Utility of broad-spectrum antibiotics for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Journal
The Lancet. Infectious diseases
ISSN: 1474-4457
Titre abrégé: Lancet Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101130150
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 2020
09 2020
Historique:
received:
19
03
2019
revised:
15
01
2020
accepted:
18
02
2020
pubmed:
22
5
2020
medline:
15
9
2020
entrez:
22
5
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Suboptimal diagnostics for pulmonary tuberculosis drive the use of the so-called trial of antibiotics, a course of broad-spectrum antibiotics without activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis that is given to patients who are mycobacteriology negative but symptomatic, with the aim of distinguishing pulmonary tuberculosis from bacterial lower respiratory tract infection. The underlying assumption-that patients with lower respiratory tract infection will improve, whereas those with pulmonary tuberculosis will not-has an unclear evidence base for such a widely used intervention (at least 26·5 million courses are prescribed per year). We aimed to collate available evidence on the diagnostic performance of the trial of antibiotics. In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health databases for studies published up to March 15, 2019, that investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the trial of antibiotics against mycobacteriology tests in adults (≥15 years) with tuberculosis symptoms. We used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess the risk of bias. We estimated pooled values for sensitivity and specificity of trial of antibiotics (as the index text) versus mycobacteriology tests (as the reference standard) using random-effects bivariate modelling, and we used the I Of the 9410 articles identified by our search, eight studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were from seven countries in Africa, South America, and Asia, and involved 2786 participants. Six studies used mycobacterial culture as the reference standard, and six used penicillins for the trial of antibiotics. The treatment duration, number of antimicrobial courses, and definition of what constituted response to treatment varied substantially between studies. The pooled sensitivity (67%, 95% CI 42-85) and specificity (73%, 58-85) of the trial of antibiotics versus mycobacteriology tests were below internationally defined minimum performance profiles for tuberculosis diagnostics and had substantial heterogeneity (I Current policy and practice regarding the trial of antibiotics appear inappropriate, given the weak evidence base, poor diagnostic performance, potential contribution to the global antimicrobial resistance crisis, and adverse individual and public health consequences from the misclassification of tuberculosis status. Antibiotic strategies during tuberculosis investigations should instead optimise clinical outcomes, ideally guided by clinical trials in both inpatient and outpatient groups. Helse Nord RHF, Wellcome Trust, and the UK Commonwealth Scholarship Commission.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Suboptimal diagnostics for pulmonary tuberculosis drive the use of the so-called trial of antibiotics, a course of broad-spectrum antibiotics without activity against Mycobacterium tuberculosis that is given to patients who are mycobacteriology negative but symptomatic, with the aim of distinguishing pulmonary tuberculosis from bacterial lower respiratory tract infection. The underlying assumption-that patients with lower respiratory tract infection will improve, whereas those with pulmonary tuberculosis will not-has an unclear evidence base for such a widely used intervention (at least 26·5 million courses are prescribed per year). We aimed to collate available evidence on the diagnostic performance of the trial of antibiotics.
METHODS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health databases for studies published up to March 15, 2019, that investigated the sensitivity and specificity of the trial of antibiotics against mycobacteriology tests in adults (≥15 years) with tuberculosis symptoms. We used the QUADAS-2 tool to assess the risk of bias. We estimated pooled values for sensitivity and specificity of trial of antibiotics (as the index text) versus mycobacteriology tests (as the reference standard) using random-effects bivariate modelling, and we used the I
FINDINGS
Of the 9410 articles identified by our search, eight studies were eligible for inclusion. The studies were from seven countries in Africa, South America, and Asia, and involved 2786 participants. Six studies used mycobacterial culture as the reference standard, and six used penicillins for the trial of antibiotics. The treatment duration, number of antimicrobial courses, and definition of what constituted response to treatment varied substantially between studies. The pooled sensitivity (67%, 95% CI 42-85) and specificity (73%, 58-85) of the trial of antibiotics versus mycobacteriology tests were below internationally defined minimum performance profiles for tuberculosis diagnostics and had substantial heterogeneity (I
INTERPRETATION
Current policy and practice regarding the trial of antibiotics appear inappropriate, given the weak evidence base, poor diagnostic performance, potential contribution to the global antimicrobial resistance crisis, and adverse individual and public health consequences from the misclassification of tuberculosis status. Antibiotic strategies during tuberculosis investigations should instead optimise clinical outcomes, ideally guided by clinical trials in both inpatient and outpatient groups.
FUNDING
Helse Nord RHF, Wellcome Trust, and the UK Commonwealth Scholarship Commission.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32437700
pii: S1473-3099(20)30143-2
doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30143-2
pmc: PMC7456780
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1089-1098Subventions
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : 200901/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Medical Research Council
ID : MR/R010161/1
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : WT200901
Pays : United Kingdom
Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2020 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.
Références
BMJ. 2017 May 22;357:j2148
pubmed: 28533265
BMJ. 2016 Jun 28;353:i2016
pubmed: 27353417
Lancet. 2015 May 2;385(9979):1799-1801
pubmed: 25814376
Lancet. 2007 Jun 16;369(9578):2042-2049
pubmed: 17574096
Int J Infect Dis. 2014 Jan;18:14-21
pubmed: 24211230
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2006 Apr;10(4):441-6
pubmed: 16602410
J Infect Dis. 2017 Nov 3;216(suppl_6):S644-S653
pubmed: 29112745
PLoS One. 2012;7(12):e51336
pubmed: 23284681
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 Dec;55(11):1522-6
pubmed: 22918990
J Int AIDS Soc. 2018 Jul;21(7):e25162
pubmed: 30063287
Lancet Infect Dis. 2003 May;3(5):288-96
pubmed: 12726978
PLoS Med. 2018 Sep 25;15(9):e1002653
pubmed: 30252849
BMJ. 2010 May 18;340:c2096
pubmed: 20483949
BMJ. 1997 Nov 29;315(7120):1407-11
pubmed: 9418087
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013 Jul 1;63(3):331-8
pubmed: 23599010
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1997 Jul-Aug;91(4):422-4
pubmed: 9373639
J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Apr;64(4):383-94
pubmed: 21195583
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jul;18(7):e199-e210
pubmed: 29580818
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2002 Jan;49(1):31-40
pubmed: 11751764
Expert Rev Mol Diagn. 2006 Jul;6(4):509-14
pubmed: 16824024
Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123-30
pubmed: 21603045
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Oct 18;155(8):529-36
pubmed: 22007046
Glob Heart. 2014 Sep;9(3):347-58
pubmed: 25667187
Antibiotics (Basel). 2018 Dec 22;8(1):
pubmed: 30583566
Trop Med Int Health. 2011 Apr;16(4):424-30
pubmed: 21208352
Trop Med Int Health. 2006 Mar;11(3):323-31
pubmed: 16553912
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2000 Jun;4(6):513-8
pubmed: 10864181
Pan Afr Med J. 2016 Mar 31;23:154
pubmed: 27303572
Syst Rev. 2018 Sep 15;7(1):141
pubmed: 30219089
Bull World Health Organ. 2007 Aug;85(8):580-5
pubmed: 17768515
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Sep 07;9:CD004417
pubmed: 28881007