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

R. Nathavitharana, P. Cudahy, S. Schumacher, K. Steingart, M. Pai, C. Denkinger
{"title":"Accuracy of line probe assays for the diagnosis of pulmonary and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"R. Nathavitharana, P. Cudahy, S. Schumacher, K. Steingart, M. Pai, C. Denkinger","doi":"10.1183/13993003.01075-2016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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. Line probe assays have high accuracy for detection of RIF resistance and INH resistance http://ow.ly/USX5305tqFV","PeriodicalId":77419,"journal":{"name":"The European respiratory journal. Supplement","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"107","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The European respiratory journal. Supplement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.01075-2016","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 107

Abstract

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. Line probe assays have high accuracy for detection of RIF resistance and INH resistance http://ow.ly/USX5305tqFV
诊断肺部和耐多药结核病的线探针检测的准确性:系统回顾和荟萃分析
目前只有25%的耐多药结核病(MDR-TB)病例得到诊断。线探针法(LPAs)可用于利福平(RIF)和异烟肼(INH)耐药性的快速药敏检测和结核分枝杆菌检测。基因型MTBDRplusV1于2008年获得世卫组织认可,但此后又开发了新的lpa。本系统综述评价了三种LPAs: Hain基因型MTBDRplusV1、MTBDRplusV2和Nipro NTM+MDRTB。采用QUADAS-2评估研究质量。对直接和间接检验进行双变量随机效应荟萃分析。将RIF和INH耐药结果与表型和复合(含测序)参考标准进行比较。结核分枝杆菌检测结果与培养比较。纳入了74项独特研究。对21 225份RIF耐药样本的敏感性和特异性(95%置信区间)分别为96.7%(95.6-97.5%)和98.8%(98.2-99.2%)。INH耐药20954份,敏感性90.2%(88.2 ~ 91.9%),特异性99.2%(98.7 ~ 99.5%)。直接和间接测试以及跨lpa的结果相似。使用复合参考标准,特异性略有提高。对于3451份样本的结核分枝杆菌检测,痰检阳性标本的总敏感性为94%(89.4-99.4%),痰检阴性标本的总敏感性为44%(20.2-71.7%)。在肺结核患者中,LPAs对RIF耐药具有高的敏感性和特异性,对INH耐药具有高的特异性和良好的敏感性。这一荟萃分析为政策和实践提供了证据。线探针法检测RIF抗性和INH抗性具有很高的准确性http://ow.ly/USX5305tqFV
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信