BACKGROUND: Active case finding (ACF) is an alternative strategy to accelerate the identification of TB cases among the migrant population.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of ACF TB in migrants.
METHODS: This study uses the PRISMA model as a method of searching for journal articles in the databases of Google Scholar, ProQuest, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, and PubMed, as well as other sources such as textbooks and reports from 2017 to 2021 with the keywords "tuberculosis" AND "active case finding" AND "migrant". The search revealed 371 articles, of which 26 met the criteria for further discussion.
RESULTS: Most studies show that the TB incidence among migrants is higher than in the local population. Factors leading to increased cases include lack of knowledge about the symptoms, high mobilization, social isolation, economic problems, and medication adherence that impact an advanced stage. Furthermore, it is also influenced by the low quality of health services, including accessibility, health facilities, health workers, and information. Therefore, Active Case Finding (ACF) is more effective in identifying cases of TB in the risk groups. This was conducted on migrants with increased notifications followed up with treatment.
CONCLUSION: ACF is effective approach in screening and diagnosing TB in the migrant group.
BACKGROUND: Line probe assays (LPAs) are PCR-based assays used for the rapid diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). But studies on its performance are insufficient. Thus, in this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of LPAs in the detection of MTB and drug-resistant TB in comparison with the traditional culture and DST methods.
METHODS: A systemic literature search was conducted on the Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and OVID databases. All the included studies were classified according to different detecting objects. Sensitivity, specificity, Positive Likely Ratio (PLR), Negative Likely Ratio (NLR), Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR), corresponding 95% confidence interval, Area Under Curve (AUC), Deeks' funnel plot, and Bivariate Boxplot were used to do the evaluation.
RESULTS: 147 studies included 491 datasets, with 182,448 samples, were incorporated into our analysis. The sensitivity (95% CI), specificity (95% CI), PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for MTB were 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92), 0.94 (0.90 to 0.97), 15.70, 0.11, 139 and 0.96, respectively; for rifampicin-resistant TB were 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97), 0.99 (0.98 to 0.99), 82.9, 0.04, 1994 and 1.00, respectively; for isoniazid-resistant TB were 0.91 (0.89 to 0.93), 0.99 (0.98 to 0.99), 83.4, 0.09, (0.99 to 1.00), 195.7, 0.07, 2783 and 1.00, respectively; for Multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) were 0.93 (0.90 to 0.95), 1.00 (0.99 to 1.00), 195.7, 0.07, 2783 and 1.00, respectively; for extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) were 0.60 (0.33 to 0.82), 1.00 (0.95 to 1.00), 291.3, 0.4, 726 and 0.95, respectively; for (second-line drug-resistant TB) SLID-TB were 0.83 (0.78 to 0.87), 0.98 (0.97 to 0.99), 44.6, 0.17, 262 and 0.98, respectively. Sensitivity in pre-extensively drug-resistant TB (Pre-XDR-TB) was 0.67, specificity was 0.91. No publication bias existed according to Deeks' funnel plot.
CONCLUSION: High diagnosis performance was confirmed in LPAs for the diagnosis of MTB and drug-resistant TB. LPAs might be a good alternative to culture and DST in detecting MTB, RR-TB, INH-TB, XDR-TB, SLID-TB, and MDR-TB. While more studies were still needed to explore the diagnosis performance of LPAs for Pre-XDR TB.
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.
BACKGROUND: Every year, at least one million children become ill with tuberculosis and around 200,000 children die. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid molecular tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults and children with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis, at lower health system levels. To inform updated WHO guidelines on molecular assays, we performed a systematic review on the diagnostic accuracy of these tests in children presumed to have active tuberculosis.
OBJECTIVES: Primary objectives • To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for (a) pulmonary tuberculosis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; (b) tuberculous meningitis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; (c) lymph node tuberculosis in children presumed to have tuberculosis; and (d) rifampicin resistance in children presumed to have tuberculosis - For tuberculosis detection, index tests were used as the initial test, replacing standard practice (i.e. smear microscopy or culture) - For detection of rifampicin resistance, index tests replaced culture-based drug susceptibility testing as the initial test Secondary objectives • To compare the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for each of the four target conditions • To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in accuracy estimates - For tuberculosis detection, we considered age, disease severity, smear-test status, HIV status, clinical setting, specimen type, high tuberculosis burden, and high tuberculosis/HIV burden - For detection of rifampicin resistance, we considered multi-drug-resistant tuberculosis burden • To compare multiple Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra results (repeated testing) with the initial Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra result SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry up to 29 April 2019, without language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials, cross-sectional trials, and cohort studies evaluating Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra in HIV-positive and HIV-negative children younger than 15 years. Reference standards comprised culture or a composite reference standard for tuberculosis and drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus (molecular assay for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis and drug resistance) for rifampicin resistance. We included studies evaluating sputum, gastric aspirate, stool, nasopharyngeal or bronchial lavage specimens (pulmonary tuberculosis), cerebrospinal fluid (tuberculous meningitis), fine needle aspirates, or surgical biopsy tissue (lymph node tuberculosis).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy - Revised (QUADAS-2). For each target condition, we used the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We stratified all analyses by type of reference standard. We assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: For pulmonary tuberculosis, 299 data sets (68,544 participants) were available for analysis; for tuberculous meningitis, 10 data sets (423 participants) were available; for lymph node tuberculosis, 10 data sets (318 participants) were available; and for rifampicin resistance, 14 data sets (326 participants) were available. Thirty-nine studies (80%) took place in countries with high tuberculosis burden. Risk of bias was low except for the reference standard domain, for which risk of bias was unclear because many studies collected only one specimen for culture. Detection of pulmonary tuberculosis For sputum specimens, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) verified by culture were 64.6% (55.3% to 72.9%) (23 studies, 493 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 99.0% (98.1% to 99.5%) (23 studies, 6119 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). For other specimen types (nasopharyngeal aspirate, 4 studies; gastric aspirate, 14 studies; stool, 11 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity ranged between 45.7% and 73.0%, and pooled specificity ranged between 98.1% and 99.6%. For sputum specimens, Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) verified by culture were 72.8% (64.7% to 79.6%) (3 studies, 136 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 97.5% (95.8% to 98.5%) (3 studies, 551 participants; high-certainty evidence). For nasopharyngeal specimens, Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% CI) and specificity (95% CI) were 45.7% (28.9% to 63.3%) and 97.5% (93.7% to 99.3%) (1 study, 195 participants). For all specimen types, Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra sensitivity were lower against a composite reference standard than against culture. Detection of tuberculous meningitis For cerebrospinal fluid, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity, verified by culture, were 54.0% (95% CI 27.8% to 78.2%) (6 studies, 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 93.8% (95% CI 84.5% to 97.6%) (6 studies, 213 participants; low-certainty evidence). Detection of lymph node tuberculosis For lymph node aspirates or biopsies, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity, verified by culture, were 90.4% (95% CI 55.7% to 98.6%) (6 studies, 68 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 89.8% (95% CI 71.5% to 96.8%) (6 studies, 142 participants; low-certainty evidence). Detection of rifampicin resistance Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 90.0% (67.6% to 97.5%) (6 studies, 20 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.3% (87.7% to 99.8%) (6 studies, 203 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity to vary by specimen type, with gastric aspirate specimens having the highest sensitivity followed by sputum and stool, and nasopharyngeal specimens the lowest; specificity in all specimens was > 98%. Compared with Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra sensitivity in sputum was higher and specificity slightly lower. Xpert MTB/RIF was accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF was sensitive for diagnosing lymph node tuberculosis. For children with presumed tuberculous meningitis, treatment decisions should be based on the entirety of clinical information and treatment should not be withheld based solely on an Xpert MTB/RIF result. The small numbers of studies and participants, particularly for Xpert Ultra, limits our confidence in the precision of these estimates.
BACKGROUND Endobronchial ultrasound-guided transbronchial needle aspiration (EBUS-TBNA) has been widely used in the diagnosis of mediastinal lymphadenopathies. Here, we performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to explore the diagnostic value of EBUS-TBNA in mediastinal tuberculous lymphadenopathy (TBLA). MATERIAL AND METHODS PubMed, EMBASE, and Sinoced were systematically searched for articles published in English or Chinese that reported the diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA in mediastinal TBLA. The quality of studies was assessed using the QualSyst tool. Using 95% confidence intervals (CI), the diagnostic yields of EBUS-TBNA were calculated for the individual studies, and the results were then pooled using a random-effects model. Heterogeneity and publication bias were also assessed. RESULTS A total of 14 studies, consisting of 684 patients with mediastinal TBLA, were finally included. The pooled diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA for mediastinal TBLA was 80% (95% CI: 74-86%). Significant heterogeneity (I2=77.9%) and significant publication bias were detected (Begg's test p=0.05 and Egger's test p=0.02). From subgroup analyses, significant differences in the diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA were associated with Asian vs. European (UK) studies, retrospective vs. prospective studies, those employing rapid on-site cytological evaluation vs. not, those employing different anesthetic types, and those employing smear vs. culture. However, microbiological examination and the number of lymph node passes did not have a significant effect on the diagnostic yield of EBUS-TBNA. Fifteen minor complications for EBUS-TBNA were reported. CONCLUSIONS EBUS-TBNA appears to be an efficacious and safe procedure and should be used as an initial diagnostic tool for mediastinal TBLA.
BACKGROUND: Although the evidence base regarding the use of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay for diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) when testing respiratory samples is well established, the evidence base for its diagnostic accuracy for extrapulmonary and sputum-scarce pulmonary TB when testing non-respiratory samples is less clearly defined.
METHODS: A systematic literature search of 7 electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, BIOSIS, Global Health Database, Scopus and Cochrane Database) was conducted to identify studies of the diagnostic accuracy of the Xpert assay when testing non-respiratory samples compared with a culture-based reference standard. Data were extracted and study quality was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Sensitivities and specificities were calculated on a per-sample basis, stratified by sample type and smear microscopy status and summarised using forest plots. Pooled estimates were calculated for groups with sufficient data.
RESULTS: Twenty-seven studies with a total of 6,026 non-respiratory samples were included. Among the 23 studies comparing Xpert and culture done on the same samples, sensitivity was very heterogeneous with a median sensitivity of 0.83 (IQR, 0.68-0.94) whereas specificities were typically very high (median, 0.98; IQR, 0.89-1.00). The pooled summary estimates of sensitivity when testing smear-positive and smear-negative samples were 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-1.00) and 0.69 (95% CI 0.60-0.80), respectively. Pooled summary estimates of sensitivity varied substantially between sample types: lymph node tissue, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.72-0.99); tissue samples of all types, 0.88 (95% CI, 0.76-0.94); pleural fluid, 0.34 (95% CI, 0.24-0.44); gastric aspirates for diagnosis of sputum-scarce pulmonary TB, 0.78 (IQR, 0.68 - 0.85). Median sensitivities when testing cerebrospinal fluid and non-pleural serous fluid samples were 0.85 (IQR, 0.75-1.00) and 0.67 (IQR, 0.00-1.00), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Xpert detects with high specificity the vast majority of EPTB cases with smear-positive non-respiratory samples and approximately two-thirds of those with smear-negative samples. Xpert is a useful rule-in diagnostic test for EPTB, especially when testing cerebrospinal fluid and tissue samples. In addition, it has a high sensitivity for detecting pulmonary TB when using gastric aspirate samples. These findings support recent WHO guidelines regarding the use of Xpert for TB diagnosis from non-respiratory samples.
BACKGROUND: Smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis (SN-PTB), which is common in HIV-infected patients, is difficult to diagnose using smear microscopy alone. In 2007, the WHO developed an algorithm to improve the diagnosis and management of smear-negative tuberculosis in HIV prevalent and resource constrained settings. Implementation of the algorithm required individuals with presumptive TB to be initially evaluated using two sputum microscopy examinations followed by clinical diagnosis that may include chest X-ray and antibiotic treatment in smear-negative individuals. Since that time, the WHO has endorsed several new tests for diagnosis of tuberculosis. However, it is unclear how the new tests perform when compared to the WHO 2007 algorithm in diagnosis of SN-PTB. Using meta-analysis study design, we summarized and compared the accuracy of Xpert® MTB/Rif assay (GeneXpert) and Microscopic Observation Drug Susceptibility assay (MODS), with the WHO 2007 algorithm in the diagnosis of SN-PTB.
METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of publications on GeneXpert, or MODS, or the WHO 2007 algorithm for diagnosis of SN-PTB, using culture as reference test was performed. Meta-Disc software was used to obtain pooled sensitivity and specificity of the diagnostic methods. Heterogeneity in the accuracy estimates was tested by reviewing the generated forest plots, sROC curves and the Spearman correlation coefficient of the logit of true positive rate versus the logit of false positive rate.
RESULTS: Twenty-four publications on all three diagnostic methods were meta-analyzed. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for detection of smear-negative pulmonary tuberculosis were 67% and 98% for GeneXpert, 73% and 91% for MODS, and 61% and 69% for WHO 2007 algorithm, respectively. The sensitivity of GeneXpert reduced from 67% to 54% when sub-group analysis of studies with patient HIV prevalence ≥ 30% was performed.
CONCLUSION: The GeneXpert, MODS, and the WHO algorithm have moderate to high accuracy for the diagnosis of SN-PTB. However, the accuracy of the tests is extremely variable. The setting and context under which the tests are conducted in addition to several other factors could explain this variability. There is therefore need to investigate these factors further. The information from these studies would inform the adoption and placement of these new tests.
BACKGROUND: Isoniazid resistance is an obstacle to the treatment of tuberculosis disease and latent tuberculosis infection in children. We aim to summarize the literature describing the risk of isoniazid-resistant tuberculosis among children with tuberculosis disease.
METHODS: We did a systematic review of published reports of children with tuberculosis disease who had isolates tested for susceptibility to isoniazid. We searched PubMed, Embase and LILACS online databases up to January 12, 2012.
RESULTS: Our search identified 3403 citations, of which 95 studies met inclusion criteria. These studies evaluated 8351 children with tuberculosis disease for resistance to isoniazid. The median proportion of children found to have isoniazid-resistant strains was 8%; the distribution was right-skewed (25th percentile: 0% and 75th percentile: 18%).
CONCLUSIONS: High proportions of isoniazid resistance among pediatric tuberculosis patients have been reported in many settings suggesting that diagnostics detecting only rifampin resistance are insufficient to guide appropriate treatment in this population. Many children are likely receiving substandard tuberculosis treatment with empirical isoniazid-based regimens, and treating latent tuberculosis infection with isoniazid may not be effective in large numbers of children. Work is needed urgently to identify effective regimens for the treatment of children sick with or exposed to isoniazid-resistant tuberculosis and to better understand the scope of this problem.
OBJECTIVES: Xpert MTB/RIF (Cepheid) assay has been introduced for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) and RIF-resistance. The meta-analysis was used to establish the overall accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF assay for diagnosing TB and RIF-resistance.
METHODS: Based on comprehensive searches of the Pubmed and Embase, we identified outcome data from all articles estimating diagnostic accuracy with Xpert MTB/RIF assay. A summary estimation for sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratios (DOR) and the area under the summary ROC curve (AUC) was calculated by using the bivariate random-effects approach.
RESULTS: The meta-analysis included 18 studies (10,224 suspected specimens). The summary estimate was 90.4% (95%CI 89.2%-91.4%) for sensitivity, 98.4% (95%CI 98.0%-98.7%) for specificity and 328.3/0.9822 for DOR/AUC in pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB). The sensitivity, specificity and DOR/AUC of detecting RIF-resistance were 94.1%, 97.0% and 177.8/0.9832, respectively. For extrapulmonary tuberculosis, the overall pooled sensitivity was 80.4% and specificity was 86.1%. The findings in subgroup analysis were as follows: the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF assay is higher in smear-positive specimens and the sensitivity of diagnosing PTB in adults was higher than that in children (90.8% versus 74.3%).
CONCLUSIONS: TB and RIF-resistance can be rapidly and effectively diagnosed with Xpert MTB/RIF assay.
Active case finding (ACF) is an alternative strategy to accelerate the identification of TB cases among the migrant population.
OBJECTIVE:
This study aimed to synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of ACF TB in migrants.
METHODS:
This study uses the PRISMA model as a method of searching for journal articles in the databases of Google Scholar, ProQuest, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, and PubMed, as well as other sources such as textbooks and reports from 2017 to 2021 with the keywords "tuberculosis" AND "active case finding" AND "migrant". The search revealed 371 articles, of which 26 met the criteria for further discussion.
RESULTS:
Most studies show that the TB incidence among migrants is higher than in the local population. Factors leading to increased cases include lack of knowledge about the symptoms, high mobilization, social isolation, economic problems, and medication adherence that impact an advanced stage. Furthermore, it is also influenced by the low quality of health services, including accessibility, health facilities, health workers, and information. Therefore, Active Case Finding (ACF) is more effective in identifying cases of TB in the risk groups. This was conducted on migrants with increased notifications followed up with treatment.
CONCLUSION:
ACF is effective approach in screening and diagnosing TB in the migrant group.
