Effect of Xpert MTB/RIF on clinical outcomes in routine care settings: individual patient data meta-analysis.
Adult
Antitubercular Agents
/ therapeutic use
Brazil
/ epidemiology
Cause of Death
Female
HIV Infections
/ epidemiology
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Mortality
Mycobacterium tuberculosis
/ genetics
Nucleic Acid Amplification Techniques
Odds Ratio
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Proportional Hazards Models
South Africa
/ epidemiology
Sputum
/ microbiology
Tanzania
/ epidemiology
Time-to-Treatment
/ statistics & numerical data
Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
/ diagnosis
Zambia
/ epidemiology
Zimbabwe
/ epidemiology
Journal
The Lancet. Global health
ISSN: 2214-109X
Titre abrégé: Lancet Glob Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101613665
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
02 2019
02 2019
Historique:
received:
07
02
2018
revised:
20
07
2018
accepted:
27
09
2018
entrez:
27
1
2019
pubmed:
27
1
2019
medline:
6
6
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Xpert MTB/RIF, the most widely used automated nucleic acid amplification test for tuberculosis, is available in more than 130 countries. Although diagnostic accuracy is well documented, anticipated improvements in patient outcomes have not been clearly identified. We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to examine improvements in patient outcomes associated with Xpert MTB/RIF. We searched PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry from inception to Feb 1, 2018, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of Xpert MTB/RIF with sputum smear microscopy as tests for tuberculosis diagnosis in adults (aged 18 years or older). We excluded studies of patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and studies in which mortality was not assessed. We used a two-stage approach for our primary analysis and a one-stage approach for the sensitivity analysis. To assess the primary outcome of cumulative 6-month all-cause mortality, we first performed logistic regression models (random effects for cluster randomised trials, with robust SEs for multicentre studies) for each trial, and then pooled the odds ratio (OR) estimates by a fixed-effects (inverse variance) or random-effects (Der Simonian Laird) meta-analysis. We adjusted for age and gender, and stratified by HIV status and previous tuberculosis-treatment history. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014013394. Our search identified 387 studies, of which five RCTs were eligible for analysis. 8567 adult clinic attendees (4490 [63·5%] of 7074 participants for whom data were available were HIV-positive) were tested for tuberculosis with Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert group) versus sputum smear microscopy (sputum smear group), across five low-income and middle-income countries (South Africa, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania). The primary outcome (reported in three studies) occurred in 182 (4·5%) of 4050 patients in the Xpert group and 217 (5·3%) of 4093 patients in the smear group (pooled adjusted OR 0·88, 95% CI 0·68-1·14 [p=0·34]; for HIV-positive individuals OR 0·83, 0·65-1·05 [p=0·12]). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a lower rate of death (12·73 per 100 person-years in the Xpert group vs 16·38 per 100 person-years in the sputum smear group) for HIV-positive patients (hazard ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·60-0·97; p=0·03). The risk of bias was assessed as reasonable and the statistical heterogeneity across studies was low (I Despite individual patient data analysis from five RCTs, we were unable to confidently rule in nor rule out an Xpert MTB/RIF-associated reduction in mortality among outpatients tested for tuberculosis. Reduction in mortality among HIV-positive patients in a secondary analysis suggests the possibility of population-level impact. US National Institutes of Health.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Xpert MTB/RIF, the most widely used automated nucleic acid amplification test for tuberculosis, is available in more than 130 countries. Although diagnostic accuracy is well documented, anticipated improvements in patient outcomes have not been clearly identified. We performed an individual patient data meta-analysis to examine improvements in patient outcomes associated with Xpert MTB/RIF.
METHODS
We searched PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry from inception to Feb 1, 2018, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the use of Xpert MTB/RIF with sputum smear microscopy as tests for tuberculosis diagnosis in adults (aged 18 years or older). We excluded studies of patients with extrapulmonary tuberculosis, and studies in which mortality was not assessed. We used a two-stage approach for our primary analysis and a one-stage approach for the sensitivity analysis. To assess the primary outcome of cumulative 6-month all-cause mortality, we first performed logistic regression models (random effects for cluster randomised trials, with robust SEs for multicentre studies) for each trial, and then pooled the odds ratio (OR) estimates by a fixed-effects (inverse variance) or random-effects (Der Simonian Laird) meta-analysis. We adjusted for age and gender, and stratified by HIV status and previous tuberculosis-treatment history. The study protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42014013394.
FINDINGS
Our search identified 387 studies, of which five RCTs were eligible for analysis. 8567 adult clinic attendees (4490 [63·5%] of 7074 participants for whom data were available were HIV-positive) were tested for tuberculosis with Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert group) versus sputum smear microscopy (sputum smear group), across five low-income and middle-income countries (South Africa, Brazil, Zimbabwe, Zambia, and Tanzania). The primary outcome (reported in three studies) occurred in 182 (4·5%) of 4050 patients in the Xpert group and 217 (5·3%) of 4093 patients in the smear group (pooled adjusted OR 0·88, 95% CI 0·68-1·14 [p=0·34]; for HIV-positive individuals OR 0·83, 0·65-1·05 [p=0·12]). Kaplan-Meier estimates showed a lower rate of death (12·73 per 100 person-years in the Xpert group vs 16·38 per 100 person-years in the sputum smear group) for HIV-positive patients (hazard ratio 0·76, 95% CI 0·60-0·97; p=0·03). The risk of bias was assessed as reasonable and the statistical heterogeneity across studies was low (I
INTERPRETATION
Despite individual patient data analysis from five RCTs, we were unable to confidently rule in nor rule out an Xpert MTB/RIF-associated reduction in mortality among outpatients tested for tuberculosis. Reduction in mortality among HIV-positive patients in a secondary analysis suggests the possibility of population-level impact.
FUNDING
US National Institutes of Health.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30683238
pii: S2214-109X(18)30458-3
doi: 10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30458-3
pmc: PMC6366854
mid: NIHMS1519364
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Antitubercular Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e191-e199Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI131939
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K23 AI094251
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : T32 CA009515
Pays : United States
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/K012126/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.
Références
J Clin Epidemiol. 2001 Mar;54(3):217-24
pubmed: 11223318
Nature. 2006 Nov 23;444 Suppl 1:49-57
pubmed: 17159894
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Apr;62(4):364-73
pubmed: 18945590
BMJ. 2010 Feb 05;340:c221
pubmed: 20139215
N Engl J Med. 2010 Sep 9;363(11):1005-15
pubmed: 20825313
Lancet. 2011 Apr 30;377(9776):1495-505
pubmed: 21507477
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2011 Jul;15(7):862-70
pubmed: 21682960
PLoS Med. 2011 Nov;8(11):e1001120
pubmed: 22087078
AIDS. 2012 May 15;26(8):987-95
pubmed: 22333751
Ann Epidemiol. 2012 May;22(5):364-8
pubmed: 22391267
Clin Chem. 2012 Dec;58(12):1636-43
pubmed: 22730450
Eur Respir J. 2013 Sep;42(3):708-20
pubmed: 23258774
PLoS One. 2013 Apr 09;8(4):e60650
pubmed: 23585842
Lancet. 2014 Feb 1;383(9915):424-35
pubmed: 24176144
BMC Infect Dis. 2014 Jan 02;14:2
pubmed: 24383553
Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;14(6):527-32
pubmed: 24438820
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 21;(1):CD009593
pubmed: 24448973
Bull World Health Organ. 2014 Feb 1;92(2):126-38
pubmed: 24623906
N Engl J Med. 2014 Oct 23;371(17):1642-3
pubmed: 25337754
PLoS Med. 2014 Nov 25;11(11):e1001760
pubmed: 25423041
PLoS Med. 2014 Dec 09;11(12):e1001766
pubmed: 25490549
Lancet Infect Dis. 2015 Jan;15(1):17-8
pubmed: 25541165
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2014 Jun 25;1(1):ofu038
pubmed: 25734106
PLoS One. 2015 Apr 27;10(4):e0123252
pubmed: 25915745
Lancet Glob Health. 2015 Aug;3(8):e450-e457
pubmed: 26187490
PLoS Med. 2015 Jul 21;12(7):e1001855
pubmed: 26196287
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016 Jan 15;16:6
pubmed: 26772804
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2016 May 12;3(2):ofw068
pubmed: 27186589
Eur Respir J. 2016 Aug;48(2):516-25
pubmed: 27418550
N Engl J Med. 2016 Sep 1;375(9):861-70
pubmed: 27579636
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2016 Aug;110(8):432-44
pubmed: 27638038
Stat Med. 2017 Feb 28;36(5):855-875
pubmed: 27747915
Lancet Infect Dis. 2017 Apr;17(4):441-450
pubmed: 28063795
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017 Oct 1;196(7):901-910
pubmed: 28727491
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Aug 1;95(8):554-563
pubmed: 28804167
MBio. 2017 Aug 29;8(4):
pubmed: 28851844
Clin Infect Dis. 2018 Jul 27;:null
pubmed: 30059995