Anne K Detjen1, Andrew R DiNardo2, Jacinta Leyden3, Karen R Steingart4, Dick Menzies5, Ian Schiller6, Nandini Dendukuri6, Anna M Mandalakas7. 1. The International Union Against Tuberculosis And Lung Disease (The Union), New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: adetjen@theunion.org. 2. Infectious Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA; The Global Tuberculosis Program, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Department of Bioengineering, Rice University, Houston, TX, USA; The Global Tuberculosis Program, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA. 4. Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK. 5. Respiratory and Epidemiology Clinical Research Unit, Montreal Chest Institute, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada. 6. Division of Clinical Epidemiology, McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada. 7. The Global Tuberculosis Program, Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA; Retrovirology and Global Health, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Microbiological confirmation of childhood tuberculosis is rare because of the difficulty of collection of specimens, low sensitivity of smear microscopy, and poor access to culture. We aimed to establish summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity of of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay compared with microscopy in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children. METHODS: We searched for studies published up to Jan 6, 2015, that used Xpert in any setting in children with and without HIV infection. We systematically reviewed studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) with microscopy for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in children younger than 16 years against two reference standards-culture results and culture-negative children who were started on anti-tuberculosis therapy. We did meta-analyses using a bivariate random-effects model. FINDINGS: We identified 15 studies including 4768 respiratory specimens in 3640 children investigated for pulmonary tuberculosis. Culture tests were positive for tuberculosis in 12% (420 of 3640) of all children assessed and Xpert was positive in 11% (406 of 3640). Compared with culture, the pooled sensitivities and specificities of Xpert for tuberculosis detection were 62% (95% credible interval 51-73) and 98% (97-99), respectively, with use of expectorated or induced sputum samples and 66% (51-81) and 98% (96-99), respectively, with use of samples from gastric lavage. Xpert sensitivity was 36-44% higher than was sensitivity for microscopy. Xpert sensitivity in culture-negative children started on antituberculosis therapy was 2% (1-3) for expectorated or induced sputum. Xpert's pooled sensitivity and specificity to detect rifampicin resistance was 86% (95% credible interval 53-98) and 98% (94-100), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Compared with microscopy, Xpert offers better sensitivity for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children and its scale-up will improve access to tuberculosis diagnostics for children. Although Xpert helps to provide rapid confirmation of disease, its sensitivity remains suboptimum compared with culture tests. A negative Xpert result does not rule out tuberculosis. Good clinical acumen is still needed to decide when to start antituberculosis therapy and continued research for better diagnostics is crucial. FUNDING: WHO, Global TB Program of Texas Children's Hospital.
BACKGROUND: Microbiological confirmation of childhood tuberculosis is rare because of the difficulty of collection of specimens, low sensitivity of smear microscopy, and poor access to culture. We aimed to establish summary estimates for sensitivity and specificity of of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay compared with microscopy in the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children. METHODS: We searched for studies published up to Jan 6, 2015, that used Xpert in any setting in children with and without HIV infection. We systematically reviewed studies that compared the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) with microscopy for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in children younger than 16 years against two reference standards-culture results and culture-negative children who were started on anti-tuberculosis therapy. We did meta-analyses using a bivariate random-effects model. FINDINGS: We identified 15 studies including 4768 respiratory specimens in 3640 children investigated for pulmonary tuberculosis. Culture tests were positive for tuberculosis in 12% (420 of 3640) of all children assessed and Xpert was positive in 11% (406 of 3640). Compared with culture, the pooled sensitivities and specificities of Xpert for tuberculosis detection were 62% (95% credible interval 51-73) and 98% (97-99), respectively, with use of expectorated or induced sputum samples and 66% (51-81) and 98% (96-99), respectively, with use of samples from gastric lavage. Xpert sensitivity was 36-44% higher than was sensitivity for microscopy. Xpert sensitivity in culture-negative children started on antituberculosis therapy was 2% (1-3) for expectorated or induced sputum. Xpert's pooled sensitivity and specificity to detect rifampicin resistance was 86% (95% credible interval 53-98) and 98% (94-100), respectively. INTERPRETATION: Compared with microscopy, Xpert offers better sensitivity for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis in children and its scale-up will improve access to tuberculosis diagnostics for children. Although Xpert helps to provide rapid confirmation of disease, its sensitivity remains suboptimum compared with culture tests. A negative Xpert result does not rule out tuberculosis. Good clinical acumen is still needed to decide when to start antituberculosis therapy and continued research for better diagnostics is crucial. FUNDING: WHO, Global TB Program of Texas Children's Hospital.
Authors: Johannes B Reitsma; Afina S Glas; Anne W S Rutjes; Rob J P M Scholten; Patrick M Bossuyt; Aeilko H Zwinderman Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2005-10 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Grant Theron; Lynn Zijenah; Duncan Chanda; Petra Clowes; Andrea Rachow; Maia Lesosky; Wilbert Bara; Stanley Mungofa; Madhukar Pai; Michael Hoelscher; David Dowdy; Alex Pym; Peter Mwaba; Peter Mason; Jonny Peter; Keertan Dheda Journal: Lancet Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Helen E Jenkins; Arielle W Tolman; Courtney M Yuen; Jonathan B Parr; Salmaan Keshavjee; Carlos M Pérez-Vélez; Marcello Pagano; Mercedes C Becerra; Ted Cohen Journal: Lancet Date: 2014-03-24 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Ben J Marais; Robert P Gie; Anneke C Hesseling; H Simon Schaaf; Carl Lombard; Donald A Enarson; Nulda Beyers Journal: Pediatrics Date: 2006-11 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Mohammod Jobayer Chisti; Stephen M Graham; Trevor Duke; Tahmeed Ahmed; Hasan Ashraf; Abu Syed Golam Faruque; Sophie La Vincente; Sayera Banu; Rubhana Raqib; Mohammed Abdus Salam Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-04-02 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Elisabetta Walters; Marieke Magrieta van der Zalm; Megan Palmer; Corné Bosch; Anne-Marie Demers; Heather Draper; Pierre Goussard; Hendrik Simon Schaaf; Sven Olaf Friedrich; Andrew Whitelaw; Robin Warren; Robert P Gie; Anneke C Hesseling Journal: Pediatr Infect Dis J Date: 2017-09 Impact factor: 2.129
Authors: Samuel G Schumacher; Maarten van Smeden; Nandini Dendukuri; Lawrence Joseph; Mark P Nicol; Madhukar Pai; Heather J Zar Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2016-10-13 Impact factor: 4.897