Impact of scaling up Xpert® MTB/RIF testing for the detection of rifampicin-resistant TB cases in Karachi, Pakistan

Implementation of GeneXpert for TB Testing in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

This review highlights a commonality of implementation barriers across geographically dispersed GeneXpert interventions for TB testing. This indicates the importance of using implementation frameworks to report findings that can improve public health outcomes across low- and middle-income countries.

Introduction:

Current evidence indicates that the impact of GeneXpert for diagnosing TB in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) has not demonstrated equivalent outcomes when compared to Xpert evaluations in upper-middle-income countries. Challenges associated with implementation are possible contributing factors preventing this innovative diagnostic technology from achieving more significant public health outcomes. This review aimed to assess the use of implementation science frameworks when reporting the enablers and barriers for the implementation of GeneXpert for diagnosing TB in LMICs.

Methods:

We conducted a qualitative systematic review of the peer-reviewed literature using PubMed, Medline, and Scopus. Eligible articles were those published between January 2010 and March 2020 that identified enablers and barriers to GeneXpert implementation, as well as the implementation approach delivered in an LMIC.

Results:

Eleven studies were included in the review. Implementation barriers were found to be relatively consistent across studies and included patient-level factors, human resources, material resources, service implementation, service coordination, and technical operations. Few studies (n=5) identified enabling factors in the implementation of Xpert for TB testing. Identified enablers included strategies such as active case finding, expanding diagnostic algorithms, and daily transport of samples. The public health impact of Xpert TB testing interventions was commonly influenced by implementation barriers (n=4). Of the 11 studies, only 3 reported against an implementation framework.

Conclusion:

This review identified a commonality in implementation barriers and enablers that influenced the overall public health impact of GeneXpert. With greater transparency of these barriers and enablers, program planners can promote a more collaborative approach and adapt interventions. It is recommended that program planners use implementation science frameworks when conducting research and publishing. This will build an evidence base focused on implementation and thereby support programs to address implementation barriers and include enabling factors in program design.

Differential yield of universal versus selective drug susceptibility testing of patients with tuberculosis in high-burden countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction

Although universal drug susceptibility testing (DST) is a component of the End-TB Strategy, over 70% of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) cases globally remain undetected. This detection gap reflects difficulties in DST scale-up and substantial heterogeneity in policies and implemented practices. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether implementation of universal DST yields increased DR-TB detection compared with only selectively testing high-risk groups.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection were searched for publications reporting on the differential yield of universal versus selective DST implementation on the proportion of DR-TB, from January 2007 to June 2019. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate respective pooled proportions of DR-TB cases detected; Higgins test and prediction intervals were used to assess between-study heterogeneity. We adapted an existing risk-of-bias assessment tool for prevalence studies.

Results

Of 18 736 unique citations, 101 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. All studies used WHO-endorsed DST methods, and most (87.1%) involved both high-risk groups and the general population. We found only cross-sectional, observational, non-randomised studies that compared universal with selective DST strategies. Only four studies directly compared the testing approaches in the same study population, with the proportion of DR-TB cases detected ranging from 2.2% (95% CI: 1.4% to 3.2%) to 12.8% (95% CI: 11.4% to 14.3%) with selective testing, versus 4.4% (95% CI: 3.3% to 5.8%) to 9.8% (95% CI: 8.9% to 10.7%) with universal testing. Broad population studies were very heterogeneous. The vast majority (88/101; 87.1%) reported on the results of universal testing. However, while 37 (36.6%)/101 included all presumptive TB cases, an equal number of studies applied sputum-smear as a preselection criterion. A meaningful meta-analysis was not possible.

Conclusion

Given the absence of randomised studies and the paucity of studies comparing strategies head to head, and selection bias in many studies that applied universal testing, our findings have limited generalisability. The lack of evidence reinforces the need for better data to inform policies.

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra assays for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms

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.