Factors associated with tuberculosis treatment initiation among bacteriologically negative individuals evaluated for tuberculosis: an individual patient data meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
SUMMARY Background Globally, over one-third of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) disease diagnoses are made based on clinical criteria after a negative diagnostic test result. Understanding factors associated with clinicians’ decisions to initiate treatment for individuals with negative test results is critical for predicting the potential impact of new diagnostics. Methods We performed a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis using studies conducted between January/2010 and December/2022 (PROSPERO: CRD42022287613). We included trials or cohort studies that enrolled individuals evaluated for TB in routine settings. In these studies participants were evaluated based on clinical examination and routinely-used diagnostics, and were followed for ≥1 week after the initial test result. We used hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression to identify factors associated with treatment initiation following a negative result on an initial bacteriological test (e.g., sputum smear microscopy, Xpert MTB/RIF). Findings Multiple factors were positively associated with treatment initiation: male sex [adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 1.61 (1.31–1.95)], history of prior TB [aOR 1.36 (1.06–1.73)], reported cough [aOR 4.62 (3.42–6.27)], reported night sweats [aOR 1.50 (1.21–1.90)], and having HIV infection but not on ART [aOR 1.68 (1.23–2.32)]. Treatment initiation was substantially less likely for individuals testing negative with Xpert [aOR 0.77 (0.62–0.96)] compared to smear microscopy and declined in more recent years. Interpretation Multiple factors influenced decisions to initiate TB treatment despite negative test results. Clinicians were substantially less likely to treat in the absence of a positive test result when using more sensitive, PCR-based diagnostics. Funding National Institutes of Health Research in context Evidence before this study In countries with a high burden of tuberculosis, over one-third of notified cases for pulmonary TB are diagnosed based on clinical criteria, without bacteriological confirmation of disease (‘clinical diagnosis’). For these individuals with negative bacteriological test results, there is limited evidence on the factors associated with higher or lower rates of clinical diagnosis. In the context of individual clinical trials, some analyses have reported lower rates of treatment initiation for individuals testing negative on new cartridge-based PCR tests (e.g., Xpert MTB-RIF), as compared to individuals testing negative in sputum smear microscopy. Added value of this study This study conducted a systematic review of studies that collected data on patient characteristics and treatment initiation decisions for individuals receiving a negative bacteriological test result as part of initial evaluation for TB. Patient-level data from 13 countries across 12 studies (n=15121) were analyzed in an individual patient data meta-analysis, to describe factors associated with clinicians’ decisions to treat for TB disease. We identified significant associations between multiple clinical factors and the probability that a patient would be initiated on TB treatment, including sex, history of prior TB, reported symptoms (cough and night sweats), and HIV status. Controlling for other factors, patients testing negative on PCR-based diagnostics (e.g., Xpert MTB/RIF) were less likely to be initiated on treatment than those testing negative with smear microscopy. Implications of all the available evidence Rates of clinical diagnosis for TB differ systematically as a function of multiple clinical factors and are lower for patients who test negative with new PCR-based diagnostics compared to earlier smear-based methods. This evidence can be used to refine diagnostic algorithms and better understand the implications of introducing new diagnostic tests for TB.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,026 | 0,054 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,017 | 0,069 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,006 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».