Publications (7)34.5 Total impact
-
Article: Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Accurate and rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and drug resistance are critical for improving patient care and decreasing the spread of TB. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay (Xpert) is a rapid, automated test that can detect both TB and rifampicin resistance, within two hours after starting the test, with minimal hands-on technical time, but is more expensive than conventional sputum microscopy. To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert for pulmonary TB (TB detection), both where Xpert was used as an initial test replacing microscopy, and where Xpert was used as an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert for rifampicin resistance detection where Xpert was used as the initial test, replacing conventional culture-based drug susceptibility testing.The population of interest was adults suspected of having pulmonary TB or multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), with or without HIV infection. We performed a comprehensive search of the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; and SCOPUS. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the search portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing trials. We performed searches on 25 September 2011 and we repeated them on 15 December 2011, without language restriction. We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional, and cohort studies that used respiratory specimens to compare Xpert with culture for detecting TB and Xpert with conventional phenotypic drug susceptibility testing for detecting rifampicin resistance. For each study, two review authors independently extracted a set of data using a standardized data extraction form. When possible, we extracted data for subgroups by smear and HIV status. We assessed the quality of studies using the QUADAS-2 tool. We carried out meta-analyses to estimate the pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert separately for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection using a bivariate random-effects model. We estimated the median pooled sensitivity and specificity and their 95% credible intervals (CrI). We identified 18 unique studies as eligible for this review, including two multicentre international studies, one with five and the other with six distinct study centres. The majority of studies (55.6%) were performed in low-income and middle-income countries. In 17 of the 18 studies, Xpert was performed by trained technicians in reference laboratories.When used as an initial test replacing smear microscopy (15 studies, 7517 participants), Xpert achieved a pooled sensitivity of 88% (95% CrI 83% to 92%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). As an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result (14 studies, 5719 participants), Xpert yielded a pooled sensitivity of 67% (95% CrI 58% to 74%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). In clinical subgroups, we found the following accuracy estimates: the pooled sensitivity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%) for smear-positive, culture-positive TB and 68% (95% CrI 59% to 75%) for smear-negative, culture-positive TB (15 studies); the pooled sensitivity was 80% (95% CrI 67% to 88%) in people living with HIV and 89% (95% CrI 81% to 94%) in people without HIV infection (four studies). For rifampicin resistance detection (11 studies, 2340 participants), Xpert achieved a pooled sensitivity of 94% (95% CrI 87% to 97%) and pooled specificity of 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%). In a separate analysis, Xpert could distinguish between TB and nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM) in clinical samples with high accuracy: among 139 specimens with NTM, Xpert was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM.In a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals suspected of having rifampicin resistance (a proxy for MDR-TB), where the prevalence of rifampicin resistance is 30%, we estimated that on average Xpert would wrongly identify 14 patients as being rifampicin resistant. In comparison, where the prevalence of rifampicin resistance is only 2%, we estimated that the number of individuals wrongly identified as rifampicin resistant would increase to 20, an increase of 43%. This review shows that Xpert used as an initial diagnostic test for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection in patients suspected of having TB, MDR-TB, or HIV-associated TB is sensitive and specific. Xpert may also be valuable as an add-on test following microscopy for patients who have previously been found to be smear-negative. An Xpert result that is positive for rifampicin resistance should be carefully interpreted and take into consideration the risk of MDR-TB in a given patient and the expected prevalence of MDR-TB in a given setting.Studies in this review mainly assessed sensitivity and specificity of the test when used in reference laboratories in research investigations. Most studies were performed in high TB burden countries. Ongoing use of Xpert in high TB burden countries will contribute to the evidence base on the diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of Xpert in routine programmatic and peripheral health care settings, including settings where the test is performed at the point of care.Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2013; 1:CD009593. · 5.72 Impact Factor -
Article: Rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay in high burden countries: a cost-effectiveness analysis.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a promising new rapid diagnostic technology for tuberculosis (TB) that has characteristics that suggest large-scale roll-out. However, because the test is expensive, there are concerns among TB program managers and policy makers regarding its affordability for low- and middle-income settings. We estimate the impact of the introduction of Xpert on the costs and cost-effectiveness of TB care using decision analytic modelling, comparing the introduction of Xpert to a base case of smear microscopy and clinical diagnosis in India, South Africa, and Uganda. The introduction of Xpert increases TB case finding in all three settings; from 72%-85% to 95%-99% of the cohort of individuals with suspected TB, compared to the base case. Diagnostic costs (including the costs of testing all individuals with suspected TB) also increase: from US$28-US$49 to US$133-US$146 and US$137-US$151 per TB case detected when Xpert is used "in addition to" and "as a replacement of" smear microscopy, respectively. The incremental cost effectiveness ratios (ICERs) for using Xpert "in addition to" smear microscopy, compared to the base case, range from US$41-$110 per disability adjusted life year (DALY) averted. Likewise the ICERS for using Xpert "as a replacement of" smear microscopy range from US$52-$138 per DALY averted. These ICERs are below the World Health Organization (WHO) willingness to pay threshold. Our results suggest that Xpert is a cost-effective method of TB diagnosis, compared to a base case of smear microscopy and clinical diagnosis of smear-negative TB in low- and middle-income settings where, with its ability to substantially increase case finding, it has important potential for improving TB diagnosis and control. The extent of cost-effectiveness gain to TB programmes from deploying Xpert is primarily dependent on current TB diagnostic practices. Further work is required during scale-up to validate these findings.PLoS Medicine 11/2011; 8(11):e1001120. · 16.27 Impact Factor -
Chapter: Tuberculosis diagnostics: current pipeline, new developments, and unmet needs
01/2011; -
Article: Novel and improved technologies for tuberculosis diagnosis: progress and challenges.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Despite a decade of success in improving cure rates for tuberculosis (TB), diagnosis and case detection remain a major obstacle to TB control. This article reviews the existing evidence base on TB diagnostics, describes the progress of new technologies, and ends with a review of cost-effectiveness and modeling studies on the potential effect of new diagnostics in TB control.Clinics in chest medicine 12/2009; 30(4):701-16, viii. · 2.51 Impact Factor -
Article: TB diagnostic tests: how do we figure out their costs?
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Tuberculosis continues to be a major global health problem. Lack of accurate, rapid and cost-effective diagnostic tests poses a huge obstacle to global TB control. While several new diagnostic tools are being developed and evaluated for TB, it is important that new tools are introduced for widespread use only after careful validation of accuracy, impact as well as cost-effectiveness in real-world settings. While there are large numbers of studies on the accuracy of TB diagnostic tests, there are few studies that are focused on cost and cost-effectiveness. There are currently no widely accepted standards on how to evaluate costs of a TB test. In this review, we describe the basic approach for computing the costs of TB diagnostic tests, and provide templates for various data elements and parameters that go into the costing analysis. We hope this will pave the way for a standardized methodology for costing of TB diagnostic tests. Such a tool would enable improved and more generalizable costing analyses that can provide a strong foundation for more sophisticated economic analyses that evaluate the full economic and epidemiological impact resulting from the implementation and routine use of performance-verified new and innovative diagnostic tools. This, in turn, will facilitate evidence-based adoption and use of new diagnostics, especially in resource-limited settings.Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy 09/2009; 7(6):723-33. · 3.28 Impact Factor -
Article: Light-emitting diode technologies for TB diagnosis: what is on the market?
Expert Review of Medical Devices 08/2009; 6(4):341-5. · 2.63 Impact Factor -
Article: An integrated approach to rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis and multidrug resistance using liquid culture and molecular methods in Russia.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To analyse the feasibility, cost and performance of rapid tuberculosis (TB) molecular and culture systems, in a high multidrug-resistant TB (MDR TB) middle-income region (Samara, Russia) and provide evidence for WHO policy change. Performance and cost evaluation was conducted to compare the BACTEC MGIT 960 system for culture and drug susceptibility testing (DST) and molecular systems for TB diagnosis, resistance to isoniazid and rifampin, and MDR TB identification compared to conventional Lowenstein-Jensen culture assays. 698 consecutive patients (2487 sputum samples) with risk factors for drug-resistant tuberculosis were recruited. Overall M. tuberculosis complex culture positivity rates were 31.6% (787/2487) in MGIT and 27.1% (675/2487) in LJ (90.5% and 83.2% for smear-positive specimens). In total, 809 cultures of M. tuberculosis complex were isolated by any method. Median time to detection was 14 days for MGIT and 36 days for LJ (10 and 33 days for smear positive specimens) and indirect DST in MGIT took 9 days compared to 21 days on LJ. There was good concordance between DST on LJ and MGIT (96.8% for rifampin and 95.6% for isoniazid). Both molecular hybridization assay results correlated well with MGIT DST results, although molecular assays generally yielded higher rates of resistance (by approximately 3% for both isoniazid and rifampin). With effective planning and logistics, the MGIT 960 and molecular based methodologies can be successfully introduced into a reference laboratory setting in a middle incidence country. High rates of MDR TB in the Russian Federation make the introduction of such assays particularly useful.PLoS ONE 01/2009; 4(9):e7129. · 4.09 Impact Factor
