Tuberculosis screening among ambulatory people living with HIV: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: The WHO-recommended tuberculosis screening and diagnostic algorithm in ambulatory people living with HIV is a four-symptom screen (known as the WHO-recommended four symptom screen [W4SS]) followed by a WHO-recommended molecular rapid diagnostic test (eg Xpert MTB/RIF [hereafter referred to as Xpert]) if W4SS is positive. To inform updated WHO guidelines, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of alternative screening tests and strategies for tuberculosis in this population. METHODS: In this systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis, we updated a search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and conference abstracts for publications from Jan 1, 2011, to March 12, 2018, done in a previous systematic review to include the period up to Aug 2, 2019. We screened the reference lists of identified pieces and contacted experts in the field. We included prospective cross-sectional, observational studies and randomised trials among adult and adolescent (age ≥10 years) ambulatory people living with HIV, irrespective of signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. We extracted study-level data using a standardised data extraction form, and we requested individual participant data from study authors. We aimed to compare the W4SS with alternative screening tests and strategies and the WHO-recommended algorithm (ie, W4SS followed by Xpert) with Xpert for all in terms of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), overall and in key subgroups (eg, by antiretroviral therapy [ART] status). The reference standard was culture. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020155895. FINDINGS: We identified 25 studies, and obtained data from 22 studies (including 15 666 participants; 4347 [27·7%] of 15 663 participants with data were on ART). W4SS sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 72-89) and specificity was 42% (29-57). C-reactive protein (≥10 mg/L) had similar sensitivity to (77% [61-88]), but higher specificity (74% [61-83]; n=3571) than, W4SS. Cough (lasting ≥2 weeks), haemoglobin (<10 g/dL), body-mass index (<18·5 kg/m2), and lymphadenopathy had high specificities (80-90%) but low sensitivities (29-43%). The WHO-recommended algorithm had a sensitivity of 58% (50-66) and a specificity of 99% (98-100); Xpert for all had a sensitivity of 68% (57-76) and a specificity of 99% (98-99). In the one study that assessed both, the sensitivity of sputum Xpert Ultra was higher than sputum Xpert (73% [62-81] vs 57% [47-67]) and specificities were similar (98% [96-98] vs 99% [98-100]). Among outpatients on ART (4309 [99·1%] of 4347 people on ART), W4SS sensitivity was 53% (35-71) and specificity was 71% (51-85). In this population, a parallel strategy (two tests done at the same time) of W4SS with any chest x-ray abnormality had higher sensitivity (89% [70-97]) and lower specificity (33% [17-54]; n=2670) than W4SS alone; at a tuberculosis prevalence of 5%, this strategy would require 379 more rapid diagnostic tests per 1000 people living with HIV than W4SS but detect 18 more tuberculosis cases. Among outpatients not on ART (11 160 [71·8%] of 15 541 outpatients), W4SS sensitivity was 85% (76-91) and specificity was 37% (25-51). C-reactive protein (≥10 mg/L) alone had a similar sensitivity to (83% [79-86]), but higher specificity (67% [60-73]; n=3187) than, W4SS and a sequential strategy (both test positive) of W4SS then C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L) had a similar sensitivity to (84% [75-90]), but higher specificity than (64% [57-71]; n=3187), W4SS alone; at 10% tuberculosis prevalence, these strategies would require 272 and 244 fewer rapid diagnostic tests per 1000 people living with HIV than W4SS but miss two and one more tuberculosis cases, respectively. INTERPRETATION: C-reactive protein reduces the need for further rapid diagnostic tests without compromising sensitivity and has been included in the updated WHO tuberculosis screening guidelines. However, C-reactive protein data were scarce for outpatients on ART, necessitating future research regarding the utility of C-reactive protein in this group. Chest x-ray can be useful in outpatients on ART when combined with W4SS. The WHO-recommended algorithm has suboptimal sensitivity; Xpert for all offers slight sensitivity gains and would have major resource implications. FUNDING: World Health Organization

Chlorhexidine bathing and Clostridium difficile infection in a surgical intensive care unit

Background Clostridium difficile is the most common causative pathogen for hospital-acquired infections in the intensive care unit. This study evaluated the effect of chlorhexidine bathing every other day in preventing hospital-acquired C. difficile infection (CDI) using data from the CHlorhexidine Gluconate BATHing (CHG-BATH) randomized trial. Methods The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients acquiring CDIs among patients at risk for incident CDIs. Infections detected &gt;48 h after randomization were classified as incident CDIs. Infections detected before or within 48 h of randomization were classified as prevalent CDIs. Results Of 38 patients (11.7%) who met criteria for potential CDI and underwent adjudication, 24 (7.4%) received oral or enema vancomycin, 18 (5.5%) had a positive C. difficile molecular assay, 14 (4.3%) received an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code for CDI, and 2 (0.6%) had possible pseudomembranous colitis on histopathology reports. The prevalence of CDI was 3.7% (6 of 164) in the soap and water arm and 4.3% (7 of 161) in the chlorhexidine arm. Compared with daily soap and water bathing, 2% chlorhexidine bathing every other day was not associated with the prevention of hospital-acquired CDI (1.3% [2 of 152] soap and water versus 2.0% [3 of 148] chlorhexidine, P = 0.68). Conclusions It is inconclusive if there was an association between chlorhexidine bathing and incidence of CDI among surgical intensive care unit patients in this study as statistical power was limited. There are limited published data evaluating the association between chlorhexidine bathing and CDI, and this study provides data for future systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Chlorhexidine bathing and Clostridium difficile infection in a surgical intensive care unit

Background Clostridium difficile is the most common causative pathogen for hospital-acquired infections in the intensive care unit. This study evaluated the effect of chlorhexidine bathing every other day in preventing hospital-acquired C. difficile infection (CDI) using data from the CHlorhexidine Gluconate BATHing (CHG-BATH) randomized trial. Methods The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients acquiring CDIs among patients at risk for incident CDIs. Infections detected >48 h after randomization were classified as incident CDIs. Infections detected before or within 48 h of randomization were classified as prevalent CDIs. Results Of 38 patients (11.7%) who met criteria for potential CDI and underwent adjudication, 24 (7.4%) received oral or enema vancomycin, 18 (5.5%) had a positive C. difficile molecular assay, 14 (4.3%) received an International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification code for CDI, and 2 (0.6%) had possible pseudomembranous colitis on histopathology reports. The prevalence of CDI was 3.7% (6 of 164) in the soap and water arm and 4.3% (7 of 161) in the chlorhexidine arm. Compared with daily soap and water bathing, 2% chlorhexidine bathing every other day was not associated with the prevention of hospital-acquired CDI (1.3% [2 of 152] soap and water versus 2.0% [3 of 148] chlorhexidine, P = 0.68). Conclusions It is inconclusive if there was an association between chlorhexidine bathing and incidence of CDI among surgical intensive care unit patients in this study as statistical power was limited. There are limited published data evaluating the association between chlorhexidine bathing and CDI, and this study provides data for future systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Effect of chlorhexidine bathing every other day on prevention of hospital-acquired infections in the surgical ICU: a single-center, randomized controlled trial

To test the hypothesis that compared with daily soap and water bathing, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate bathing every other day for up to 28 days decreases the risk of hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, incisional surgical site infection, and primary bloodstream infection in surgical ICU patients.This was a single-center, pragmatic, randomized trial. Patients and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignment; investigators who determined outcomes were blinded.Twenty-four-bed surgical ICU at a quaternary academic medical center.Adults admitted to the surgical ICU from July 2012 to May 2013 with an anticipated surgical ICU stay for 48 hours or more were included.Patients were randomized to bathing with 2% chlorhexidine every other day alternating with soap and water every other day (treatment arm) or to bathing with soap and water daily (control arm).The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, incisional surgical site infection, and primary bloodstream infection. Of 350 patients randomized, 24 were excluded due to prior enrollment in this trial and one withdrew consent. Therefore, 325 were analyzed (164 soap and water versus 161 chlorhexidine). Patients acquired 53 infections. Compared with soap and water bathing, chlorhexidine bathing every other day decreased the risk of acquiring infections (hazard ratio = 0.555; 95% CI, 0.309-0.997; p = 0.049). For patients bathed with soap and water versus chlorhexidine, counts of incident hospital-acquired infections were 14 versus 7 for catheter-associated urinary tract infection, 13 versus 8 for ventilator-associated pneumonia, 6 versus 3 for incisional surgical site infections, and 2 versus 0 for primary bloodstream infection; the effect was consistent across all infections. The absolute risk reduction for acquiring a hospital-acquired infection was 9.0% (95% CI, 1.5-16.4%; p = 0.019). Incidences of adverse skin occurrences were similar (18.9% soap and water vs 18.6% chlorhexidine; p = 0.95).Compared with soap and water, chlorhexidine bathing every other day decreased the risk of acquiring infections by 44.5% in surgical ICU patients

Clinical and bacteriological characteristics associated with clustering of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis

SettingThe impact of the genetic characteristics of Mycobacterium tuberculosis on the clustering of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) has not been analyzed together with clinical and demographic characteristics.ObjectiveTo determine factors associated with genotypic clustering of MDR-TB in a community-based study.DesignWe measured the proportion of clustered cases among MDR-TB patients and determined the impact of clinical and demographic characteristics and that of three M. tuberculosis genetic characteristics: lineage, drug resistance-associated mutations, and rpoA and rpoC compensatory mutations.ResultsOf 174 patients from California and Texas included in the study, the number infected by East-Asian, Euro-American, Indo-Oceanic and East-African-Indian M. tuberculosis lineages were respectively 70 (40.2%), 69 (39.7%), 33 (19.0%) and 2 (1.1%). The most common mutations associated with isoniazid and rifampin resistance were respectively katG S315T and rpoB S531L. Potential compensatory mutations in rpoA and rpoC were found in 35 isolates (20.1%). Hispanic ethnicity (OR 26.50, 95%CI 3.73-386.80), infection with an East-Asian M. tuberculosis lineage (OR 30.00, 95%CI 4.20-462.40) and rpoB mutation S531L (OR 4.03, 95%CI 1.05-23.10) were independent factors associated with genotypic clustering.ConclusionAmong the bacterial factors studied, East-Asian lineage and rpoB S531L mutation were independently associated with genotypic clustering, suggesting that bacterial factors have an impact on the ability of M. tuberculosis to cause secondary cases

Effect of chlorhexidine bathing every other day on prevention of hospital-acquired infections in the surgical ICU: a single-center, randomized controlled trial

To test the hypothesis that compared with daily soap and water bathing, 2% chlorhexidine gluconate bathing every other day for up to 28 days decreases the risk of hospital-acquired catheter-associated urinary tract infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, incisional surgical site infection, and primary bloodstream infection in surgical ICU patients.This was a single-center, pragmatic, randomized trial. Patients and clinicians were aware of treatment-group assignment; investigators who determined outcomes were blinded.Twenty-four-bed surgical ICU at a quaternary academic medical center.Adults admitted to the surgical ICU from July 2012 to May 2013 with an anticipated surgical ICU stay for 48 hours or more were included.Patients were randomized to bathing with 2% chlorhexidine every other day alternating with soap and water every other day (treatment arm) or to bathing with soap and water daily (control arm).The primary endpoint was a composite outcome of catheter-associated urinary tract infection, ventilator-associated pneumonia, incisional surgical site infection, and primary bloodstream infection. Of 350 patients randomized, 24 were excluded due to prior enrollment in this trial and one withdrew consent. Therefore, 325 were analyzed (164 soap and water versus 161 chlorhexidine). Patients acquired 53 infections. Compared with soap and water bathing, chlorhexidine bathing every other day decreased the risk of acquiring infections (hazard ratio = 0.555; 95% CI, 0.309-0.997; p = 0.049). For patients bathed with soap and water versus chlorhexidine, counts of incident hospital-acquired infections were 14 versus 7 for catheter-associated urinary tract infection, 13 versus 8 for ventilator-associated pneumonia, 6 versus 3 for incisional surgical site infections, and 2 versus 0 for primary bloodstream infection; the effect was consistent across all infections. The absolute risk reduction for acquiring a hospital-acquired infection was 9.0% (95% CI, 1.5-16.4%; p = 0.019). Incidences of adverse skin occurrences were similar (18.9% soap and water vs 18.6% chlorhexidine; p = 0.95).Compared with soap and water, chlorhexidine bathing every other day decreased the risk of acquiring infections by 44.5% in surgical ICU patients