Cargando…

Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nathavitharana, Ruvandhi R., Cudahy, Patrick G.T, Schumacher, Samuel G., Steingart, Karen R., Pai, Madhukar, Denkinger, Claudia M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: European Respiratory Society 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5898952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28100546
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01075-2016
_version_ 1783314213354078208
author Nathavitharana, Ruvandhi R.
Cudahy, Patrick G.T
Schumacher, Samuel G.
Steingart, Karen R.
Pai, Madhukar
Denkinger, Claudia M.
author_facet Nathavitharana, Ruvandhi R.
Cudahy, Patrick G.T
Schumacher, Samuel G.
Steingart, Karen R.
Pai, Madhukar
Denkinger, Claudia M.
author_sort Nathavitharana, Ruvandhi R.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5898952
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher European Respiratory Society
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58989522018-04-18 Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis Nathavitharana, Ruvandhi R. Cudahy, Patrick G.T Schumacher, Samuel G. Steingart, Karen R. Pai, Madhukar Denkinger, Claudia M. Eur Respir J Original Articles 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. European Respiratory Society 2017-01-19 /pmc/articles/PMC5898952/ /pubmed/28100546 http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01075-2016 Text en Copyright ©ERS 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This ERJ Open article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Licence 4.0.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Nathavitharana, Ruvandhi R.
Cudahy, Patrick G.T
Schumacher, Samuel G.
Steingart, Karen R.
Pai, Madhukar
Denkinger, Claudia M.
Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5898952/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28100546
http://dx.doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01075-2016
work_keys_str_mv AT nathavitharanaruvandhir accuracyoflineprobeassaysforthediagnosisofpulmonaryandmultidrugresistanttuberculosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT cudahypatrickgt accuracyoflineprobeassaysforthediagnosisofpulmonaryandmultidrugresistanttuberculosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT schumachersamuelg accuracyoflineprobeassaysforthediagnosisofpulmonaryandmultidrugresistanttuberculosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT steingartkarenr accuracyoflineprobeassaysforthediagnosisofpulmonaryandmultidrugresistanttuberculosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT paimadhukar accuracyoflineprobeassaysforthediagnosisofpulmonaryandmultidrugresistanttuberculosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT denkingerclaudiam accuracyoflineprobeassaysforthediagnosisofpulmonaryandmultidrugresistanttuberculosisasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis