Undiagnosed tuberculosis in patients with HIV infection who present with severe anaemia at a district hospital

Estimating Post-treatment Recurrence After Multidrug-Resistant Tuberculosis Treatment Among Patients With and Without Human Immunodeficiency Virus: The Impact of Assumptions About Death and Missing Follow-up

BACKGROUND

Quantification of recurrence risk following successful treatment is crucial to evaluating regimens for multidrug- or rifampicin-resistant (MDR/RR) tuberculosis (TB). However, such analyses are complicated when some patients die or become lost during post-treatment follow-up.

METHODS

We analyzed data on 1991 patients who successfully completed a longer MDR/RR-TB regimen containing bedaquiline and/or delamanid between 2015 and 2018 in 16 countries. Using 5 approaches for handling post-treatment deaths, we estimated 6-month post-treatment TB recurrence risk overall and by HIV status. We used inverse-probability weighting to account for patients with missing follow-up and investigated the impact of potential bias from excluding these patients without applying inverse-probability weights.

RESULTS

The estimated TB recurrence risk was 7.4/1000 (95% credible interval: 3.3-12.8) when deaths were handled as non-recurrences and 7.6/1000 (3.3-13.0) when deaths were censored and inverse-probability weights were applied to account for the excluded deaths. The estimated risks of composite recurrence outcomes were 25.5 (15.3-38.1), 11.7 (6.4-18.2), and 8.6 (4.1-14.4) per 1000 for recurrence or (1) any death, (2) death with unknown or TB-related cause, or (3) TB-related death, respectively. Corresponding relative risks for HIV status varied in direction and magnitude. Exclusion of patients with missing follow-up without inverse-probability weighting had a small impact on estimates.

CONCLUSIONS

The estimated 6-month TB recurrence risk was low, and the association with HIV status was inconclusive due to few recurrence events. Estimation of post-treatment recurrence will be enhanced by explicit assumptions about deaths and appropriate adjustment for missing follow-up data.

Estimating post-treatment recurrence after multidrug-resistant tuberculosis treatment among patients with and without HIV: the impact of assumptions about death and missing follow-up

Background

Quantification of recurrence risk following successful treatment is crucial to evaluating regimens for multidrug- or rifampicin-resistant (MDR/RR) tuberculosis (TB). However, such analyses are complicated when some patients die or become lost during post-treatment-follow-up.

Methods

We analyzed data on 1,991 patients who successfully completed a longer MDR/RR-TB regimen containing bedaquiline and/or delamanid between 2015 and 2018 in 16 countries. Using five approaches for handling post-treatment deaths, we estimated the six-month post-treatment TB recurrence risk overall, and by HIV status. We used inverse-probability-weighting to account for patients with missing follow-up and investigated the impact of potential bias from excluding these patients without applying inverse-probability weights.

Results

The estimated TB recurrence risk was 6.6 per 1000 (95% confidence interval (CI):3.2,11.2) when deaths were handled as non-recurrences, and 6.7 per 1000 (95% CI:2.8,12.2) when deaths were censored and inverse-probability weights were applied to account for the excluded deaths. The estimated risk of composite recurrence outcomes were 24.2 (95% CI:14.1,37.0), 10.5 (95% CI:5.6,16.6), and 7.8 (95% CI:3.9,13.2) per 1000 for recurrence or 1) any death, 2) death with unknown or TB-related cause, 3) TB-related death, respectively. Corresponding relative risks for HIV status varied in direction and magnitude. Exclusion of patients with missing follow-up without inverse-probability-weighting had a small but apparent impact on estimates.

Conclusion

The estimated six-month TB recurrence risk was low, and the association with HIV status was inconclusive due to few recurrence events. Estimation of post-treatment recurrence will be enhanced by explicit assumptions about deaths and appropriate adjustment for missing follow-up data.

Causes of Moderate and Severe Anaemia in a High-HIV and TB-Prevalent Adult Population in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa

BACKGROUND

Anaemia affects one in four adults in South Africa, with a higher prevalence in persons with HIV and tuberculosis. The aim of this study is to characterise the causes of anaemia in primary care and a district hospital setting.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study design investigated a purposive sample of adult males and non-pregnant females at two community health centres and a hospital casualty and outpatients. Fingerpick blood haemoglobin was measured with HemoCueHb201+. Those with moderate and severe anaemia underwent clinical examination and laboratory tests.

RESULTS

Of 1327 patients screened, median age was 48 years, and 63.5% were female. Of 471 (35.5%) with moderate and severe anaemia on HemoCue, 55.2% had HIV, 16.6% tuberculosis, 5.9% chronic kidney disease, 2.6% cancer, and 1.3% heart failure. Laboratory testing confirmed 227 (48.2%) with moderate and 111 (23.6%) with severe anaemia, of whom 72.3% had anaemia of inflammation, 26.5% iron-deficiency anaemia, 6.1% folate deficiency, and 2.5% vitamin B12 deficiency. Overall, 57.5% had two or more causes of anaemia. Multivariate modelling showed that patients with severe anaemia were three times more likely to have tuberculosis (OR = 3.1, 95% CI = 1.5-6.5; p-value = 0.002). Microcytosis was present in 40.5% with iron deficiency, macrocytosis in 22.2% with folate deficiency, and 33.3% with vitamin B12 deficiency. The sensitivities of the reticulocyte haemoglobin content and % hypochromic red blood cells in diagnosing iron deficiency were 34.7% and 29.7%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

HIV, iron deficiency, and tuberculosis were the most prevalent causes of moderate and severe anaemia. The majority had multiple causes. Iron, folate, and vitamin B12 deficiencies should be identified by biochemical testing rather than by red cell volume.

Functioning Problems Associated with Health Conditions with Greatest Disease Burden in South Africa: A Scoping Review

A notable rise in health-related disability for which evidence-based rehabilitation is beneficial is evident in low-to-middle income countries. This scoping review aimed to systematically identify and map the most common functioning problems associated with health conditions that contribute most to disability in South Africa using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Peer-reviewed evidence published from January 2006 to December 2021 was systematically searched from five databases. Some 268 studies reporting on functioning problems (impairments, activity limitations, and participation restrictions) in South African adults (>18 years) related to 10 health conditions were included. A total of 130 different functioning problems were mapped to the ICF. The most prevalent problems (top 20) were related to mobility, pain, and mental health but spanned across several ICF domains and were mostly in patients at primary care. The high prevalence and wide range of functioning problems may be particularly burdensome on an already strained primary health care (PHC) system. This points towards targeted planning of innovative strategies towards strengthening rehabilitation service delivery at primary care to address these complexities where there is an inadequate rehabilitation workforce.

Doctors' practice and attitudes towards red blood cell transfusion at Mthatha Regional Hospital, Eastern Cape, South Africa: A mixed methods study

Background

Unnecessary blood transfusion exposes recipients to potential harms.

Aim

The aim of this study was to describe blood transfusion practice and explore doctors’ attitudes towards transfusion.

Setting

A hospital providing level 1 and 2 services.

Methods

A mixed-methods study design was used. In the cross-sectional descriptive component, a sample was taken from patients transfused over a 2-month period. Blood use was categorised as for medical anaemia or haemorrhage, and appropriate or not. The qualitative component comprised a purposeful sample for focus group and individual semi-structured interviews.

Results

Of 239 patients sampled, 62% were transfused for medical anaemia and 38% for haemorrhage. In the medical anaemia group, compliance with age-appropriate transfusion thresholds was 69%. In medical anaemia and haemorrhage, 114 (77%) and 85 (93.4%) of recipients had orders for ≥ 2 red blood cell (RBC) units, respectively. In adults ≥ 18 years old with medical anaemia, 47.1% of orders would have resulted in a haemoglobin (Hb) > 8 g/dL. Six doctors participated in focus group and eleven in individual interviews. There was a lack of awareness of institutional transfusion guidelines, disagreement on appropriate RBC transfusion thresholds and comments that more than one RBC unit should always be transfused. Factors informing decisions to transfuse included advice from senior colleagues, relieving symptoms of anaemia and high product costs.

Conclusion

Most orders were for two or more units. In medical anaemia, doctors’ compliance with RBC transfusion thresholds was reasonable; however, almost half of the orders would have resulted in overtransfusion. The attitudes of doctors sampled suggest that their transfusion practice is influenced more by institutional values than formal guidelines.

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.

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.