Which sample type is better for Xpert MTB/RIF to diagnose adult and pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis?

Abstract

Abstract Objective: This review aimed to identify proper respiratory-related sample types for adult and pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB), respectively, by comparing performance of Xpert MTB/RIF when using bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL), induced sputum (IS), expectorated sputum (ES), nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPAs), and gastric aspiration (GA) as sample. Methods: Articles were searched in Web of Science, PubMed, and Ovid from inception up to 29 June 2020. Pooled sensitivity and specificity were calculated, each with a 95% confidence interval (CI). Quality assessment and heterogeneity evaluation across included studies were performed. Results: A total of 50 articles were included. The respective sensitivity and specificity were 87% (95% CI: 0.84–0.89), 91% (95% CI: 0.90–0.92) and 95% (95% CI: 0.93–0.97) in the adult BAL group; 90% (95% CI: 0.88–0.91), 98% (95% CI: 0.97–0.98) and 97% (95% CI: 0.95–0.99) in the adult ES group; 86% (95% CI: 0.84–0.89) and 97% (95% CI: 0.96–0.98) in the adult IS group. Xpert MTB/RIF showed the sensitivity and specificity of 14% (95% CI: 0.10–0.19) and 99% (95% CI: 0.97–1.00) in the pediatric ES group; 80% (95% CI: 0.72–0.87) and 94% (95% CI: 0.92–0.95) in the pediatric GA group; 67% (95% CI: 0.62–0.72) and 99% (95% CI: 0.98–0.99) in the pediatric IS group; and 54% (95% CI: 0.43–0.64) and 99% (95% CI: 0.97–0.99) in the pediatric NPA group. The heterogeneity across included studies was deemed acceptable. Conclusion: Considering diagnostic accuracy, cost and sampling process, ES was a better choice than other sample types for diagnosing adult PTB, especially HIV-associated PTB. GA might be more suitable than other sample types for diagnosing pediatric PTB. The actual choice of sample types should also consider the needs of specific situations.