Diagnostic performances of the Xpert MTB/RIF in Brazil

The Role of GeneXpert® for Tuberculosis Diagnostics in Brazil: An Examination from a Historical and Epidemiological Perspective

The rapid molecular test (RMT) performed on the GeneXpert® system is widely used as a control strategy and surveillance technique for tuberculosis (TB). In the region of the Americas, TB incidence is slowly increasing owing to an upward trend in Brazil, which is among the high TB-burden countries (HBCs), ranking in the 19th position. In this context, we aimed to (i) describe the implementation and history of RMT-TB (Xpert® MTB/RIF and Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra) in Brazil; (ii) to evaluate the national RMT laboratory distribution, TB, and resistance to RIF detection by RMT; and (iii) to correlate these data with Brazilian TB incidence. The quantitative data of Xpert® MTB/RIF and Xpert® MTB/RIF Ultra assays performed in the pulmonary TB investigation from 2014 to 2020 were provided by the Brazilian Ministry of Health. A spatial visualization using ArcGIS software was performed. The Southeast region constituted about half of the RMT laboratories-from 39.4% to 45.9% of the total value over the five regions. Regarding the federal units, the São Paulo state alone represented from 20.2% to 34.1% (5.0 to 8.5 times the value) of RMT laboratories over the years observed. There were significant differences (p < 0.0001) in the frequency of RMT laboratories between all years of the historical series. There was an unequal distribution of RMT laboratories between Brazilian regions and federal units. This alerts us for the surveillance of rapid molecular detection of TB in different parts of the country, with the possibility of improving the distribution of tests in areas of higher incidence in order to achieve the level of disease control recommended by national and worldwide authorities.

Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis

BACKGROUND

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in people with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. This review builds on our recent extensive Cochrane Review of Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and detection of rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis. For pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance, we also investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. We also summarized the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace-positive results, and estimated the accuracy of Xpert Ultra after repeat testing in those with trace-positive results.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, the WHO ICTRP, the ISRCTN registry, and ProQuest to 28 January 2020 with no language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included diagnostic accuracy studies using respiratory specimens in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis that directly compared the index tests. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, the reference standards were culture and a composite reference standard. For rifampicin resistance, 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, including data by smear and HIV status. We assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. We performed meta-analyses comparing pooled sensitivities and specificities, separately for pulmonary tuberculosis detection and rifampicin resistance detection, and separately by reference standard. Most analyses used a bivariate random-effects model. For tuberculosis detection, we estimated accuracy in studies in participants who were not selected based on prior microscopy testing or history of tuberculosis. We performed subgroup analyses by smear status, HIV status, and history of tuberculosis. We summarized Xpert Ultra trace results.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified nine studies (3500 participants): seven had unselected participants (2834 participants). All compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis detection; seven studies used a paired comparative accuracy design, and two studies used a randomized design. Five studies compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection; four studies used a paired design, and one study used a randomized design. Of the nine included studies, seven (78%) were mainly or exclusively in high tuberculosis burden countries. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, most studies had low risk of bias in all domains. Pulmonary tuberculosis detection Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval) against culture were 90.9% (86.2 to 94.7) and 95.6% (93.0 to 97.4) (7 studies, 2834 participants; high-certainty evidence) versus Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity of 84.7% (78.6 to 89.9) and 98.4% (97.0 to 99.3) (7 studies, 2835 participants; high-certainty evidence). The difference in the accuracy of Xpert Ultra minus Xpert MTB/RIF was estimated at 6.3% (0.1 to 12.8) for sensitivity and -2.7% (-5.7 to -0.5) for specificity. If the point estimates for Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, where 10% of those presenting with symptoms have pulmonary tuberculosis, Xpert Ultra will miss 9 cases, and Xpert MTB/RIF will miss 15 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis would be 40 with Xpert Ultra and 14 with Xpert MTB/RIF. In smear-negative, culture-positive participants, pooled sensitivity was 77.5% (67.6 to 85.6) for Xpert Ultra versus 60.6% (48.4 to 71.7) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 95.8% (92.9 to 97.7) for Xpert Ultra versus 98.8% (97.7 to 99.5) for Xpert MTB/RIF (6 studies). In people living with HIV, pooled sensitivity was 87.6% (75.4 to 94.1) for Xpert Ultra versus 74.9% (58.7 to 86.2) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 92.8% (82.3 to 97.0) for Xpert Ultra versus 99.7% (98.6 to 100.0) for Xpert MTB/RIF (3 studies). In participants with a history of tuberculosis, pooled sensitivity was 84.2% (72.5 to 91.7) for Xpert Ultra versus 81.8% (68.7 to 90.0) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 88.2% (70.5 to 96.6) for Xpert Ultra versus 97.4% (91.7 to 99.5) for Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies). The proportion of Ultra trace-positive results ranged from 3.0% to 30.4%. Data were insufficient to estimate the accuracy of Xpert Ultra repeat testing in individuals with initial trace-positive results. Rifampicin resistance detection Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 94.9% (88.9 to 97.9) and 99.1% (97.7 to 99.8) (5 studies, 921 participants; high-certainty evidence) for Xpert Ultra versus 95.3% (90.0 to 98.1) and 98.8% (97.2 to 99.6) (5 studies, 930 participants; high-certainty evidence) for Xpert MTB/RIF. The difference in the accuracy of Xpert Ultra minus Xpert MTB/RIF was estimated at -0.3% (-6.9 to 5.7) for sensitivity and 0.3% (-1.2 to 2.0) for specificity. If the point estimates for Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, where 10% of those presenting with symptoms have rifampicin resistance, Xpert Ultra will miss 5 cases, and Xpert MTB/RIF will miss 5 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with rifampicin resistance would be 8 with Xpert Ultra and 11 with Xpert MTB/RIF. We identified a higher number of rifampicin resistance indeterminate results with Xpert Ultra, pooled proportion 7.6% (2.4 to 21.0) compared to Xpert MTB/RIF pooled proportion 0.8% (0.2 to 2.4). The estimated difference in the pooled proportion of indeterminate rifampicin resistance results for Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF was 6.7% (1.4 to 20.1).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Xpert Ultra has higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in smear-negative participants and people living with HIV. Xpert Ultra specificity was lower than that of Xpert MTB/RIF in participants with a history of tuberculosis. The sensitivity and specificity trade-off would be expected to vary by setting. For detection of rifampicin resistance, Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity. Ultra trace-positive results were common. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF provide accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of treatment for rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Novel stepwise approach to assess representativeness of a large multicenter observational cohort of tuberculosis patients: The example of RePORT Brazil

BACKGROUND

A major goal of tuberculosis (TB) epidemiological studies is to obtain results that can be generalized to the larger population with TB. The ability to extrapolate findings on the determinants of TB treatment outcomes is also important.

METHODS

We compared baseline clinical and demographic characteristics and determinants of anti-TB treatment outcomes between persons enrolled in the Regional Prospective Observational Research in Tuberculosis (RePORT)-Brazil cohort between June 2015 and June 2019, and the registry of TB cases reported to the Brazilian National TB Program (Information System for Notifiable Diseases [SINAN]) during the same time period. Multivariable regression models adjusted for the study site were performed using second-generation p-values, a novel statistical approach. Associations with unfavorable treatment outcomes were tested for both RePORT-Brazil and SINAN cohorts.

FINDINGS

A total of 1,060 culture-confirmed TB patients were enrolled in RePORT-Brazil and 455,873 TB cases were reported to SINAN. Second-generation p-value analyses revealed that the cohorts were strikingly similar with regard to sex, age, use of antiretroviral therapy and positive initial smear sputum microscopy. However, diabetes, HIV infection, and smoking were more frequently documented in RePORT-Brazil. Illicit drug use, the presence of diabetes, and history of prior TB were associated with unfavorable TB treatment outcomes; illicit drug use was associated with such outcomes in both cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS

There were important similarities in demographic characteristics and determinants of clinical outcomes between the RePORT-Brazil cohort and the Brazilian National registry of TB cases.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults

BACKGROUND

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum. To extend our previous review on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (Kohli 2018), we performed this update to inform updated WHO policy (WHO Consolidated Guidelines (Module 3) 2020).

OBJECTIVES

To estimate diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, 2 August 2019 and 28 January 2020 (Xpert Ultra studies), without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional and cohort studies using non-respiratory specimens. Forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: tuberculous meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, disseminated tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture and a study-defined composite reference standard (tuberculosis detection); phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays (rifampicin resistance detection).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. For tuberculosis detection, we performed separate analyses by specimen type and reference standard using the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We applied a latent class meta-analysis model to three forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

69 studies: 67 evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and 11 evaluated Xpert Ultra, of which nine evaluated both tests. Most studies were conducted in China, India, South Africa, and Uganda. Overall, risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains, and low (49%) or unclear (43%) for the reference standard domain. Applicability for the patient selection domain was unclear for most studies because we were unsure of the clinical settings. Cerebrospinal fluid Xpert Ultra (6 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 89.4% (79.1 to 95.6) (89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 91.2% (83.2 to 95.7) (386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 168 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 79 (47%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives) and 832 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 11 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). Xpert MTB/RIF (30 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 71.1% (62.8 to 79.1) (571 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 96.9% (95.4 to 98.0) (2824 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 99 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 28 (28%) would not have tuberculosis; and 901 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Pleural fluid Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 75.0% (58.0 to 86.4) (158 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 87.0% (63.1 to 97.9) (240 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 192 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 117 (61%) would not have tuberculosis; and 808 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (25 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 49.5% (39.8 to 59.9) (644 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.9% (97.6 to 99.7) (2421 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 60 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 10 (17%) would not have tuberculosis; and 940 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 50 (5%) would have tuberculosis. Lymph node aspirate Xpert Ultra (1 study) Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) against composite reference standard were 70% (51 to 85) (30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 100% (92 to 100) (43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 70 would be Xpert Ultra-positive and 0 (0%) would not have tuberculosis; 930 would be Xpert Ultra-negative and 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against composite reference standard were 81.6% (61.9 to 93.3) (377 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 96.4% (91.3 to 98.6) (302 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 118 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 37 (31%) would not have tuberculosis; 882 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis. In lymph node aspirate, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity against culture was 86.2% (78.0 to 92.3), lower than that against a composite reference standard. Using the latent class model, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity was 99.5% (99.1 to 99.7), similar to that observed with a composite reference standard. Rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95.1 to 100.0), (24 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 100.0% (99.0 to 100.0) (105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 100 would be Xpert Ultra-positive (resistant): of these, zero (0%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 900 would be Xpert Ultra-negative (susceptible): of these, zero (0%) would have rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF (19 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 96.5% (91.9 to 98.8) (148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 99.1% (98.0 to 99.7) (822 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 105 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive (resistant): of these, 8 (8%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 895 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative (susceptible): of these, 3 (0.3%) would have rifampicin resistance.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF may be helpful in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens: while for most specimens specificity is high, the tests rarely yield a positive result for people without tuberculosis. For tuberculous meningitis, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF against culture. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance. Future research should acknowledge the concern associated with culture as a reference standard in paucibacillary specimens and consider ways to address this limitation.

Xpert MTB/RIF performance to diagnose tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in a reference centre in southern Brazil

Effective treatment of tuberculosis (TB) remains a serious public health problem in many countries, including Brazil, especially when considering drug-resistant disease. Xpert MTB/RIF has been implemented in many countries to reduce the time to TB diagnosis and to rapidly detect rifampicin resistance. The study aimed to describe and evaluate Xpert MTB/RIF performance in diagnosing pulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance in a tertiary healthcare facility in Brazil. A cross-sectional study was performed, which included all isolates of confirmed pulmonary TB patients from 2015 to 2018. Both Xpert MTB/RIF and GenoType MTBDRplus assays were performed to detect rifampicin and isoniazid resistance. In addition, isolates with detected resistance to rifampicin and/or isoniazid were analysed by phenotypic testing using MGIT-960 SIRE kit and whole-genome sequencing (WGS) using Illumina MiSeq Sequencing System. 2148 respiratory specimens tested with Xpert MTB/RIF were included: n=1556 sputum, n=348 bronchoalveolar lavage and n=244 gastric washing. The overall Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity in sputum was 94% and the overall specificity was 98%. The negative predictive value in sputum of all the patients was 99% with a positive predictive value of 89%. The concordance between Xpert MTB/RIF and phenotypic susceptibility test was 94.1%, while its concordance with WGS was 78.9%. Xpert MTB/RIF is a rapid and accurate diagnostic strategy for pulmonary TB, which can contribute to improvement in TB control. However, detection of rifampicin resistance might be associated with false-positive results.

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults

BACKGROUND

Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert MTB/RIF) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra), the newest version, are the only World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in persons with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis, at lower health system levels. A previous Cochrane Review found Xpert MTB/RIF sensitive and specific for tuberculosis (Steingart 2014). Since the previous review, new studies have been published. We performed a review update for an upcoming WHO policy review.

OBJECTIVES

To determine diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for tuberculosis in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and for rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, to 11 October 2018, without language restriction.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized trials, cross-sectional, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra, or both against the reference standard, culture for tuberculosis and culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus for rifampicin resistance.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Four review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we also extracted data by smear and HIV status. We assessed study quality using QUADAS-2 and performed meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity separately for tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance. We investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. Most analyses used a bivariate random-effects model. For tuberculosis detection, we first estimated accuracy using all included studies and then only the subset of studies where participants were unselected, i.e. not selected based on prior microscopy testing.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified in total 95 studies (77 new studies since the previous review): 86 studies (42,091 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis and 57 studies (8287 participants) for rifampicin resistance. One study compared Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra on the same participant specimen.Tuberculosis detectionOf the total 86 studies, 45 took place in high tuberculosis burden and 50 in high TB/HIV burden countries. Most studies had low risk of bias.Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible Interval (CrI)) were 85% (82% to 88%) and 98% (97% to 98%), (70 studies, 37,237 unselected participants; high-certainty evidence). We found similar accuracy when we included all studies.For a population of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculosis on culture, 103 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 18 (17%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); 897 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 15 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives).Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 88% (85% to 91%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 83% (79% to 86%); Xpert Ultra specificity was 96% (94% to 97%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 98% (97% to 99%), (1 study, 1439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 98% (97% to 98%) in smear-positive and 67% (62% to 72%) in smear-negative, culture-positive participants, (45 studies). Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 88% (83% to 92%) in HIV-negative and 81% (75% to 86%) in HIV-positive participants; specificities were similar 98% (97% to 99%), (14 studies).Rifampicin resistance detectionXpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% Crl) were 96% (94% to 97%) and 98% (98% to 99%), (48 studies, 8020 participants; high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, 114 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and 18 (16%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); 886 would be would be negative for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and four (0.4%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% CI) was 95% (90% to 98%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 95% (91% to 98%); Xpert Ultra specificity was 98% (97% to 99%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 98% (96% to 99%), (1 study, 551 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found Xpert MTB/RIF to be sensitive and specific for diagnosing PTB and rifampicin resistance, consistent with findings reported previously. Xpert MTB/RIF was more sensitive for tuberculosis in smear-positive than smear-negative participants and HIV-negative than HIV-positive participants. Compared with Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity for tuberculosis and similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance (1 study). Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra provide accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

International collaboration among medical societies is an effective way to boost Latin American production of articles on tuberculosis

Objective:

Most studies of tuberculosis originate from high-income countries with a low incidence of tuberculosis. A review of the scientific production on tuberculosis in Latin American countries, most of which are low- or middle-income countries (some with high or intermediate tuberculosis incidence rates), would improve the understanding of public health challenges, clinical needs, and research priorities. The aims of this systematic review were to determine what has been published recently in Latin America, to identify the leading authors involved, and to quantify the impact of international collaborations.

Methods:

We used PubMed to identify relevant manuscripts on pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB), drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB), or multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), published between 2013 and 2018. We selected only studies conducted in countries with an annual tuberculosis incidence of ≥ 10,000 reported cases and an annual MDR-TB incidence of ≥ 300 estimated cases, including Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Colombia, and Argentina. Articles were stratified by country, type, and topic.

Results:

We identified as eligible 395 studies on PTB and 188 studies on DR/MDR-TB-of which 96.4% and 96.8%, respectively, were original studies; 35.5% and 32.4%, respectively, had an epidemiological focus; and 52.7% and 36.2%, respectively, were conducted in Brazil. The recent Latin American Thoracic Association/European Respiratory Society/Brazilian Thoracic Association collaborative project boosted the production of high-quality articles on PTB and DR/MDR-TB in Latin America.

Conclusions:

Most of the recent Latin American studies on tuberculosis were conducted in Brazil, Mexico, or Peru. Collaboration among medical societies facilitates the production of scientific papers on tuberculosis. Such initiatives are in support of the World Health Organization call for intensified research and innovation in tuberculosis.

Assessment of the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay on rapid diagnosis of extrapulmonary tuberculosis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for EPTB (Extrapulmonary Tuberculosis) patients on different types of extrapulmonary specimens from different anatomic sites.

METHODS

Patients with suspected EPTB were prospectively included, extrapulmonary specimens were collected and subjected to culture, Xpert and Xpert Ultra assays in accordance with relevant guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 225 cases were included which contained 200 EPTB cases (43 culture-positive EPTB, 157 culture-negative EPTB which were diagnosed based on pathological results and a satisfied response to anti-TB treatment) and 25 non-EPTB cases. Sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for culture-positive cases were 83.7% (95%CI, 68.7-92.7) and 67.4% (95% CI, 51.3-80.5) respectively. Specificities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert were 92.0% (95% CI, 72.5-98.6) and 96.0% (95% CI, 77.7-99.8) respectively. The sensitivities of Xpert Ultra, Xpert and culture for 200 EPTB cases were 52.5% (105/200, 95% CI, 45.4-59.6), 34.0% (68/200, 95% CI, 27.6-41.1) and 21.5% (43/200, 95% CI, 16.2-28.0) respectively. By comparison among different types of specimens, Xpert Ultra can detect 78.9% (56/71) of EPTB on fine-needle aspiration (FNA) tissues which was higher than that on pleural fluid (43.7% (45/103), p<0.05.

CONCLUSIONS

Xpert Ultra assay had a higher sensitivity than those of Xpert and culture on extrapulmonary specimens, which could be a promising approach for rapid EPTB diagnosis.

Tuberculosis elimination: where are we now?

Tuberculosis (TB) still represents a major public health issue in spite of the significant impact of the efforts made by the World Health Organization (WHO) and partners to improve its control. In 2014 WHO launched a new global strategy (End TB) with a vision of a world free of TB, and a 2035 goal of TB elimination (defined as less than one incident case per million). The aim of this article is to summarise the theoretical bases of the End TB Strategy and to analyse progresses and persistent obstacles on the way to TB elimination.The evolution of the WHO recommended strategies of TB control (Directly Observed Therapy, Short Course (DOTS), Stop TB and End TB) are described and the concept of TB elimination is discussed. Furthermore, the eight core activities recently proposed by WHO as the milestones to achieve TB elimination are discussed in detail. Finally, the recently published experiences of Cyprus and Oman on their way towards TB elimination are described, together with the regional experience of Latin America.New prevention, diagnostic and treatment tools are also necessary to increase the speed of the present TB incidence decline.