Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet. 2011 April 19; Volume 377 (Issue 9776); DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60438-8
Boehme CC, Nicol MP, Nabeta P, Michael JS, Gotuzzo E, et al.
Lancet. 2011 April 19; Volume 377 (Issue 9776); DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60438-8
BACKGROUND: The Xpert MTB/RIF test (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) can detect tuberculosis and its multidrug-resistant form with very high sensitivity and specificity in controlled studies, but no performance data exist from district and subdistrict health facilities in tuberculosis-endemic countries. We aimed to assess operational feasibility, accuracy, and effectiveness of implementation in such settings. METHODS: We assessed adults (≥18 years) with suspected tuberculosis or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis consecutively presenting with cough lasting at least 2 weeks to urban health centres in South Africa, Peru, and India, drug-resistance screening facilities in Azerbaijan and the Philippines, and an emergency room in Uganda. Patients were excluded from the main analyses if their second sputum sample was collected more than 1 week after the first sample, or if no valid reference standard or MTB/RIF test was available. We compared one-off direct MTB/RIF testing in nine microscopy laboratories adjacent to study sites with 2-3 sputum smears and 1-3 cultures, dependent on site, and drug-susceptibility testing. We assessed indicators of robustness including indeterminate rate and between-site performance, and compared time to detection, reporting, and treatment, and patient dropouts for the techniques used. FINDINGS: We enrolled 6648 participants between Aug 11, 2009, and June 26, 2010. One-off MTB/RIF testing detected 933 (90·3%) of 1033 culture-confirmed cases of tuberculosis, compared with 699 (67·1%) of 1041 for microscopy. MTB/RIF test sensitivity was 76·9% in smear-negative, culture-positive patients (296 of 385 samples), and 99·0% specific (2846 of 2876 non-tuberculosis samples). MTB/RIF test sensitivity for rifampicin resistance was 94·4% (236 of 250) and specificity was 98·3% (796 of 810). Unlike microscopy, MTB/RIF test sensitivity was not significantly lower in patients with HIV co-infection. Median time to detection of tuberculosis for the MTB/RIF test was 0 days (IQR 0-1), compared with 1 day (0-1) for microscopy, 30 days (23-43) for solid culture, and 16 days (13-21) for liquid culture. Median time to detection of resistance was 20 days (10-26) for line-probe assay and 106 days (30-124) for conventional drug-susceptibility testing. Use of the MTB/RIF test reduced median time to treatment for smear-negative tuberculosis from 56 days (39-81) to 5 days (2-8). The indeterminate rate of MTB/RIF testing was 2·4% (126 of 5321 samples) compared with 4·6% (441 of 9690) for cultures. INTERPRETATION: The MTB/RIF test can effectively be used in low-resource settings to simplify patients' access to early and accurate diagnosis, thereby potentially decreasing morbidity associated with diagnostic delay, dropout and mistreatment. FUNDING: Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (TA2007.40200.009), Wellcome Trust (085251/B/08/Z), and UK Department for International Development.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2023 December 1; Volume 27 (Issue 12); 885-898.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.23.0341
du Cros PAK, Greig J, Cross GB, Cousins C, Berry C, et al.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2023 December 1; Volume 27 (Issue 12); 885-898.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.23.0341
English
Français
BACKGROUND
The value, speed of completion and robustness of the evidence generated by TB treatment trials could be improved by implementing standards for best practice.
METHODS
A global panel of experts participated in a Delphi process, using a 7-point Likert scale to score and revise draft standards until consensus was reached.
RESULTS
Eleven standards were defined: Standard 1, high quality data on TB regimens are essential to inform clinical and programmatic management; Standard 2, the research questions addressed by TB trials should be relevant to affected communities, who should be included in all trial stages; Standard 3, trials should make every effort to be as inclusive as possible; Standard 4, the most efficient trial designs should be considered to improve the evidence base as quickly and cost effectively as possible, without compromising quality; Standard 5, trial governance should be in line with accepted good clinical practice; Standard 6, trials should investigate and report strategies that promote optimal engagement in care; Standard 7, where possible, TB trials should include pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic components; Standard 8, outcomes should include frequency of disease recurrence and post-treatment sequelae; Standard 9, TB trials should aim to harmonise key outcomes and data structures across studies; Standard 10, TB trials should include biobanking; Standard 11, treatment trials should invest in capacity strengthening of local trial and TB programme staff.
CONCLUSION
These standards should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of evidence generation, as well as the translation of research into policy and practice.
The value, speed of completion and robustness of the evidence generated by TB treatment trials could be improved by implementing standards for best practice.
METHODS
A global panel of experts participated in a Delphi process, using a 7-point Likert scale to score and revise draft standards until consensus was reached.
RESULTS
Eleven standards were defined: Standard 1, high quality data on TB regimens are essential to inform clinical and programmatic management; Standard 2, the research questions addressed by TB trials should be relevant to affected communities, who should be included in all trial stages; Standard 3, trials should make every effort to be as inclusive as possible; Standard 4, the most efficient trial designs should be considered to improve the evidence base as quickly and cost effectively as possible, without compromising quality; Standard 5, trial governance should be in line with accepted good clinical practice; Standard 6, trials should investigate and report strategies that promote optimal engagement in care; Standard 7, where possible, TB trials should include pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic components; Standard 8, outcomes should include frequency of disease recurrence and post-treatment sequelae; Standard 9, TB trials should aim to harmonise key outcomes and data structures across studies; Standard 10, TB trials should include biobanking; Standard 11, treatment trials should invest in capacity strengthening of local trial and TB programme staff.
CONCLUSION
These standards should improve the efficiency and effectiveness of evidence generation, as well as the translation of research into policy and practice.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Eur Respir J. 2016 September 1; Volume 48 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1183/13993003.00462-2016
Mitnick CD, White RA, Lu C, Rodriguez CA, Bayona J, et al.
Eur Respir J. 2016 September 1; Volume 48 (Issue 4); DOI:10.1183/13993003.00462-2016
Debate persists about monitoring method (culture or smear) and interval (monthly or less frequently) during treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB). We analysed existing data and estimated the effect of monitoring strategies on timing of failure detection.We identified studies reporting microbiological response to MDR-TB treatment and solicited individual patient data from authors. Frailty survival models were used to estimate pooled relative risk of failure detection in the last 12 months of treatment; hazard of failure using monthly culture was the reference.Data were obtained for 5410 patients across 12 observational studies. During the last 12 months of treatment, failure detection occurred in a median of 3 months by monthly culture; failure detection was delayed by 2, 7, and 9 months relying on bimonthly culture, monthly smear and bimonthly smear, respectively. Risk (95% CI) of failure detection delay resulting from monthly smear relative to culture is 0.38 (0.34-0.42) for all patients and 0.33 (0.25-0.42) for HIV-co-infected patients.Failure detection is delayed by reducing the sensitivity and frequency of the monitoring method. Monthly monitoring of sputum cultures from patients receiving MDR-TB treatment is recommended. Expanded laboratory capacity is needed for high-quality culture, and for smear microscopy and rapid molecular tests.