector. This will itself depend in part on policy decisions by international technical agencies and national TB programs. With the engagement of all key stakeholders, we will need to translate evidence-based policies into epidemiological and public health impact.