Commercial Nucleic-Acid Amplification Tests for Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Respiratory Specimens: Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression

BACKGROUND: Hundreds of studies have evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of nucleic-acid amplification tests (NAATs) for tuberculosis (TB). Commercial tests have been shown to give more consistent results than in-house assays. Previous meta-analyses have found high specificity but low and highly variable estimates of sensitivity. However, reasons for variability in study results have not been adequately explored. We performed a meta-analysis on the accuracy of commercial NAATs to diagnose pulmonary TB and meta-regression to identify factors that are associated with higher accuracy. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We identified 2948 citations from searching the literature. We found 402 articles that met our eligibility criteria. In the final analysis, 125 separate studies from 105 articles that reported NAAT results from respiratory specimens were included. The pooled sensitivity was 0.85 (range 0.36-1.00) and the pooled specificity was 0.97 (range 0.54-1.00). However, both measures were significantly heterogeneous (p<.001). We performed subgroup and meta-regression analyses to identify sources of heterogeneity. Even after stratifying by type of commercial test, we could not account for the variability. In the meta-regression, the threshold effect was significant (p = .01) and the use of other respiratory specimens besides sputum was associated with higher accuracy. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: The sensitivity and specificity estimates for commercial NAATs in respiratory specimens were highly variable, with sensitivity lower and more inconsistent than specificity. Thus, summary measures of diagnostic accuracy are not clinically meaningful. The use of different cut-off values and the use of specimens other than sputum could explain some of the observed heterogeneity. Based on these observations, commercial NAATs alone cannot be recommended to replace conventional tests for diagnosing pulmonary TB. Improvements in diagnostic accuracy, particularly sensitivity, need to be made in order for this expensive technology to be worthwhile and beneficial in low-resource countries

Global patient outcomes after elective surgery: prospective cohort study in 27 low-, middle- and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: As global initiatives increase patient access to surgical treatments, there remains a need to understand the adverse effects of surgery and define appropriate levels of perioperative care. METHODS: We designed a prospective international 7-day cohort study of outcomes following elective adult inpatient surgery in 27 countries. The primary outcome was in-hospital complications. Secondary outcomes were death following a complication (failure to rescue) and death in hospital. Process measures were admission to critical care immediately after surgery or to treat a complication and duration of hospital stay. A single definition of critical care was used for all countries. RESULTS: A total of 474 hospitals in 19 high-, 7 middle- and 1 low-income country were included in the primary analysis. Data included 44 814 patients with a median hospital stay of 4 (range 2-7) days. A total of 7508 patients (16.8%) developed one or more postoperative complication and 207 died (0.5%). The overall mortality among patients who developed complications was 2.8%. Mortality following complications ranged from 2.4% for pulmonary embolism to 43.9% for cardiac arrest. A total of 4360 (9.7%) patients were admitted to a critical care unit as routine immediately after surgery, of whom 2198 (50.4%) developed a complication, with 105 (2.4%) deaths. A total of 1233 patients (16.4%) were admitted to a critical care unit to treat complications, with 119 (9.7%) deaths. Despite lower baseline risk, outcomes were similar in low- and middle-income compared with high-income countries. CONCLUSIONS: Poor patient outcomes are common after inpatient surgery. Global initiatives to increase access to surgical treatments should also address the need for safe perioperative care. STUDY REGISTRATION: ISRCTN5181700

Long-term outcomes of the global tuberculosis and COVID-19 co-infection cohort.

Longitudinal cohort data of patients with tuberculosis (TB) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are lacking. In our global study, we describe long-term outcomes of patients affected by TB and COVID-19. We collected data from 174 centres in 31 countries on all patients affected by COVID-19 and TB between 1 March 2020 and 30 September 2022. Patients were followed-up until cure, death or end of cohort time. All patients had TB and COVID-19; for analysis purposes, deaths were attributed to TB, COVID-19 or both. Survival analysis was performed using Cox proportional risk-regression models, and the log-rank test was used to compare survival and mortality attributed to TB, COVID-19 or both. Overall, 788 patients with COVID-19 and TB (active or sequelae) were recruited from 31 countries, and 10.8% (n=85) died during the observation period. Survival was significantly lower among patients whose death was attributed to TB and COVID-19 versus those dying because of either TB or COVID-19 alone (p&lt;0.001). Significant adjusted risk factors for TB mortality were higher age (hazard ratio (HR) 1.05, 95% CI 1.03-1.07), HIV infection (HR 2.29, 95% CI 1.02-5.16) and invasive ventilation (HR 4.28, 95% CI 2.34-7.83). For COVID-19 mortality, the adjusted risks were higher age (HR 1.03, 95% CI 1.02-1.04), male sex (HR 2.21, 95% CI 1.24-3.91), oxygen requirement (HR 7.93, 95% CI 3.44-18.26) and invasive ventilation (HR 2.19, 95% CI 1.36-3.53). In our global cohort, death was the outcome in &gt;10% of patients with TB and COVID-19. A range of demographic and clinical predictors are associated with adverse outcomes

Kuluttajabarometri maakunnittain 2000, 2. neljännes

Suomen virallinen tilasto (SVT

Use of failure-to-rescue to identify international variation in postoperative care in low-, middle- and high-income countries: a 7-day cohort study of elective surgery

This was an investigator-initiated study funded by Nestle Health Sciences through an unrestricted research grant and by a National Institute for Health Research (UK) Professorship held by R.P. The study was sponsored by Queen Mary University of London