CDC STACKS serves as an archival repository of CDC-published products including scientific findings, journal articles, guidelines, recommendations, or other public health information authored or co-authored by CDC or funded partners.
As a repository, CDC STACKS retains documents in their original published format to ensure public access to scientific information.
i
Treatment outcomes, diagnostic and therapeutic impact: Xpert vs. smear. A systematic review and meta-analysis
-
1 01 2019
-
-
Source: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 23(1):82-92
[PDF-371.68 KB]
Details:
-
Alternative Title:Int J Tuberc Lung Dis
-
Personal Author:
-
Description:BACKGROUND:
Compared with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF has the potential to reduce delays in tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis and treatment initiation, and improve treatment outcomes. We reviewed publications comparing treatment outcomes of drug-susceptible TB patients diagnosed using Xpert vs. smear.
METHODS:
Citations (2000–2016) reporting treatment outcomes of patients diagnosed using Xpert compared with smear were selected from PubMed, Scopus and conference abstracts. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis. Favorable (cured, completed) and unfavorable (failure, death, loss to follow-up) outcomes were pooled for meta-analysis; we also reviewed the number of TB cases diagnosed, time to treatment and empiric treatment. The Mantel-Haenszel method with a fixed-effect model was used; I2 was calculated to measure heterogeneity.
RESULTS:
From 13 citations, 43 594 TB patients were included and 4825 were with known TB treatment outcome. From the pooled analysis, an unfavorable outcomes among those diagnosed using Xpert compared with smear was 20.2%, 541/2675 vs. 21.9%, 470/2150 (risk ratio 0.92, 95%CI 0.82–1.02). Statistical heterogeneity was low (I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.910). Compared with smear, Xpert was reported to be superior in increasing the number of TB patients diagnosed (2/9 citations), increasing bacteriologically confirmed TB (7/9 citations), reducing empiric treatment (3/5 citations), reducing time to diagnosis (2/3 citations), and reducing time to treatment initiation (1/5 citations).
CONCLUSIONS:
Xpert implementation showed no discernible impact on treatment outcomes compared with conventional smear despite reduced time to diagnosis, time to treatment or reduced level of empiric treatment. Further research is required to learn more about gaps in the existing health system.
-
Subjects:
-
Keywords:
-
Source:
-
Pubmed ID:30674379
-
Pubmed Central ID:PMC6872902
-
Document Type:
-
Funding:
-
Volume:23
-
Issue:1
-
Collection(s):
-
Main Document Checksum:
-
Download URL:
-
File Type:
