Search

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

Setting: County referral hospital in western Kenya., Objectives: To ascertain the proportion of pre-treatment loss to follow-up (PTLFU) and associated patient factors in adults with pulmonary TB (PTB) in western Kenya., Design: A retrospective data review of laboratory and treatment registers for adults with bacteriologically confirmed PTB between January 2018 to December 2021. We defined PTLFU as failure to initiate treatment within 14 days of diagnosis. We used multivariable logistic regression modelling to identify patient factors associated with PTLFU., Results: Of 476 patients with PTB, 67.2% were male; the mean age was 36.1 years; 37.0% were HIV-positive; 5.7% had a history of anti-TB treatment; 40.6% were not traceable in the treatment register; 202 (42.4%, 95% CI 38.1-46.9) experienced PTLFU. Age ≥55 years (aOR 2.6, 95% CI 1.0-6.7) and providing only an address (aOR 34.2, 95% CI 18.7-62.5) or only a telephone contact number (aOR 22.3, 95% CI 3.5-141.1) were associated with PTLFU. Sex, HIV status, history of anti-TB treatment and place of residence were not associated with PTLFU., Conclusion: PTLFU contributes markedly to TB patient losses in western Kenya. Strengthening systems for documenting patient information and actively monitoring PTLFU are crucial for attrition reduction., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: none declared., (© 2024 The Authors.)

Background: Tuberculosis is a leading cause of infectious disease mortality worldwide, but diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis remains challenging. Oral swabs are a promising non-sputum alternative sample type for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of oral swabs to detect pulmonary tuberculosis in adults and children and suggest research implications., Methods: In this systematic review, we searched published and preprint studies from Jan 1, 2000, to July 5, 2022, from eight databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Science Citation Index, medRxiv, bioRxiv, Global Index Medicus, and Google Scholar). We included diagnostic accuracy studies including cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies in adults and children from which we could extract or derive sensitivity and specificity of oral swabs as a sample type for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis against a sputum microbiological (nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT] on sputum or culture) or composite reference standard., Findings: Of 550 reports identified by the search, we included 16 eligible reports (including 20 studies and 3083 participants) that reported diagnostic accuracy estimates on oral swabs for pulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity on oral swabs ranged from 36% (95% CI 26-48) to 91% (80-98) in adults and 5% (1-14) to 42% (23-63) in children. Across all studies, specificity ranged from 66% (95% CI 52-78) to 100% (97-100), with most studies reporting specificity of more than 90%. Meta-analysis was not performed because of sampling and testing heterogeneity., Interpretation: Sensitivity varies in both adults and children when diverse methods are used. Variability in sampling location, swab type, and type of NAAT used in accuracy studies limits comparison. Although data are suggestive that high accuracy is achievable using oral swabs with molecular testing, more research is needed to define optimal methods for using oral swabs as a specimen for tuberculosis detection. The current data suggest that tongue swabs and swab types that collect increased biomass might have increased sensitivity. We would recommend that future studies use these established methods to continue to refine sample processing to maximise sensitivity., Funding: Bill and Melinda Gates foundation (INV-045721) and FIND (Netherlands Enterprise Agency on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation [NL-GRNT05] and KfW Development Bank, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [KFW-TBBU01/02])., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests This study received funding from FIND. ECC reports institution payments from FIND. MK and MR are employed by FIND. AES is supported in part by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) K23 AI40918 award. GAC is funded by the NIH and Bill and Melinda Gates foundation and reports receiving donations of research supplies (FLOQswabs) from Copan Italia. KS has received financial support from Cochrane Infectious Diseases, McGill University, Baylor College of Medicine, Maastricht University, TB Proof, and WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme; consultancy fees from FIND, the global alliance for diagnostics; consulting fees from Stellenbosch University, and travel support to attend WHO guideline development group meetings., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To provide guidance on rating imprecision in a body of evidence assessing the accuracy of a single test. This guide will clarify when Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) users should consider rating down the certainty of evidence by one or more levels for imprecision in test accuracy., Study Design and Setting: A project group within the GRADE working group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE working group meetings to produce this guidance., Results: Before rating the certainty of evidence, GRADE users should define the target of their certainty rating. GRADE recommends setting judgment thresholds defining what they consider a very accurate, accurate, inaccurate, and very inaccurate test. These thresholds should be set after considering consequences of testing and effects on people-important outcomes. GRADE's primary criterion for judging imprecision in test accuracy evidence is considering confidence intervals (i.e., CI approach) of absolute test accuracy results (true and false, positive, and negative results in a cohort of people). Based on the CI approach, when a CI appreciably crosses the predefined judgment threshold(s), one should consider rating down certainty of evidence by one or more levels, depending on the number of thresholds crossed. When the CI does not cross judgment threshold(s), GRADE suggests considering the sample size for an adequately powered test accuracy review (optimal or review information size [optimal information size (OIS)/review information size (RIS)]) in rating imprecision. If the combined sample size of the included studies in the review is smaller than the required OIS/RIS, one should consider rating down by one or more levels for imprecision., Conclusion: This paper extends previous GRADE guidance for rating imprecision in single test accuracy systematic reviews and guidelines, with a focus on the circumstances in which one should consider rating down one or more levels for imprecision., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare no direct financial conflict of interest. They are members or contributors to the GRADE working group. Multiple coauthors have served as methodologists on a number of systematic reviews or guidelines that provided examples for this manuscript., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Since 2018, over 14 million people have been treated for tuberculosis (TB) globally. However, pre-treatment loss to follow-up (PTLFU) has been shown to contribute substantially to patient losses in the TB care cascade with subsequent high community transmission and mortality rates., Objective: To identify, appraise, and synthesise evidence on the perspectives of patients and healthcare workers on factors contributing to PTLFU in adults with pulmonary TB., Methods: We registered the title with PROSPERO (CRD42021253212). We searched nine relevant databases up to 24 May 2021 for qualitative studies. Two review authors independently reviewed records for eligibility and extracted data. We assessed methodological quality with the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information Centre tool and synthesised data using the Supporting the Use of Research Evidence framework. We assessed confidence in our findings using Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE-CERQual)., Results: We reviewed a total of 1239 records and included five studies, all from low- and middle-income countries. Key themes reported by patients and healthcare workers were communication challenges among healthcare workers and between healthcare workers and patients; knowledge, attitudes, and behaviours about TB and its management; accessibility and availability of facilities for TB care; and human resource and financial constraints, weakness in management and leadership in TB programmes. Patients' change of residence, long waiting times, and poor referral systems were additional factors that contributed to patients disengaging from care. We had moderate confidence in most of our findings., Conclusion: Findings from our qualitative evidence synthesis highlight multiple factors that contribute to PTLFU. Central to addressing these factors will be the need to strengthen health systems and offer people-centred care.

Setting: County referral hospital in Western Kenya., Objectives: To explore factors contributing to pre-treatment loss to follow-up (PTLFU) in adults with pulmonary TB and propose solutions to address PTLFU from healthcare worker (HCW) perspectives., Design: This was an exploratory qualitative study using thematic analysis., Results: We conducted 19 key informant interviews with HCWs representing laboratory, clinical care, management and the community. Participant age ranged from 26 to 62 years; 14 (74%) were females; and most (74%) had worked in TB care for ⩽5 years. They reported that patients experienced stigma and had misconceptions about TB that contributed to PTLFU. HCWs were hesitant to work in the TB clinic, which contributed to suboptimal patient care, leading to PTLFU. Unclear linkage between laboratory and clinician, and limited financial resources to track patients were among the healthcare system factors that led to PTLFU. HCWs suggested having proper patient preparation, assigning resources to track patients and holding regular interdisciplinary meetings as practical solutions to address PTLFU., Conclusion: HCWs reported multiple factors that may influence PTLFU and recommended various solutions to address these. Knowledge of TB management, patient preparation, resources to track patients and multidisciplinary meetings will be central to addressing PTLFU., Competing Interests: Conflicts of interest: none declared., (© 2023 The Union.)

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

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) End TB Strategy stresses universal access to drug susceptibility testing (DST). DST determines whether Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria are susceptible or resistant to drugs. Xpert MTB/XDR is a rapid nucleic acid amplification test for detection of tuberculosis and drug resistance in one test suitable for use in peripheral and intermediate level laboratories. In specimens where tuberculosis is detected by Xpert MTB/XDR, Xpert MTB/XDR can also detect resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/XDR for pulmonary tuberculosis in people with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (having signs and symptoms suggestive of tuberculosis, including cough, fever, weight loss, night sweats). To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/XDR for resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin in people with tuberculosis detected by Xpert MTB/XDR, irrespective of rifampicin resistance (whether or not rifampicin resistance status was known) and with known rifampicin resistance., Search Methods: We searched multiple databases to 23 September 2021. We limited searches to 2015 onwards as Xpert MTB/XDR was launched in 2020., Selection Criteria: Diagnostic accuracy studies using sputum in adults with presumptive or confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture (pulmonary tuberculosis detection); phenotypic DST (pDST), genotypic DST (gDST),composite (pDST and gDST) (drug resistance detection)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently reviewed reports for eligibility and extracted data using a standardized form. For multicentre studies, we anticipated variability in the type and frequency of mutations associated with resistance to a given drug at the different centres and considered each centre as an independent study cohort for quality assessment and analysis. We assessed methodological quality with QUADAS-2, judging risk of bias separately for each target condition and reference standard. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, owing to heterogeneity in participant characteristics and observed specificity estimates, we reported a range of sensitivity and specificity estimates and did not perform a meta-analysis. For drug resistance detection, we performed meta-analyses by reference standard using bivariate random-effects models. Using GRADE, we assessed certainty of evidence of Xpert MTB/XDR accuracy for detection of resistance to isoniazid and fluoroquinolones in people irrespective of rifampicin resistance and to ethionamide and amikacin in people with known rifampicin resistance, reflecting real-world situations. We used pDST, except for ethionamide resistance where we considered gDST a better reference standard., Main Results: We included two multicentre studies from high multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis burden countries, reporting on six independent study cohorts, involving 1228 participants for pulmonary tuberculosis detection and 1141 participants for drug resistance detection. The proportion of participants with rifampicin resistance in the two studies was 47.9% and 80.9%. For tuberculosis detection, we judged high risk of bias for patient selection owing to selective recruitment. For ethionamide resistance detection, we judged high risk of bias for the reference standard, both pDST and gDST, though we considered gDST a better reference standard. Pulmonary tuberculosis detection - Xpert MTB/XDR sensitivity range, 98.3% (96.1 to 99.5) to 98.9% (96.2 to 99.9) and specificity range, 22.5% (14.3 to 32.6) to 100.0% (86.3 to 100.0); median prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis 91.3%, (interquartile range, 89.3% to 91.8%), (2 studies; 1 study reported on 2 cohorts, 1228 participants; very low-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). Drug resistance detection People irrespective of rifampicin resistance - Isoniazid resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 94.2% (87.5 to 97.4) and 98.5% (92.6 to 99.7) against pDST, (6 cohorts, 1083 participants, moderate-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). - Fluoroquinolone resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 93.2% (88.1 to 96.2) and 98.0% (90.8 to 99.6) against pDST, (6 cohorts, 1021 participants; high-certainty evidence, sensitivity; moderate-certainty evidence, specificity). People with known rifampicin resistance - Ethionamide resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 98.0% (74.2 to 99.9) and 99.7% (83.5 to 100.0) against gDST, (4 cohorts, 434 participants; very low-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). - Amikacin resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 86.1% (75.0 to 92.7) and 98.9% (93.0 to 99.8) against pDST, (4 cohorts, 490 participants; low-certainty evidence, sensitivity; high-certainty evidence, specificity). Of 1000 people with pulmonary tuberculosis, detected as tuberculosis by Xpert MTB/XDR: - where 50 have isoniazid resistance, 61 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating isoniazid resistance: of these, 14/61 (23%) would not have isoniazid resistance (FP); 939 (of 1000 people) would have a result indicating the absence of isoniazid resistance: of these, 3/939 (0%) would have isoniazid resistance (FN). - where 50 have fluoroquinolone resistance, 66 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating fluoroquinolone resistance: of these, 19/66 (29%) would not have fluoroquinolone resistance (FP); 934 would have a result indicating the absence of fluoroquinolone resistance: of these, 3/934 (0%) would have fluoroquinolone resistance (FN). - where 300 have ethionamide resistance, 296 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating ethionamide resistance: of these, 2/296 (1%) would not have ethionamide resistance (FP); 704 would have a result indicating the absence of ethionamide resistance: of these, 6/704 (1%) would have ethionamide resistance (FN). - where 135 have amikacin resistance, 126 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating amikacin resistance: of these, 10/126 (8%) would not have amikacin resistance (FP); 874 would have a result indicating the absence of amikacin resistance: of these, 19/874 (2%) would have amikacin resistance (FN)., Authors' Conclusions: Review findings suggest that, in people determined by Xpert MTB/XDR to be tuberculosis-positive, Xpert MTB/XDR provides accurate results for detection of isoniazid and fluoroquinolone resistance and can assist with selection of an optimised treatment regimen. Given that Xpert MTB/XDR targets a limited number of resistance variants in specific genes, the test may perform differently in different settings. Findings in this review should be interpreted with caution. Sensitivity for detection of ethionamide resistance was based only on Xpert MTB/XDR detection of mutations in the inhA promoter region, a known limitation. High risk of bias limits our confidence in Xpert MTB/XDR accuracy for pulmonary tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/XDR's impact will depend on its ability to detect tuberculosis (required for DST), prevalence of resistance to a given drug, health care infrastructure, and access to other tests., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Programmes that introduce rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance aim to bring tests closer to the community, and thereby cut delay in diagnosis, ensure early treatment, and improve health outcomes, as well as overcome problems with poor laboratory infrastructure and inadequately trained personnel. Yet, diagnostic technologies only have an impact if they are put to use in a correct and timely manner. Views of the intended beneficiaries are important in uptake of diagnostics, and their effective use also depends on those implementing testing programmes, including providers, laboratory professionals, and staff in health ministries. Otherwise, there is a risk these technologies will not fit their intended use and setting, cannot be made to work and scale up, and are not used by, or not accessible to, those in need., Objectives: To synthesize end-user and professional user perspectives and experiences with low-complexity nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for detection of tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance; and to identify implications for effective implementation and health equity., Search Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Science Citation Index Expanded databases for eligible studies from 1 January 2007 up to 20 October 2021. We limited all searches to 2007 onward because the development of Xpert MTB/RIF, the first rapid molecular test in this review, was completed in 2009., Selection Criteria: We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis, and were focused on perspectives and experiences of users and potential users of low-complexity NAATs to diagnose tuberculosis and drug-resistant tuberculosis. NAATs included Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra, Xpert MTB/XDR, and the Truenat assays. Users were people with presumptive or confirmed tuberculosis and drug-resistant tuberculosis (including multidrug-resistant (MDR-TB)) and their caregivers, healthcare providers, laboratory technicians and managers, and programme officers and staff; and were from any type of health facility and setting globally. MDR-TB is tuberculosis caused by resistance to at least rifampicin and isoniazid, the two most effective first-line drugs used to treat tuberculosis., Data Collection and Analysis: We used a thematic analysis approach for data extraction and synthesis, and assessed confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual approach. We developed a conceptual framework to illustrate how the findings relate., Main Results: We found 32 studies. All studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Twenty-seven studies were conducted in high-tuberculosis burden countries and 21 studies in high-MDR-TB burden countries. Only one study was from an Eastern European country. While the studies covered a diverse use of low-complexity NAATs, in only a minority of studies was it used as the initial diagnostic test for all people with presumptive tuberculosis. We identified 18 review findings and grouped them into three overarching categories. Critical aspects users value People with tuberculosis valued reaching diagnostic closure with an accurate diagnosis, avoiding diagnostic delays, and keeping diagnostic-associated cost low. Similarly, healthcare providers valued aspects of accuracy and the resulting confidence in low-complexity NAAT results, rapid turnaround times, and keeping cost to people seeking a diagnosis low. In addition, providers valued diversity of sample types (for example, gastric aspirate specimens and stool in children) and drug resistance information. Laboratory professionals appreciated the improved ease of use, ergonomics, and biosafety of low-complexity NAATs compared to sputum microscopy, and increased staff satisfaction. Challenges reported to realizing those values People with tuberculosis and healthcare workers were reluctant to test for tuberculosis (including MDR-TB) due to fears, stigma, or cost concerns. Thus, low-complexity NAAT testing is not implemented with sufficient support or discretion to overcome barriers that are common to other approaches to testing for tuberculosis. Delays were reported at many steps of the diagnostic pathway owing to poor sample quality; difficulties with transporting specimens; lack of sufficient resources; maintenance of low-complexity NAATs; increased workload; inefficient work and patient flows; over-reliance on low-complexity NAAT results in lieu of clinical judgement; and lack of data-driven and inclusive implementation processes. These challenges were reported to lead to underutilization.  Concerns for access and equity The reported concerns included sustainable funding and maintenance and equitable use of resources to access low-complexity NAATs, as well as conflicts of interest between donors and people implementing the tests. Also, lengthy diagnostic delays, underutilization of low-complexity NAATs, lack of tuberculosis diagnostic facilities in the community, and too many eligibility restrictions hampered access to prompt and accurate testing and treatment. This was particularly the case for vulnerable groups, such as children, people with MDR-TB, or people with limited ability to pay. We had high confidence in most of our findings., Authors' Conclusions: Low-complexity diagnostics have been presented as a solution to overcome deficiencies in laboratory infrastructure and lack of skilled professionals. This review indicates this is misleading. The lack of infrastructure and human resources undermine the added value new diagnostics of low complexity have for recipients and providers. We had high confidence in the evidence contributing to these review findings. Implementation of new diagnostic technologies, like those considered in this review, will need to tackle the challenges identified in this review including weak infrastructure and systems, and insufficient data on ground level realities prior and during implementation, as well as problems of conflicts of interest in order to ensure equitable use of resources., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

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

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

Background: Tuberculosis is a leading cause of infectious disease-related death and is one of the top 10 causes of death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of specific rapid molecular tests, including Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra, as initial diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in people with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. However, the WHO estimates that nearly one-third of all active tuberculosis cases go undiagnosed and unreported. We were interested in whether a single test, Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra, could be useful as a screening test to close this diagnostic gap and improve tuberculosis case detection., Objectives: To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in high-risk groups and in the general population. Screening "irrespective of signs or symptoms" refers to screening of people who have not been assessed for the presence of tuberculosis symptoms (e.g. cough). To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for detecting rifampicin resistance in adults screened for tuberculosis, irrespective of signs and symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in high-risk groups and in the general population., Search Methods: We searched 12 databases including the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and Embase, on 19 March 2020 without language restrictions. We also reviewed reference lists of included articles and related Cochrane Reviews, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional studies., Selection Criteria: Cross-sectional and cohort studies in which adults (15 years and older) in high-risk groups (e.g. people living with HIV, household contacts of people with tuberculosis) or in the general population were screened for pulmonary tuberculosis using Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra. For tuberculosis detection, the reference standard was culture. For rifampicin resistance detection, the reference standards were culture-based drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. We used a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) separately for tuberculosis detection and rifampicin resistance detection. We estimated all models using a Bayesian approach. For tuberculosis detection, we first estimated screening accuracy in distinct high-risk groups, including people living with HIV, household contacts, people residing in prisons, and miners, and then in several high-risk groups combined., Main Results: We included a total of 21 studies: 18 studies (13,114 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test for pulmonary tuberculosis and one study (571 participants) evaluated both Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra. Three studies (159 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance. Fifteen studies (75%) were conducted in high tuberculosis burden and 16 (80%) in high TB/HIV-burden countries. We judged most studies to have low risk of bias in all four QUADAS-2 domains and low concern for applicability. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra as screening tests for pulmonary tuberculosis In people living with HIV (12 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) were 61.8% (53.6 to 69.9) (602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 98.8% (98.0 to 99.4) (4173 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 50 have tuberculosis on culture, 40 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive; of these, 9 (22%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 960 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative; of these, 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). In people living with HIV (1 study), Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 69% (57 to 80) (68 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 98% (97 to 99) (503 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 50 have tuberculosis on culture, 53 would be Xpert Ultra-positive; of these, 19 (36%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 947 would be Xpert Ultra-negative; of these, 16 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). In non-hospitalized people in high-risk groups (5 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 69.4% (47.7 to 86.2) (337 participants, low-certainty evidence) and 98.8% (97.2 to 99.5) (8619 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 10 have tuberculosis on culture, 19 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive; of these, 12 (63%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 981 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative; of these, 3 (0%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). We did not identify any studies using Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra for screening in the general population. Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test for rifampicin resistance Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was 81% and 100% (2 studies, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity was 94% to 100%, (3 studies, 139 participants; moderate-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: Of the high-risks groups evaluated, Xpert MTB/RIF applied as a screening test was accurate for tuberculosis in high tuberculosis burden settings. Sensitivity and specificity were similar in people living with HIV and non-hospitalized people in high-risk groups. In people living with HIV, Xpert Ultra sensitivity was slightly higher than that of Xpert MTB/RIF and specificity similar. As there was only one study of Xpert Ultra in this analysis, results should be interpreted with caution. There were no studies that evaluated the tests in people with diabetes mellitus and other groups considered at high-risk for tuberculosis, or in the general population., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in people with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. This review builds on our recent extensive Cochrane Review of Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy., Objectives: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and detection of rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis. For pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance, we also investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. We also summarized the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace-positive results, and estimated the accuracy of Xpert Ultra after repeat testing in those with trace-positive results., Search Methods: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, the WHO ICTRP, the ISRCTN registry, and ProQuest to 28 January 2020 with no language restriction., Selection Criteria: We included diagnostic accuracy studies using respiratory specimens in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis that directly compared the index tests. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, the reference standards were culture and a composite reference standard. For rifampicin resistance, the reference standards were culture-based drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form, including data by smear and HIV status. We assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. We performed meta-analyses comparing pooled sensitivities and specificities, separately for pulmonary tuberculosis detection and rifampicin resistance detection, and separately by reference standard. Most analyses used a bivariate random-effects model. For tuberculosis detection, we estimated accuracy in studies in participants who were not selected based on prior microscopy testing or history of tuberculosis. We performed subgroup analyses by smear status, HIV status, and history of tuberculosis. We summarized Xpert Ultra trace results., Main Results: We identified nine studies (3500 participants): seven had unselected participants (2834 participants). All compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis detection; seven studies used a paired comparative accuracy design, and two studies used a randomized design. Five studies compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection; four studies used a paired design, and one study used a randomized design. Of the nine included studies, seven (78%) were mainly or exclusively in high tuberculosis burden countries. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, most studies had low risk of bias in all domains. Pulmonary tuberculosis detection Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval) against culture were 90.9% (86.2 to 94.7) and 95.6% (93.0 to 97.4) (7 studies, 2834 participants; high-certainty evidence) versus Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity of 84.7% (78.6 to 89.9) and 98.4% (97.0 to 99.3) (7 studies, 2835 participants; high-certainty evidence). The difference in the accuracy of Xpert Ultra minus Xpert MTB/RIF was estimated at 6.3% (0.1 to 12.8) for sensitivity and -2.7% (-5.7 to -0.5) for specificity. If the point estimates for Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, where 10% of those presenting with symptoms have pulmonary tuberculosis, Xpert Ultra will miss 9 cases, and Xpert MTB/RIF will miss 15 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis would be 40 with Xpert Ultra and 14 with Xpert MTB/RIF. In smear-negative, culture-positive participants, pooled sensitivity was 77.5% (67.6 to 85.6) for Xpert Ultra versus 60.6% (48.4 to 71.7) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 95.8% (92.9 to 97.7) for Xpert Ultra versus 98.8% (97.7 to 99.5) for Xpert MTB/RIF (6 studies). In people living with HIV, pooled sensitivity was 87.6% (75.4 to 94.1) for Xpert Ultra versus 74.9% (58.7 to 86.2) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 92.8% (82.3 to 97.0) for Xpert Ultra versus 99.7% (98.6 to 100.0) for Xpert MTB/RIF (3 studies). In participants with a history of tuberculosis, pooled sensitivity was 84.2% (72.5 to 91.7) for Xpert Ultra versus 81.8% (68.7 to 90.0) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 88.2% (70.5 to 96.6) for Xpert Ultra versus 97.4% (91.7 to 99.5) for Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies). The proportion of Ultra trace-positive results ranged from 3.0% to 30.4%. Data were insufficient to estimate the accuracy of Xpert Ultra repeat testing in individuals with initial trace-positive results. Rifampicin resistance detection Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 94.9% (88.9 to 97.9) and 99.1% (97.7 to 99.8) (5 studies, 921 participants; high-certainty evidence) for Xpert Ultra versus 95.3% (90.0 to 98.1) and 98.8% (97.2 to 99.6) (5 studies, 930 participants; high-certainty evidence) for Xpert MTB/RIF. The difference in the accuracy of Xpert Ultra minus Xpert MTB/RIF was estimated at -0.3% (-6.9 to 5.7) for sensitivity and 0.3% (-1.2 to 2.0) for specificity. If the point estimates for Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, where 10% of those presenting with symptoms have rifampicin resistance, Xpert Ultra will miss 5 cases, and Xpert MTB/RIF will miss 5 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with rifampicin resistance would be 8 with Xpert Ultra and 11 with Xpert MTB/RIF. We identified a higher number of rifampicin resistance indeterminate results with Xpert Ultra, pooled proportion 7.6% (2.4 to 21.0) compared to Xpert MTB/RIF pooled proportion 0.8% (0.2 to 2.4). The estimated difference in the pooled proportion of indeterminate rifampicin resistance results for Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF was 6.7% (1.4 to 20.1)., Authors' Conclusions: Xpert Ultra has higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in smear-negative participants and people living with HIV. Xpert Ultra specificity was lower than that of Xpert MTB/RIF in participants with a history of tuberculosis. The sensitivity and specificity trade-off would be expected to vary by setting. For detection of rifampicin resistance, Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity. Ultra trace-positive results were common. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF provide accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of treatment for rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum. To extend our previous review on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (Kohli 2018), we performed this update to inform updated WHO policy (WHO Consolidated Guidelines (Module 3) 2020)., Objectives: To estimate diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis., Search Methods: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, 2 August 2019 and 28 January 2020 (Xpert Ultra studies), without language restriction., Selection Criteria: Cross-sectional and cohort studies using non-respiratory specimens. Forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: tuberculous meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, disseminated tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture and a study-defined composite reference standard (tuberculosis detection); phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays (rifampicin resistance detection)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. For tuberculosis detection, we performed separate analyses by specimen type and reference standard using the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We applied a latent class meta-analysis model to three forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE., Main Results: 69 studies: 67 evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and 11 evaluated Xpert Ultra, of which nine evaluated both tests. Most studies were conducted in China, India, South Africa, and Uganda. Overall, risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains, and low (49%) or unclear (43%) for the reference standard domain. Applicability for the patient selection domain was unclear for most studies because we were unsure of the clinical settings. Cerebrospinal fluid Xpert Ultra (6 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 89.4% (79.1 to 95.6) (89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 91.2% (83.2 to 95.7) (386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 168 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 79 (47%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives) and 832 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 11 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). Xpert MTB/RIF (30 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 71.1% (62.8 to 79.1) (571 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 96.9% (95.4 to 98.0) (2824 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 99 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 28 (28%) would not have tuberculosis; and 901 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Pleural fluid Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 75.0% (58.0 to 86.4) (158 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 87.0% (63.1 to 97.9) (240 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 192 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 117 (61%) would not have tuberculosis; and 808 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (25 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 49.5% (39.8 to 59.9) (644 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.9% (97.6 to 99.7) (2421 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 60 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 10 (17%) would not have tuberculosis; and 940 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 50 (5%) would have tuberculosis. Lymph node aspirate Xpert Ultra (1 study) Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) against composite reference standard were 70% (51 to 85) (30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 100% (92 to 100) (43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 70 would be Xpert Ultra-positive and 0 (0%) would not have tuberculosis; 930 would be Xpert Ultra-negative and 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against composite reference standard were 81.6% (61.9 to 93.3) (377 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 96.4% (91.3 to 98.6) (302 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 118 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 37 (31%) would not have tuberculosis; 882 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis. In lymph node aspirate, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity against culture was 86.2% (78.0 to 92.3), lower than that against a composite reference standard. Using the latent class model, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity was 99.5% (99.1 to 99.7), similar to that observed with a composite reference standard. Rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95.1 to 100.0), (24 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 100.0% (99.0 to 100.0) (105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 100 would be Xpert Ultra-positive (resistant): of these, zero (0%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 900 would be Xpert Ultra-negative (susceptible): of these, zero (0%) would have rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF (19 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 96.5% (91.9 to 98.8) (148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 99.1% (98.0 to 99.7) (822 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 105 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive (resistant): of these, 8 (8%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 895 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative (susceptible): of these, 3 (0.3%) would have rifampicin resistance., Authors' Conclusions: Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF may be helpful in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens: while for most specimens specificity is high, the tests rarely yield a positive result for people without tuberculosis. For tuberculous meningitis, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF against culture. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance. Future research should acknowledge the concern associated with culture as a reference standard in paucibacillary specimens and consider ways to address this limitation., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Background: Every year, at least one million children become ill with tuberculosis and around 200,000 children die. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid molecular tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults and children with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis, at lower health system levels. To inform updated WHO guidelines on molecular assays, we performed a systematic review on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests in children presumed to have active tuberculosis., Objectives: Primary objectives • To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for (a) pulmonary tuberculosis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; (b) tuberculous meningitis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; (c) lymph node tuberculosis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; and (d) rifampicin resistance in children presumed to have tuberculosis - For tuberculosis detection, index tests were used as the initial test, replacing standard practice (i.e. smear microscopy or culture) - For detection of rifampicin resistance, index tests replaced culture-based drug susceptibility testing as the initial test Secondary objectives • To compare the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for each of the four target conditions • To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in accuracy estimates - For tuberculosis detection, we considered age, disease severity, smear-test status, HIV status, clinical setting, specimen type, high tuberculosis burden, and high tuberculosis/HIV burden - For detection of rifampicin resistance, we considered multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis burden • To compare multiple Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra results (repeated testing) with the initial Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra result SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry up to 29 April 2019, without language restrictions., Selection Criteria: Randomized trials, cross-sectional trials, and cohort studies evaluating Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra in HIV-positive and HIV-negative children younger than 15 years. Reference standards comprised culture or a composite reference standard for tuberculosis and drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus (molecular assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and drug resistance) for rifampicin resistance. We included studies evaluating sputum, gastric aspirate, stool, nasopharyngeal or bronchial lavage specimens (pulmonary tuberculosis), cerebrospinal fluid (tuberculous meningitis), fine needle aspirates, or surgical biopsy tissue (lymph node tuberculosis)., Data Collection and Analysis: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2). For each target condition, we used the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We stratified all analyses by type of reference standard. We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach., Main Results: For pulmonary tuberculosis, 299 data sets (68,544 participants) were available for analysis; for tuberculous meningitis, 10 data sets (423 participants) were available; for lymph node tuberculosis, 10 data sets (318 participants) were available; and for rifampicin resistance, 14 data sets (326 participants) were available. Thirty-nine studies (80%) took place in countries with high tuberculosis burden. Risk of bias was low except for the reference standard domain, for which risk of bias was unclear because many studies collected only one specimen for culture. Detection of pulmonary tuberculosis For sputum specimens, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) verified by culture were 64.6% (55.3% to 72.9%) (23 studies, 493 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 99.0% (98.1% to 99.5%) (23 studies, 6119 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For other specimen types (nasopharyngeal aspirate, 4 studies; gastric aspirate, 14 studies; stool, 11 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity ranged between 45.7% and 73.0%, and pooled specificity ranged between 98.1% and 99.6%. For sputum specimens, Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) verified by culture were 72.8% (64.7% to 79.6%) (3 studies, 136 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 97.5% (95.8% to 98.5%) (3 studies, 551 participants; high-certainty evidence). For nasopharyngeal specimens, Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) were 45.7% (28.9% to 63.3%) and 97.5% (93.7% to 99.3%) (1 study, 195 participants). For all specimen types, Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra sensitivity were lower against a composite reference standard than against culture. Detection of tuberculous meningitis For cerebrospinal fluid, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity, verified by culture, were 54.0% (95% CI 27.8% to 78.2%) (6 studies, 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 93.8% (95% CI 84.5% to 97.6%) (6 studies, 213 participants; low-certainty evidence). Detection of lymph node tuberculosis For lymph node aspirates or biopsies, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity, verified by culture, were 90.4% (95% CI 55.7% to 98.6%) (6 studies, 68 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 89.8% (95% CI 71.5% to 96.8%) (6 studies, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). Detection of rifampicin resistance Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% (67.6% to 97.5%) (6 studies, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.3% (87.7% to 99.8%) (6 studies, 203 participants; moderate-certainty evidence)., Authors' Conclusions: We found Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity to vary by specimen type, with gastric aspirate specimens having the highest sensitivity followed by sputum and stool, and nasopharyngeal specimens the lowest; specificity in all specimens was > 98%. Compared with Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra sensitivity in sputum was higher and specificity slightly lower. Xpert MTB/RIF was accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF was sensitive for diagnosing lymph node tuberculosis. For children with presumed tuberculous meningitis, treatment decisions should be based on the entirety of clinical information and treatment should not be withheld based solely on an Xpert MTB/RIF result. The small numbers of studies and participants, particularly for Xpert Ultra, limits our confidence in the precision of these estimates., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. on behalf of The Cochrane Collaboration.)

Objectives: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments and guideline developers can rate the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA) on the domains imprecision, inconsistency, publication bias, and other domains. It also provides guidance for how to present synthesized information in evidence profiles and summary of findings tables., Study Design and Setting: We present guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests., Results: Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence can apply the GRADE domains inconsistency, imprecision, and publication bias to a body of evidence of TA studies., Conclusion: Using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews as well as World Health Organization and other guidelines helped refining the GRADE approach for rating the certainty of a body of evidence from TA studies. Although several of the GRADE domains (e.g., imprecision and magnitude of the association) require further methodological research to help operationalize them, judgments need to be made on the basis of what is known so far., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This article provides updated GRADE guidance about how authors of systematic reviews and health technology assessments and guideline developers can assess the results and the certainty of evidence (also known as quality of the evidence or confidence in the estimates) of a body of evidence addressing test accuracy (TA)., Study Design and Setting: We present an overview of the GRADE approach and guidance for rating certainty in TA in clinical and public health and review the presentation of results of a body of evidence regarding tests. Part 1 of the two parts in this 21st guidance article about how to apply GRADE focuses on understanding study design issues in test accuracy, provide an overview of the domains, and describe risk of bias and indirectness specifically., Results: Supplemented by practical examples, we describe how raters of the evidence using GRADE can evaluate study designs focusing on tests and how they apply the GRADE domains risk of bias and indirectness to a body of evidence of TA studies., Conclusion: Rating the certainty of a body of evidence using GRADE in Cochrane and other reviews and World Health Organization and other guidelines dealing with in TA studies helped refining our approach. The resulting guidance will help applying GRADE successfully for questions and recommendations focusing on tests., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Background and Objectives: Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence., Study Design and Setting: We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence., Results: We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses., Conclusion: Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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

Existing high-priority target product profiles (TPPs) of the World Health Organization (WHO) establish important needs for tuberculosis (TB) diagnostic development. Building on this earlier work, this guidance series aims to provide study guidance for performing accuracy studies of novel diagnostic products that may meet the 4 high-priority WHO TPPs and thus enable adequate evidence generation to inform a WHO evidence review process. Diagnostic accuracy studies represent a fundamental step in the validation of all tests. Unfortunately, such studies often have limitations in design, execution, and reporting, leading to low certainty of the evidence about true test performance, which can delay or impede policy and scale-up decisions. This introductory paper outlines the following: (1) the purpose of this series of papers on study guidance; (2) WHO evidence needs and process for the development of policy guidelines for new TB diagnostic tests; and (3) study design considerations, ie, general diagnostic study considerations, intended use of test and role in the clinical pathway, choice of population and setting, index-test specific issues, suitable reference standard and comparators, study flow and specimen issues, and finally key issues beyond accuracy that should be considered. The other 4 papers in this series will provide more detailed guidance for each of the 4 WHO high-priority TPPs. By increasing the clarity around the clinical evaluation needs for tests that have the potential to meet the TPP specifications, we hope to support harmonized evidence generation and enable the WHO review process towards meeting the WHO End TB Strategy targets for reducing the incidence and mortality associated with TB., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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

Background: Assessment of diagnostic tests, broadly defined as any element that aids in the collection of additional information for further clarification of a patient's health status, has increasingly become a critical issue in health policy and decision-making. Diagnostic evidence, including the accuracy of a medical test for a target condition, is commonly appraised using standard systematic review methodology. Owing to the considerable time and resources required to conduct these, rapid reviews have emerged as a pragmatic alternative by tailoring methods according to the decision maker's circumstances. However, it is not known if streamlining methodological aspects has an impact on the validity of evidence synthesis. Furthermore, due to the particular nature and complexity of the appraisal of diagnostic accuracy, there is need for detailed guidance on how to conduct rapid reviews of diagnostic tests. In this study, we aim to identify the methods currently used by rapid review developers to synthesize evidence on diagnostic test accuracy, as well as to analyze potential shortcomings and challenges related to these methods., Methods: We will carry out a two-fold approach: (1) an international survey of professionals working in organizations that develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests, in terms of the methods and resources used by these agencies when conducting rapid reviews, and (2) semi-structured interviews with senior-level individuals to further explore and validate the findings from the survey and to identify challenges in conducting rapid reviews. We will use STATA 15.0 for quantitative analyses and framework analysis for qualitative analyses. We will ensure protection of data during all stages., Discussion: The main result of this research will be a map of methods and resources currently used for conducting rapid reviews of diagnostic test accuracy, as well as methodological shortcomings and potential solutions in diagnostic knowledge synthesis that require further research., Competing Interests: In accordance with the Spanish National Regulation, this study has been exempt of approval by our Ethics committee for Investigation (Hospital Ramon y Cajal, communication received on November 6 of 2018).Not applicableThe authors declare that they have no competing interests.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

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

Setting: Eliminating tuberculosis in high-burden settings requires improved diagnostic capacity. Important tests such as Xpert® MTB/RIF and culture are often performed at centralised laboratories that are geographically distant from the point of specimen collection. Preserving specimen integrity during transportation, which could affect test performance, is challenging., Objective: To conduct a systematic review of commercial products for specimen preservation for a World Health Organization technical consultation., Design: Databases were searched up to January 2018. Methodological quality was assessed using Quality Assessment of Technical Studies, a new technical study quality-appraisal tool, and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Studies were analysed descriptively in terms of the different products, study designs and diagnostic strategies used., Results: Four products were identified from 16 studies: PrimeStore-Molecular-Transport-Medium (PS-MTM), FTA card, GENO•CARD (all for nucleic acid amplification tests [NAATs]) and OMNIgene•SPUTUM (OMS; culture, NAATs). PS-MTM, but not FTA card or GENO•CARD, rendered Mycobacterium tuberculosis non-culturable. OMS reduced Löwenstein-Jensen but not MGIT™ 960™ contamination, led to delayed MGIT time-to-positivity, resulted in Xpert performance similar to cold chain-transported untreated specimens, and obviated the need for N-acetyl-L-cysteine-sodium hydroxide decontamination. Data from paucibacillary specimens were limited. Evidence that a cold chain improves culture was mixed and absent for Xpert. The effect of the product alone could be discerned in only four studies., Conclusion: Limited evidence suggests that transport products result in test performance comparable to that seen in cold chain-transported specimens.

Editorial note This protocol will not progress to review stage as it no longer meets Cochrane's methodological standards. This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Diagnostic test accuracy). The objectives are as follows: To assess the accuracy of the four-symptom screen (cough, fever, night sweats, or weight loss) for identifying active TB in pregnant PLHIV who are screened in an outpatient or community setting. To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity of the accuracy of the four-symptom screen between studies including: ART status, CD4 cell count, gestational age, pregnancy stage (pregnancy vs. postpartum), screening test definition of cough (any cough vs. cough greater than 2 weeks).To describe the accuracy of single symptoms included within the four-symptom screen, additioal symptoms or symptom combinations, for identifying active TB in pregnant PLHIV. For example, additional symptoms may include failure to gain weight or fatigue., Competing Interests: DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The review authors (EO, AB, DB, LC, DH, JM, SL, SM, KRS, SP) have no known conflicts of interest. LC, DH, SL, JM, and SM have conducted primary research regarding evaluating symptom screening for TB in pregnant PLHIV.

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., (Copyright ©ERS 2017.)

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.

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., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

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., (©ERS 2014.)

Background: Uptake of isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) to prevent tuberculosis has been poor, particularly in the highest risk populations. Interventions to improve IPT delivery could promote implementation. The large number of existing systematic reviews on treatment adherence has made drawing conclusions a challenge. To provide decision makers with the evidence they need, we performed an overview of systematic reviews to compare different organizational interventions to improve IPT delivery as measured by treatment completion among those at highest risk for the development of TB disease, namely child contacts or HIV-infected individuals., Methods: We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and MEDLINE up to August 15, 2012. Two authors used a standardized data extraction form and the AMSTAR instrument to independently assess each review., Results: Six reviews met inclusion criteria. Interventions included changes in the setting/site of IPT delivery, use of quality monitoring mechanisms (e.g., directly observed therapy), IPT delivery integration into other healthcare services, and use of lay health workers. Most reviews reported a combination of outcomes related to IPT adherence and treatment completion rate but without a baseline or comparison rate. Generally, we found limited evidence to demonstrate that the studied interventions improved treatment completion., Conclusions: While most of the interventions were not shown to improve IPT completion, integration of tuberculosis and HIV services yielded high treatment completion rates in some settings. The lack of data from high burden TB settings limits applicability. Further research to assess different IPT delivery interventions, including those that address barriers to care in at-risk populations, is urgently needed to identify the most effective practices for IPT delivery and TB control in high TB burden settings.

Background: Accurate, rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and TB drug resistance is critical for improving patient care and decreasing TB transmission. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay is an automated test that can detect both TB and rifampicin resistance, generally within two hours after starting the test, with minimal hands-on technical time. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued initial recommendations on Xpert® MTB/RIF in early 2011. A Cochrane Review on the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance was published January 2013. We performed this updated Cochrane Review as part of a WHO process to develop updated guidelines on the use of the test., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB (TB detection), where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as both an initial test replacing microscopy and an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection, where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as the initial test replacing culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST).The populations of interest were adults presumed to have pulmonary, rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), with or without HIV infection. The settings of interest were intermediate- and peripheral-level laboratories. The latter may be associated with primary health care facilities., Search Methods: We searched for publications in any language up to 7 February 2013 in the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; and SCOPUS. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the search portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing trials., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that allowed for extraction of data evaluating Xpert® MTB/RIF against the reference standard. We excluded gastric fluid specimens. The reference standard for TB was culture and for rifampicin resistance was phenotypic culture-based DST., Data Collection and Analysis: For each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we extracted data for subgroups by smear and HIV status. We assessed the quality of studies using QUADAS-2 and carried out meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert® MTB/RIF separately for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection. For TB detection, we performed the majority of analyses using a bivariate random-effects model and compared the sensitivity of Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy against culture as reference standard. For rifampicin resistance detection, we undertook univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected., Main Results: We included 27 unique studies (integrating nine new studies) involving 9557 participants. Sixteen studies (59%) were performed in low- or middle-income countries. For all QUADAS-2 domains, most studies were at low risk of bias and low concern regarding applicability.As an initial test replacing smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 89% [95% Credible Interval (CrI) 85% to 92%] and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%), (22 studies, 8998 participants: 2953 confirmed TB, 6045 non-TB).As an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result, Xpert®MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 67% (95% CrI 60% to 74%) and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%; 21 studies, 6950 participants).For smear-positive, culture-positive TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 21 studies, 1936 participants).For people with HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 79% (95% CrI 70% to 86%; 7 studies, 1789 participants), and for people without HIV infection, it was 86% (95% CrI 76% to 92%; 7 studies, 1470 participants). Comparison with smear microscopy In comparison with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF increased TB detection among culture-confirmed cases by 23% (95% CrI 15% to 32%; 21 studies, 8880 participants).For TB detection, if pooled sensitivity estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients where 10% of those with symptoms have TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF will diagnose 88 cases and miss 12 cases, whereas sputum microscopy will diagnose 65 cases and miss 35 cases. Rifampicin resistance For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 95% (95% CrI 90% to 97%; 17 studies, 555 rifampicin resistance positives) and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 24 studies, 2411 rifampicin resistance negatives). Among 180 specimens with nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), Xpert® MTB/RIF was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM (14 studies, 2626 participants).For rifampicin resistance detection, if the pooled accuracy estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals where 15% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 143 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss eight cases, and correctly identify 833 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 17 individuals as resistant. Where 5% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 48 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss three cases and correctly identify 931 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 19 individuals as resistant., Authors' Conclusions: In adults thought to have TB, with or without HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF is sensitive and specific. Compared with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF substantially increases TB detection among culture-confirmed cases. Xpert® MTB/RIF has higher sensitivity for TB detection in smear-positive than smear-negative patients. Nonetheless, this test may be valuable as an add-on test following smear microscopy in patients previously found to be smear-negative. For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF provides accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of MDR-TB treatment, pending results from conventional culture and DST. The tests are expensive, so current research evaluating the use of Xpert® MTB/RIF in TB programmes in high TB burden settings will help evaluate how this investment may help start treatment promptly and improve outcomes.

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.

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., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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: Accurate and rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and drug resistance are critical for improving patient care and decreasing the spread of TB. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is a rapid, automated test that can detect both TB and rifampicin resistance, within two hours after starting the test, with minimal hands-on technical time, but is more expensive than conventional sputum microscopy., Objectives: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert for pulmonary TB (TB detection), both where Xpert was used as an initial test replacing microscopy, and where Xpert was used as an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert for rifampicin resistance detection where Xpert was used as the initial test, replacing conventional culture-based drug susceptibility testing.The population of interest was adults suspected of having pulmonary TB or multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), with or without HIV infection., Search Methods: We performed a comprehensive search of the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; and SCOPUS. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the search portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing trials. We performed searches on 25 September 2011 and we repeated them on 15 December 2011, without language restriction., Selection Criteria: We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional, and cohort studies that used respiratory specimens to compare Xpert with culture for detecting TB and Xpert with conventional phenotypic drug susceptibility testing for detecting rifampicin resistance., Data Collection and Analysis: For each study, two review authors independently extracted a set of data using a standardized data extraction form. When possible, we extracted data for subgroups by smear and HIV status. We assessed the quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We carried out meta-analyses to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert separately for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection using a bivariate random-effects model. We estimated the median pooled sensitivity and specificity and their 95% credible intervals (CrI)., Main Results: We identified 18 unique studies as eligible for this review, including two multicentre international studies, one with five and the other with six distinct study centres. The majority of studies (55.6%) were performed in low-income and middle-income countries. In 17 of the 18 studies, Xpert was performed by trained technicians in reference laboratories.When used as an initial test replacing smear microscopy (15 studies, 7517 participants), Xpert achieved a pooled sensitivity of 88% (95% CrI 83% to 92%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). As an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result (14 studies, 5719 participants), Xpert yielded a pooled sensitivity of 67% (95% CrI 58% to 74%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). In clinical subgroups, we found the following accuracy estimates: the pooled sensitivity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%) for smear-positive, culture-positive TB and 68% (95% CrI 59% to 75%) for smear-negative, culture-positive TB (15 studies); the pooled sensitivity was 80% (95% CrI 67% to 88%) in people living with HIV and 89% (95% CrI 81% to 94%) in people without HIV infection (four studies). For rifampicin resistance detection (11 studies, 2340 participants), Xpert achieved a pooled sensitivity of 94% (95% CrI 87% to 97%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). In a separate analysis, Xpert could distinguish between TB and nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) in clinical samples with high accuracy: among 139 specimens with NTM, Xpert was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM.In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals suspected of having rifampicin resistance (a proxy for MDR-TB), where the prevalence of rifampicin resistance is 30%, we estimated that on average Xpert would wrongly identify 14 patients as being rifampicin resistant. In comparison, where the prevalence of rifampicin resistance is only 2%, we estimated that the number of individuals wrongly identified as rifampicin resistant would increase to 20, an increase of 43%., Authors' Conclusions: This review shows that Xpert used as an initial diagnostic test for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection in patients suspected of having TB, MDR-TB, or HIV-associated TB is sensitive and specific. Xpert may also be valuable as an add-on test following microscopy for patients who have previously been found to be smear-negative. An Xpert result that is positive for rifampicin resistance should be carefully interpreted and take into consideration the risk of MDR-TB in a given patient and the expected prevalence of MDR-TB in a given setting.Studies in this review mainly assessed sensitivity and specificity of the test when used in reference laboratories in research investigations. Most studies were performed in high TB burden countries. Ongoing use of Xpert in high TB burden countries will contribute to the evidence base on the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of Xpert in routine programmatic and peripheral health care settings, including settings where the test is performed at the point of care.

Diagnostic tests for active tuberculosis (TB) based on the detection of antibodies (serological tests) have been commercially available for decades, although no international guidelines have recommended their use. An estimated 1.5 million serological TB tests, mainly enzyme-linked immunosorbent assays, are performed in India alone every year, mostly in the private sector. The cost of serological tests in India is conservatively estimated at US $15 million (`825 million) per year. Findings from systematic reviews on the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for both pulmonary and extra-pulmonary TB suggest that these tests are inaccurate and imprecise. A cost-effectiveness modelling study suggests that, if used as a replacement test for sputum microscopy, serology would increase costs to the Indian TB control sector approximately 4-fold and result in fewer disability-adjusted life years averted and more false-positive diagnoses. After considering all available evidence, the World Health Organization issued a strong recommendation against the use of currently available commercial serological tests for the diagnosis of TB disease. The expanding evidence base continues to demonstrate that the harms/risks of serological tests far outweigh the benefits. Greater engagement of the private sector is needed to discontinue the use of serological tests and to replace these tests with WHO-endorsed new diagnostics in India. The recent ban on import or sale of TB serological tests by the Indian health ministry is a welcome step in the right direction.

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., (Copyright © 2011 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Background: The diagnostic value of interferon-γ 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.

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.

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.

Background: Undiagnosed and misdiagnosed tuberculosis (TB) drives the epidemic in India. Serological (antibody detection) TB tests are not recommended by any agency, but widely used in many countries, including the Indian private sector. The cost and impact of using serology compared with other diagnostic techniques is unknown., Methods and Findings: Taking a patient cohort conservatively equal to the annual number of serological tests done in India (1.5 million adults suspected of having active TB), we used decision analysis to estimate costs and effectiveness of sputum smear microscopy (US$3.62 for two smears), microscopy plus automated liquid culture (mycobacterium growth indicator tube [MGIT], US$20/test), and serological testing (anda-tb ELISA, US$20/test). Data on test accuracy and costs were obtained from published literature. We adopted the perspective of the Indian TB control sector and an analysis frame of 1 year. Our primary outcome was the incremental cost per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) averted. We performed one-way sensitivity analysis on all model parameters, with multiway sensitivity analysis on variables to which the model was most sensitive. If used instead of sputum microscopy, serology generated an estimated 14,000 more TB diagnoses, but also 121,000 more false-positive diagnoses, 102,000 fewer DALYs averted, and 32,000 more secondary TB cases than microscopy, at approximately four times the incremental cost (US$47.5 million versus US$11.9 million). When added to high-quality sputum smears, MGIT culture was estimated to avert 130,000 incremental DALYs at an incremental cost of US$213 per DALY averted. Serology was dominated by (i.e., more costly and less effective than) MGIT culture and remained less economically favorable than sputum smear or TB culture in one-way and multiway sensitivity analyses., Conclusions: In India, sputum smear microscopy remains the most cost-effective diagnostic test available for active TB; efforts to increase access to quality-assured microscopy should take priority. In areas where high-quality microscopy exists and resources are sufficient, MGIT culture is more cost-effective than serology as an additional diagnostic test for TB. These data informed a recently published World Health Organization policy statement against serological tests.

Purpose of Review: 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)., Recent Findings: 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., Summary: 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.