Ultrasononography in Managing Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis: A Randomized, Controlled, Parallel, Superiority, Open-Label Trial.
FASH
extrapulmonary
sub-Saharan Africa
tuberculosis
ultrasonography
Journal
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
ISSN: 1537-6591
Titre abrégé: Clin Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9203213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 03 2023
21 03 2023
Historique:
received:
19
07
2022
pubmed:
5
11
2022
medline:
24
3
2023
entrez:
4
11
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Patients with suspected extrapulmonary tuberculosis are often treated empirically. We hypothesized that extended focused assessment with sonography for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and tuberculosis (eFASH), in combination with other tests, would increase the proportion of correctly managed patients with suspected extrapulmonary tuberculosis. This trial in adults with suspected extrapulmonary tuberculosis was performed in a rural and an urban hospital in Tanzania. Participants were randomized 1:1 to intervention or routine care, stratified by site and HIV status. All participants underwent clinical evaluation, chest radiography, and testing with sputum Xpert MTB/RIF and urine Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assays. The intervention was a management algorithm based on results of eFASH plus microbiology, adenosine deaminase (ADA), and chest radiography. The primary outcome was the proportion of correctly managed patients. The presence of positive microbiological or ADA results defined definite tuberculosis. An independent end-point review committee determined diagnoses of probable or no tuberculosis. We evaluated outcomes using logistic regression models, adjusted for randomization stratification factors. From September 2018 to October 2020, a total of 1036 patients were screened and 701 were randomized (350 to the intervention and 351 to the control group). Of participants in the intervention group, 251 (72%) had a positive eFASH outcome. In 258 (74%) of the intervention and 227 (65%) of the control participants antituberculosis was initiated treatment at baseline. More intervention participants had definite tuberculosis (n = 124 [35%]), compared with controls (n = 85 [24%]). There was no difference between groups for the primary outcome (intervention group, 266 of 286 [93%]; control group, 245 of 266 [92%]; odds ratio, 1.14 [95% confidence interval: .60-2.16]; P = .68). There were no procedure-associated adverse events. eFASH did not change the proportion of correctly managed patients but increased the proportion of those with definite tuberculosis. Pan African Registry: PACTR201712002829221.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Patients with suspected extrapulmonary tuberculosis are often treated empirically. We hypothesized that extended focused assessment with sonography for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and tuberculosis (eFASH), in combination with other tests, would increase the proportion of correctly managed patients with suspected extrapulmonary tuberculosis.
METHODS
This trial in adults with suspected extrapulmonary tuberculosis was performed in a rural and an urban hospital in Tanzania. Participants were randomized 1:1 to intervention or routine care, stratified by site and HIV status. All participants underwent clinical evaluation, chest radiography, and testing with sputum Xpert MTB/RIF and urine Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assays. The intervention was a management algorithm based on results of eFASH plus microbiology, adenosine deaminase (ADA), and chest radiography. The primary outcome was the proportion of correctly managed patients. The presence of positive microbiological or ADA results defined definite tuberculosis. An independent end-point review committee determined diagnoses of probable or no tuberculosis. We evaluated outcomes using logistic regression models, adjusted for randomization stratification factors.
RESULTS
From September 2018 to October 2020, a total of 1036 patients were screened and 701 were randomized (350 to the intervention and 351 to the control group). Of participants in the intervention group, 251 (72%) had a positive eFASH outcome. In 258 (74%) of the intervention and 227 (65%) of the control participants antituberculosis was initiated treatment at baseline. More intervention participants had definite tuberculosis (n = 124 [35%]), compared with controls (n = 85 [24%]). There was no difference between groups for the primary outcome (intervention group, 266 of 286 [93%]; control group, 245 of 266 [92%]; odds ratio, 1.14 [95% confidence interval: .60-2.16]; P = .68). There were no procedure-associated adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
eFASH did not change the proportion of correctly managed patients but increased the proportion of those with definite tuberculosis.
CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION
Pan African Registry: PACTR201712002829221.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36331957
pii: 6801068
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciac871
pmc: PMC10029990
doi:
Banques de données
PACTR
['PACTR201712002829221']
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1013-1021Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Potential conflicts of interest . K. R. reports grants or contracts unrelated to this work from Botnar Research Centre for Child Health/European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership: MistraL Outreach. K. R. also reports unpaid participation on a data safety monitoring board or advisory board for evaluation of new diagnostics and field evaluation of point-of-care triage tests for active tuberculosis. All other authors report no potential conflicts. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
Références
Crit Ultrasound J. 2012 Nov 21;4(1):21
pubmed: 23171481
J Clin Microbiol. 2020 Aug 24;58(9):
pubmed: 32493780
Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2015 Nov;19(22):4411-8
pubmed: 26636531
Mayo Clin Proc. 2002 May;77(5):429-36
pubmed: 12004992
BMC Infect Dis. 2017 Aug 4;17(1):543
pubmed: 28778187
Int J Clin Exp Med. 2014 Oct 15;7(10):3126-35
pubmed: 25419343
Eur Radiol. 2016 Sep;26(9):2999-3005
pubmed: 26747256
Lancet Infect Dis. 2014 Jun;14(6):527-32
pubmed: 24438820
J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2020 Apr 1;83(4):415-423
pubmed: 31904699
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Aug 27;8:CD012768
pubmed: 30148542
Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2014 May;79(1):102-7
pubmed: 24629577
BMC Public Health. 2020 May 6;20(1):622
pubmed: 32375743
World J Surg Oncol. 2014 May 02;12:139
pubmed: 24886486
Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2012;22(3):276-82
pubmed: 23092060
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 06;8(6):e65421
pubmed: 23762367
Sci Rep. 2021 Jul 21;11(1):14854
pubmed: 34290301
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2009 Aug;7(8):906-9
pubmed: 19447197
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 07;6:CD009593
pubmed: 31173647
BMC Cancer. 2022 Feb 23;22(1):204
pubmed: 35197014
J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Sep;60(9):874-82
pubmed: 17689803
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Sep 30;9:CD012777
pubmed: 31565799
BMC Infect Dis. 2013 Oct 30;13:507
pubmed: 24172543
Open Forum Infect Dis. 2019 Apr 25;6(4):ofz154
pubmed: 31041350
J Int AIDS Soc. 2019 Sep;22(9):e25392
pubmed: 31507083
BMC Med. 2014 Jun 18;12:101
pubmed: 24942470
PLoS One. 2021 Jun 14;16(6):e0252084
pubmed: 34125843
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 May 15;20(1):349
pubmed: 32414338
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2010 Mar;82(3):512-5
pubmed: 20207884