-
Clinical Microbiology and Infection :... Jan 2022Outcomes of treatment of tuberculosis patients with regimens including pretomanid have not yet been systematically reviewed. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Outcomes of treatment of tuberculosis patients with regimens including pretomanid have not yet been systematically reviewed.
OBJECTIVES
To appraise existing evidence on efficacy and safety of pretomanid in tuberculosis.
DATA SOURCES
Pubmed, clinicaltrials.gov. and Cochrane library.
STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
Quantitative studies presenting original data on clinical efficacy or safety of pretomanid.
PARTICIPANTS
Patients with tuberculosis.
INTERVENTIONS
Treatment with pretomanid or pretomanid-containing regimens in minimum one study group.
METHODS
Two authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Data on efficacy (early bactericidal activity, bactericidal activity, end-of-treatment outcomes and acquired resistance) and safety were summarized in tables. Mean differences in efficacy outcomes between regimens across studies were calculated.
RESULTS
Eight studies were included; four randomized controlled trials on 2-week early bactericidal activity in rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis, three trials with randomized rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis arms and a single rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis arm (two on 8-week bactericidal activity, one on end-of-treatment outcomes), one single-arm trial with end-of-treatment outcomes in highly resistant tuberculosis. Activity of pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide was superior to standard treatment on daily change in colony-forming units at days 0-2, 0-56 and 7-56 and time to culture conversion in rifampicin-susceptible tuberculosis (hazard ratio: 1.7; 95% CI 1.1-2.7), but not at end of treatment in one study. This study was stopped due to serious hepatotoxic adverse events, including three deaths, in 4% (95% CI 2-8) patients on pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide and none in controls. In patients with uncomplicated rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis on pretomanid-moxifloxacin-pyrazinamide treatment, 91% (95% CI 59-100) had favourable end-of-treatment outcomes. In patients with highly resistant tuberculosis, 90% (95% CI 83-95) on pretomanid-bedaquiline-linezolid had favourable outcomes six months after treatment, but linezolid-related toxicity was frequent. No acquired resistance to pretomanid was reported.
CONCLUSIONS
Evidence suggests an important role for pretomanid in rifampicin-resistant and highly resistant tuberculosis. Trials comparing pretomanid to existing core and companion drugs are needed to further define that role.
Topics: Antitubercular Agents; Humans; Linezolid; Moxifloxacin; Nitroimidazoles; Pyrazinamide; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rifampin; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Multidrug-Resistant
PubMed: 34400340
DOI: 10.1016/j.cmi.2021.08.007 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Nov 2018Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional bowel disorder. Disturbances in the gastrointestinal microbiome may be involved in its aetiology. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic functional bowel disorder. Disturbances in the gastrointestinal microbiome may be involved in its aetiology.
AIM
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the efficacy of prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics and antibiotics in IBS.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register were searched (up to July 2017). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) recruiting adults with IBS, comparing prebiotics, probiotics, synbiotics or antibiotics with placebo or no therapy were eligible. Dichotomous symptom data were pooled to obtain a relative risk (RR) of remaining symptomatic after therapy, with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Continuous data were pooled using a standardised mean difference with a 95% CI.
RESULTS
The search identified 4017 citations. Data for prebiotics and synbiotics were sparse. Fifty-three RCTs of probiotics, involving 5545 patients, were eligible. Particular combinations of probiotics, or specific species and strains, appeared to have beneficial effects on global IBS symptoms and abdominal pain, but it was not possible to draw definitive conclusions about their efficacy. There were five trials of similar design that used rifaximin in non-constipated IBS patients, which was more effective than placebo (RR of symptoms persisting = 0.84; 95% CI 0.79-0.90). Adverse events were no more common with probiotics or antibiotics.
CONCLUSIONS
Which particular combination, species or strains of probiotics are effective for IBS remains, for the most part, unclear. Rifaximin has modest efficacy in improving symptoms in non-constipated IBS.
Topics: Abdominal Pain; Adult; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Gastrointestinal Agents; Gastrointestinal Microbiome; Humans; Irritable Bowel Syndrome; Prebiotics; Probiotics; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Rifaximin; Synbiotics; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30294792
DOI: 10.1111/apt.15001 -
Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics Mar 2017Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is a heterogeneous syndrome, characterised by an increased number and/or abnormal type of bacteria in the small bowel. Over... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Small intestinal bacterial overgrowth (SIBO) is a heterogeneous syndrome, characterised by an increased number and/or abnormal type of bacteria in the small bowel. Over the past decades, rifaximin has gained popularity for this indication despite its use is not evidence based.
AIM
To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to summarise evidence about the efficacy and safety of rifaximin to eradicate SIBO in adult patients.
METHODS
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CCRCT, Scopus and Web of Science were searched from inception to March 16, 2015 for RCTs and observational studies. Furthermore, abstract books of major European, American and Asian gastroenterological meetings were also examined.
RESULTS
Thirty-two studies involving 1331 patients were included. The overall eradication rate according to intention-to-treat analysis was 70.8% (95% CI: 61.4-78.2; I = 89.4%) and to per protocol analysis 72.9% (95% CI: 65.5-79.8; I = 87.5%). Meta-regression identified three covariates (drug dose, study design and co-therapy) independently associated with an increased eradication rate. The overall rate of adverse events was 4.6% (95% CI: 2.3-7.5; I = 63.6%). In the subset of studies (n= 10) allowing the analysis, improvement or resolution of symptoms in patients with eradicated SIBO was found to be 67.7% (95% CI: 44.7-86.9; I = 91.3%).
CONCLUSIONS
Rifaximin treatment seems to be effective and safe for the treatment of SIBO. However, the quality of the available studies is generally poor. Well-designed RCTs are needed to substantiate these findings and to establish the optimal regimen.
Topics: Adult; Bacteria; Bacterial Infections; Female; Gastroenterology; Humans; Intestine, Small; Rifamycins; Rifaximin; Syndrome
PubMed: 28078798
DOI: 10.1111/apt.13928 -
PloS One 2022Rifaximin and lactulose are widely used in patients with hepatic encephalopathy (HE); however, data on whether the combined use of rifaximin and lactulose could yield... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Rifaximin and lactulose are widely used in patients with hepatic encephalopathy (HE); however, data on whether the combined use of rifaximin and lactulose could yield additional benefits for patients with HE are limited and inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the treatment effectiveness of rifaximin plus lactulose versus lactulose alone in patients with HE. Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched for eligible RCTs from their inception until November 2020. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were applied to calculate pooled effect estimates for the treatment effectiveness of rifaximin plus lactulose versus lactulose alone by using the random-effects model. Sensitivity, subgroup, and publication bias analyses were also performed. We included 7 RCTs enrolling 843 patients with HE. We noted that the use of rifaximin plus lactulose was associated with an increased incidence of effective rate than lactulose alone (RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.10-1.53; P = 0.002). Moreover, the use of rifaximin plus lactulose was associated with a reduced risk of mortality as compared with lactulose alone (RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.41-0.80; P = 0.001). This study found that the use of rifaximin in combination with lactulose could provide additional benefits in terms of increased effective rate and decreased mortality than lactulose alone in patients with HE.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Hepatic Encephalopathy; Humans; Lactulose; Rifaximin; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 35471992
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0267647 -
International Journal of Molecular... Oct 2022Dapsone (DDS), Rifampicin (RIF) and Ofloxacin (OFL) are drugs recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the treatment of leprosy. In the context of leprosy,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dapsone (DDS), Rifampicin (RIF) and Ofloxacin (OFL) are drugs recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the treatment of leprosy. In the context of leprosy, resistance to these drugs occurs mainly due to mutations in the target genes (Folp1, RpoB and GyrA). It is important to monitor antimicrobial resistance in patients with leprosy. Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis of drug resistance in Mycobacterium leprae and the mutational profile of the target genes. In this paper, we limited the study period to May 2022 and searched PubMed, Web of Science (WOS), Scopus, and Embase databases for identified studies. Two independent reviewers extracted the study data. Mutation and drug-resistance rates were estimated in Stata 16.0. The results demonstrated that the drug-resistance rate was 10.18% (95% CI: 7.85-12.51). Subgroup analysis showed the highest resistance rate was in the Western Pacific region (17.05%, 95% CI:1.80 to 13.78), and it was higher after 2009 than before [(11.39%, 7.46-15.33) vs. 6.59% (3.66-9.53)]. We can conclude that the rate among new cases (7.25%, 95% CI: 4.65-9.84) was lower than the relapsed (14.26%, 95 CI%: 9.82-18.71). Mutation rates of Folp1, RpoB and GyrA were 4.40% (95% CI: 3.02-5.77), 3.66% (95% CI: 2.41-4.90) and 1.28% (95% CI: 0.87-1.71) respectively, while the rate for polygenes mutation was 1.73% (0.83-2.63). For further analysis, we used 368 drug-resistant strains as research subjects and found that codons (Ser, Pro, Ala) on RpoB, Folp1 and GyrA are the most common mutation sites in the determining region (DRDR). In addition, the most common substitution patterns of Folp1, RpoB, and GyrA are Pro→Leu, Ser→Leu, and Ala→Val. This study found that a higher proportion of patients has developed resistance to these drugs, and the rate has increased since 2009, which continue to pose a challenge to clinicians. In addition, the amino acid alterations in the sequence of the DRDR regions and the substitution patterns mentioned in the study also provide new ideas for clinical treatment options.
Topics: Humans; Rifampin; Dapsone; Leprostatic Agents; Ofloxacin; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Mycobacterium leprae; Leprosy; Mutation; Amino Acids; Microbial Sensitivity Tests
PubMed: 36293307
DOI: 10.3390/ijms232012443 -
International Journal of Antimicrobial... May 2021The superiority of combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (CR-GNB) infections remains controversial. In vitro models may predict the efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
The superiority of combination therapy for carbapenem-resistant Gram-negative bacilli (CR-GNB) infections remains controversial. In vitro models may predict the efficacy of antibiotic regimens against CR-GNB. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed including pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) and time-kill (TK) studies examining the in vitro efficacy of antibiotic combinations against CR-GNB [PROSPERO registration no. CRD42019128104]. The primary outcome was in vitro synergy based on the effect size (ES): high, ES ≥ 0.75, moderate, 0.35 < ES < 0.75; low, ES ≤ 0.35; and absent, ES = 0). A network meta-analysis assessed the bactericidal effect and re-growth rate (secondary outcomes). An adapted version of the ToxRTool was used for risk-of-bias assessment. Over 180 combination regimens from 136 studies were included. The most frequently analysed classes were polymyxins and carbapenems. Limited data were available for ceftazidime/avibactam, ceftolozane/tazobactam and imipenem/relebactam. High or moderate synergism was shown for polymyxin/rifampicin against Acinetobacter baumannii [ES = 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.44-1.00], polymyxin/fosfomycin against Klebsiella pneumoniae (ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.66-1.00) and imipenem/amikacin against Pseudomonas aeruginosa (ES = 1.00, 95% CI 0.21-1.00). Compared with monotherapy, increased bactericidal activity and lower re-growth rates were reported for colistin/fosfomycin and polymyxin/rifampicin in K. pneumoniae and for imipenem/amikacin or imipenem/tobramycin against P. aeruginosa. High quality was documented for 65% and 53% of PK/PD and TK studies, respectively. Well-designed in vitro studies should be encouraged to guide the selection of combination therapies in clinical trials and to improve the armamentarium against carbapenem-resistant bacteria.
Topics: Amikacin; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Azabicyclo Compounds; Carbapenems; Ceftazidime; Cephalosporins; Colistin; Drug Combinations; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Drug Synergism; Drug Therapy, Combination; Fosfomycin; Gram-Negative Bacteria; Gram-Negative Bacterial Infections; Humans; Imipenem; In Vitro Techniques; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Polymyxins; Rifampin; Tazobactam; Tobramycin
PubMed: 33857539
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2021.106344 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Tuberculosis (TB) is the world's leading infectious cause of death. Extrapulmonary TB accounts for 15% of TB cases, but the proportion is increasing, and over half a... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Tuberculosis (TB) is the world's leading infectious cause of death. Extrapulmonary TB accounts for 15% of TB cases, but the proportion is increasing, and over half a million people were newly diagnosed with rifampicin-resistant TB in 2016. Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended, rapid, automated, nucleic acid amplification assay that is used widely for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum specimens. This Cochrane Review assessed the accuracy of Xpert in extrapulmonary specimens.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert a) for extrapulmonary TB by site of disease in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB; and b) for rifampicin resistance in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB.
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 (LILACS), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry, and ProQuest up to 7 August 2017 without language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included diagnostic accuracy studies of Xpert in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. We included TB meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, and disseminated TB. We used culture as the reference standard. For pleural TB, we also included a composite reference standard, which defined a positive result as the presence of granulomatous inflammation or a positive culture result. For rifampicin resistance, we used culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus as the reference standard.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. We determined pooled predicted sensitivity and specificity for TB, grouped by type of extrapulmonary specimen, and for rifampicin resistance. For TB detection, we used a bivariate random-effects model. Recognizing that use of culture may lead to misclassification of cases of extrapulmonary TB as 'not TB' owing to the paucibacillary nature of the disease, we adjusted accuracy estimates by applying a latent class meta-analysis model. For rifampicin resistance detection, we performed univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected. We used theoretical populations with an assumed prevalence to provide illustrative numbers of patients with false positive and false negative results.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 66 unique studies that evaluated 16,213 specimens for detection of extrapulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance. We identified only one study that evaluated the newest test version, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), for TB meningitis. Fifty studies (76%) took place in low- or middle-income countries. Risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains and was high or unclear for the reference standard domain (most of these studies decontaminated sterile specimens before culture inoculation). Regarding applicability, in the patient selection domain, we scored high or unclear concern for most studies because either patients were evaluated exclusively as inpatients at tertiary care centres, or we were not sure about the clinical settings.Pooled Xpert sensitivity (defined by culture) varied across different types of specimens (31% in pleural tissue to 97% in bone or joint fluid); Xpert sensitivity was > 80% in urine and bone or joint fluid and tissue. Pooled Xpert specificity (defined by culture) varied less than sensitivity (82% in bone or joint tissue to 99% in pleural fluid and urine). Xpert specificity was ≥ 98% in cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, urine, and peritoneal fluid.Xpert testing in cerebrospinal fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval (CrI)) against culture were 71.1% (60.9% to 80.4%) and 98.0% (97.0% to 98.8%), respectively (29 studies, 3774 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have TB meningitis on culture, 89 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 18 (20%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 911 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have TB (false-negatives).For TB meningitis, ultra sensitivity and specificity against culture (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 90% (55% to 100%) and 90% (83% to 95%), respectively (one study, 129 participants).Xpert testing in pleural fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 50.9% (39.7% to 62.8%) and 99.2% (98.2% to 99.7%), respectively (27 studies, 4006 specimens; low-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 150 have pleural TB on culture, 83 would be Xpert-positive: of these, seven (8%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 917 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 74 (8%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing in urineXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 82.7% (69.6% to 91.1%) and 98.7% (94.8% to 99.7%), respectively (13 studies, 1199 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 70 have genitourinary TB on culture, 70 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 12 (17%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 930 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 12 (1%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing for rifampicin resistanceXpert pooled sensitivity (20 studies, 148 specimens) and specificity (39 studies, 1088 specimens) were 95.0% (89.7% to 97.9%) and 98.7% (97.8% to 99.4%), respectively (high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 120 have rifampicin-resistant TB, 125 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 11 (9%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); and 875 would be negative for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 6 (1%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).For lymph node TB, the accuracy of culture, the reference standard used, presented a greater concern for bias than in other forms of extrapulmonary TB.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB, Xpert may be helpful in confirming the diagnosis. Xpert sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens, while for most specimens, specificity is high, the test rarely yielding a positive result for people without TB (defined by culture). Xpert is accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. For people with presumed TB meningitis, treatment should be based on clinical judgement, and not withheld solely on an Xpert result, as is common practice when culture results are negative.
Topics: Antibiotics, Antitubercular; Bacterial Proteins; DNA-Directed RNA Polymerases; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; False Negative Reactions; False Positive Reactions; Humans; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Reagent Kits, Diagnostic; Reference Standards; Rifampin; Sensitivity and Specificity; Tuberculosis; Tuberculosis, Meningeal
PubMed: 30148542
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012768.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Every year, an estimated one million children and young adolescents become ill with tuberculosis, and around 226,000 of those children die. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Every year, an estimated one million children and young adolescents become ill with tuberculosis, and around 226,000 of those children die. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) is a molecular World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid diagnostic test that simultaneously detects Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance. We previously published a Cochrane Review 'Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assays for tuberculosis disease and rifampicin resistance in children'. The current review updates evidence on the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra in children presumed to have tuberculosis disease. Parts of this review update informed the 2022 WHO updated guidance on management of tuberculosis in children and adolescents.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra for detecting: pulmonary tuberculosis, tuberculous meningitis, lymph node tuberculosis, and rifampicin resistance, in children with presumed tuberculosis. Secondary objectives To investigate potential sources of heterogeneity in accuracy estimates. For detection of tuberculosis, we considered age, comorbidity (HIV, severe pneumonia, and severe malnutrition), and specimen type as potential sources. To summarize the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace results.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, three other databases, and three trial registers without language restrictions to 9 March 2021.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Cross-sectional and cohort studies and randomized trials that evaluated Xpert Ultra in HIV-positive and HIV-negative children under 15 years of age. We included ongoing studies that helped us address the review objectives. We included studies evaluating sputum, gastric, stool, or nasopharyngeal specimens (pulmonary tuberculosis), cerebrospinal fluid (tuberculous meningitis), and fine needle aspirate or surgical biopsy tissue (lymph node tuberculosis). For detecting tuberculosis, reference standards were microbiological (culture) or composite reference standard; for stool, we also included Xpert Ultra performed on a routine respiratory specimen. For detecting rifampicin resistance, reference standards were drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently extracted data and, using QUADAS-2, assessed methodological quality judging risk of bias separately for each target condition and reference standard. For each target condition, we used the bivariate model to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We stratified all analyses by type of reference standard. We summarized the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace results; trace represents detection of a very low quantity of Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 14 studies (11 new studies since the previous review). For detection of pulmonary tuberculosis, 335 data sets (25,937 participants) were available for analysis. We did not identify any studies that evaluated Xpert Ultra accuracy for tuberculous meningitis or lymph node tuberculosis. Three studies evaluated Xpert Ultra for detection of rifampicin resistance. Ten studies (71%) took place in countries with a high tuberculosis burden based on WHO classification. Overall, risk of bias was low. Detection of pulmonary tuberculosis Sputum, 5 studies Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 75.3% (95% CI 64.3 to 83.8; 127 participants; high-certainty evidence), and specificity was 97.1% (95% CI 94.7 to 98.5; 1054 participants; high-certainty evidence). Gastric aspirate, 7 studies Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 70.4% (95% CI 53.9 to 82.9; 120 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and specificity was 94.1% (95% CI 84.8 to 97.8; 870 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Stool, 6 studies Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 56.1% (95% CI 39.1 to 71.7; 200 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and specificity was 98.0% (95% CI 93.3 to 99.4; 1232 participants; high certainty-evidence). Nasopharyngeal aspirate, 4 studies Xpert Ultra summary sensitivity verified by culture was 43.7% (95% CI 26.7 to 62.2; 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity was 97.5% (95% CI 93.6 to 99.0; 489 participants; high-certainty evidence). Xpert Ultra sensitivity was lower against a composite than a culture reference standard for all specimen types other than nasopharyngeal aspirate, while specificity was similar against both reference standards. Interpretation of results In theory, for a population of 1000 children: • where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in sputum (by culture): - 101 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 26 (26%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and - 899 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). • where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in gastric aspirate (by culture): - 123 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 53 (43%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and - 877 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). • where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in stool (by culture): - 74 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 18 (24%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and - 926 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 44 (5%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). • where 100 have pulmonary tuberculosis in nasopharyngeal aspirate (by culture): - 66 would be Xpert Ultra-positive, and of these, 22 (33%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positive); and - 934 would be Xpert Ultra-negative, and of these, 56 (6%) would have tuberculosis (false negative). Detection of rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra sensitivity was 100% (3 studies, 3 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity range was 97% to 100% (3 studies, 128 participants; low-certainty evidence). Trace results Xpert Ultra trace results, regarded as positive in children by WHO standards, were common. Xpert Ultra specificity remained high in children, despite the frequency of trace results.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found Xpert Ultra sensitivity to vary by specimen type, with sputum having the highest sensitivity, followed by gastric aspirate and stool. Nasopharyngeal aspirate had the lowest sensitivity. Xpert Ultra specificity was high against both microbiological and composite reference standards. However, the evidence base is still limited, and findings may be imprecise and vary by study setting. Although we found Xpert Ultra accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance, results were based on a very small number of studies that included only three children with rifampicin resistance. Therefore, findings should be interpreted with caution. Our findings provide support for the use of Xpert Ultra as an initial rapid molecular diagnostic in children being evaluated for tuberculosis.
Topics: Adolescent; Antibiotics, Antitubercular; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; HIV Infections; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Rifampin; Sensitivity and Specificity; Sputum; Tuberculosis, Lymph Node; Tuberculosis, Meningeal; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
PubMed: 36065889
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013359.pub3 -
Cancer Apr 2023This study compares the safety and efficacy of first-line treatments for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Efficacy and safety of first-line treatments for patients with advanced anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutated, non-small cell cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
This study compares the safety and efficacy of first-line treatments for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and ClinicalTrials.gov databases. Abstracts related to lung cancer presented at important international conferences were also reviewed. Randomized clinical trials that qualified the inclusion criteria were subjected to Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematically reviewed.
RESULTS
The authors included a total of nine studies including 2441 patients and seven first-line treatments (ensartinib, brigatinib, crizotinib, lorlatinib, alectinib, ceritinib, and pemetrexed-based chemotherapy). Overall, lorlatinib appeared to confer the best progression-free survival (PFS) (probability of being the best [Prbest], 90%; surface under the cumulative ranking curve [SUCRA], 98%), and the same conclusion was obtained on paired comparisons (lorlatinib vs. ceritinib [hazard ratio (HR), 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.20-0.47); lorlatinib vs. chemotherapy [HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.12-0.23]; crizotinib vs. lorlatinib [HR, 3.6; 95% CI, 2.4-5.2]; and brigatinib vs. lorlatinib [HR, 1.7; 95% CI, 1.0-2.8]). Alectinib conferred the best overall survival (OS) and safety profile. In the Asian population, ensartinib conferred the best PFS (Prbest 50%, SUCRA 87%), and for patients with brain metastases at baseline, lorlatinib showed the best PFS (Prbest 70%, SUCRA 93%).
CONCLUSIONS
For first-line treatment of patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, lorlatinib was associated with the best PFS and objective response rate, but poorer safety profile, whereas alectinib demonstrated the best OS and safety profile. In Asians, ensartinib conferred the best PFS benefit, and in the brain baseline metastasis population, lorlatinib conferred the best PFS benefit.
PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY
Among the many molecularly targeted drugs currently used to treat anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer, lorlatinib may be one of the most effective targeted drugs. Lung cancer has long been at the top of cancer rankings in terms of incidence and mortality. Today, the treatment of lung cancer has moved into the era of precision therapy. In this article, we use a statistical approach to compare the efficacy and safety of targeted drugs that have been used in the first-line treatment of anaplastic lymphoma kinase mutations to improve the reference for clinicians to make treatment decisions in the real world.
Topics: Humans; Carcinoma, Non-Small-Cell Lung; Lung Neoplasms; Crizotinib; Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase; Network Meta-Analysis; Bayes Theorem; Lactams, Macrocyclic; Protein Kinase Inhibitors
PubMed: 36748799
DOI: 10.1002/cncr.34664 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2014Accurate, rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and TB drug resistance is critical for improving patient care and decreasing TB transmission. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay is an... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Accurate, rapid detection of tuberculosis (TB) and TB drug resistance is critical for improving patient care and decreasing TB transmission. Xpert® MTB/RIF assay is an automated test that can detect both TB and rifampicin resistance, generally within two hours after starting the test, with minimal hands-on technical time. The World Health Organization (WHO) issued initial recommendations on Xpert® MTB/RIF in early 2011. A Cochrane Review on the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance was published January 2013. We performed this updated Cochrane Review as part of a WHO process to develop updated guidelines on the use of the test.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for pulmonary TB (TB detection), where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as both an initial test replacing microscopy and an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result.To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert® MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection, where Xpert® MTB/RIF was used as the initial test replacing culture-based drug susceptibility testing (DST).The populations of interest were adults presumed to have pulmonary, rifampicin-resistant or multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), with or without HIV infection. The settings of interest were intermediate- and peripheral-level laboratories. The latter may be associated with primary health care facilities.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched for publications in any language up to 7 February 2013 in the following databases: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE; EMBASE; ISI Web of Knowledge; MEDION; LILACS; BIOSIS; and SCOPUS. We also searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (mRCT) and the search portal of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that allowed for extraction of data evaluating Xpert® MTB/RIF against the reference standard. We excluded gastric fluid specimens. The reference standard for TB was culture and for rifampicin resistance was phenotypic culture-based DST.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For each study, two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we extracted data for subgroups by smear and HIV status. We assessed the quality of studies using QUADAS-2 and carried out meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity of Xpert® MTB/RIF separately for TB detection and rifampicin resistance detection. For TB detection, we performed the majority of analyses using a bivariate random-effects model and compared the sensitivity of Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy against culture as reference standard. For rifampicin resistance detection, we undertook univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 27 unique studies (integrating nine new studies) involving 9557 participants. Sixteen studies (59%) were performed in low- or middle-income countries. For all QUADAS-2 domains, most studies were at low risk of bias and low concern regarding applicability.As an initial test replacing smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 89% [95% Credible Interval (CrI) 85% to 92%] and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%), (22 studies, 8998 participants: 2953 confirmed TB, 6045 non-TB).As an add-on test following a negative smear microscopy result, Xpert®MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 67% (95% CrI 60% to 74%) and pooled specificity 99% (95% CrI 98% to 99%; 21 studies, 6950 participants).For smear-positive, culture-positive TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 21 studies, 1936 participants).For people with HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 79% (95% CrI 70% to 86%; 7 studies, 1789 participants), and for people without HIV infection, it was 86% (95% CrI 76% to 92%; 7 studies, 1470 participants). Comparison with smear microscopy In comparison with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF increased TB detection among culture-confirmed cases by 23% (95% CrI 15% to 32%; 21 studies, 8880 participants).For TB detection, if pooled sensitivity estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF and smear microscopy are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients where 10% of those with symptoms have TB, Xpert® MTB/RIF will diagnose 88 cases and miss 12 cases, whereas sputum microscopy will diagnose 65 cases and miss 35 cases. Rifampicin resistance For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 95% (95% CrI 90% to 97%; 17 studies, 555 rifampicin resistance positives) and pooled specificity was 98% (95% CrI 97% to 99%; 24 studies, 2411 rifampicin resistance negatives). Among 180 specimens with nontuberculous mycobacteria (NTM), Xpert® MTB/RIF was positive in only one specimen that grew NTM (14 studies, 2626 participants).For rifampicin resistance detection, if the pooled accuracy estimates for Xpert® MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 individuals where 15% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 143 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss eight cases, and correctly identify 833 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 17 individuals as resistant. Where 5% of those with symptoms are rifampicin resistant, Xpert® MTB/RIF would correctly identify 48 individuals as rifampicin resistant and miss three cases and correctly identify 931 individuals as rifampicin susceptible and misclassify 19 individuals as resistant.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
In adults thought to have TB, with or without HIV infection, Xpert® MTB/RIF is sensitive and specific. Compared with smear microscopy, Xpert® MTB/RIF substantially increases TB detection among culture-confirmed cases. Xpert® MTB/RIF has higher sensitivity for TB detection in smear-positive than smear-negative patients. Nonetheless, this test may be valuable as an add-on test following smear microscopy in patients previously found to be smear-negative. For rifampicin resistance detection, Xpert® MTB/RIF provides accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of MDR-TB treatment, pending results from conventional culture and DST. The tests are expensive, so current research evaluating the use of Xpert® MTB/RIF in TB programmes in high TB burden settings will help evaluate how this investment may help start treatment promptly and improve outcomes.
Topics: Adult; Antibiotics, Antitubercular; Drug Resistance, Bacterial; Humans; Mycobacterium tuberculosis; Polymerase Chain Reaction; Rifampin; Sensitivity and Specificity; Sequence Analysis, DNA; Tuberculosis, Pulmonary
PubMed: 24448973
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009593.pub3