Systematic evaluation of line probe assays for the diagnosis of tuberculosis and drug-resistant tuberculosis

• Published in: Clinica chimica acta 2022-08, Vol.533, p.183-218
• Main Authors: Lin, Min, Chen, Ying-Wen, Li, Yun-Ran, Long, Li-Jun, Qi, Le-Yao, Cui, Ting-Ting, Wu, Shao-Yong, Lin, Jia-Yuan, Wu, Tong, Yang, Yi-Chen, Yuan, Wei-Hua, Wu, Ge-Yuan, Lan, Qi-Wen, Liu, Jia-Qi, Li, Ya-Ping, Yu, Zi-Yuan, Guo, Xu-Guang
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• ISSN: 0009-8981; 1873-3492
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cca.2022.06.020

BACKGROUNDLine probe assays (LPAs) are PCR-based assays used for the rapid diagnosis of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) and drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). But studies on its performance are insufficient. Thus, in this study, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of LPAs in the detection of MTB and drug-resistant TB in comparison with the traditional culture and DST methods. METHODSA systemic literature search was conducted on the Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, and OVID databases. All the included studies were classified according to different detecting objects. Sensitivity, specificity, Positive Likely Ratio (PLR), Negative Likely Ratio (NLR), Diagnostic Odds Ratio (DOR), corresponding 95% confidence interval, Area Under Curve (AUC), Deeks' funnel plot, and Bivariate Boxplot was used to do the evaluation. RESULTS147 studies included 491 datasets, with 182,448 samples, were incorporated into our analysis. The sensitivity (95% CI), specificity (95% CI), PLR, NLR, DOR and AUC for MTB were 0.89 (0.86 to 0.92), 0.94 (0.90 to 0.97), 15.70, 0.11, 139 and 0.96, respectively; for rifampicin-resistant TB were 0.96 (0.95 to 0.97), 0.99 (0.98 to 0.99), 82.9, 0.04, 1994 and 1.00, respectively; for isoniazid-resistant TB were 0.91 (0.89 to 0.93), 0.99 (0.98 to 0.99), 83.4, 0.09, (0.99 to 1.00), 195.7, 0.07, 2783 and 1.00, respectively; for Multi-drug resistant TB (MDR-TB) were 0.93 (0.90 to 0.95), 1.00 (0.99 to 1.00), 195.7, 0.07, 2783 and 1.00, respectively; for extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) were 0.60 (0.33 to 0.82), 1.00 (0.95 to 1.00), 291.3, 0.4, 726 and 0.95, respectively; for (second-line drug-resistant TB) SLID-TB were 0.83 (0.78 to 0.87), 0.98 (0.97 to 0.99), 44.6, 0.17, 262 and 0.98, respectively. Sensitivity in pre-extensively drug-resistant TB (Pre-XDR-TB) was 0.67, specificity was 0.91. No publication bias existed according to Deeks' funnel plot. CONCLUSIONHigh diagnosis performance was confirmed in LPAs for the diagnosis of MTB and drug-resistant TB. LPAs might be a good alternative to culture and DST in detecting MTB, RR-TB, INH-TB, XDR-TB, SLID-TB, and MDR-TB. While more studies were still needed to explore the diagnosis performance of LPAs for Pre-XDR TB.