No abstract

IntroductionThe WHO End TB Strategy calls for a global reduction in the case fatality ratio (CFR) below 5%. India accounts for a third of global tuberculosis (TB) deaths. This systematic review estimated CFRs among Indian patients with TB both during and after treatment.MethodsWe systematically searched Medline, Embase and Global Health for eligible studies published between 1 January 2006 and 8 January 2019, including both cohort studies and intervention study control arms that followed Indian patients with TB for fatality either during treatment or post-treatment. From relevant studies we extracted CFRs in addition to study demographics. Study quality was assessed using modified Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network cohort criteria. Sufficiently homogenous studies were pooled using a random effect generalised linear mixed model. A meta-regression was performed to associate study characteristics with resulting CFRs.Results218 relevant studies were identified, of which 211 provided treatment phase CFRs. Most patients (92.4%) were treated in the public sector. Quality concerns were identified in 74% of papers. We estimated a pooled treatment phase CFR of 5.16% (95% CI 4.20% to 6.34%) which fell to 3.78% (2.77% to 5.16%) when restricted to 52 high-quality studies. Treatment phase CFRs were higher for paediatric (n=27, 6.50% (2.65% to 10.36%)), drug-resistant (n=43, 14.06% (10.15% to 19.49%)) and HIV-infected (n=35, 10.91% (7.68% to 15.50%)) patients. Nineteen post-treatment CFR studies were too heterogeneous to pool except when restricting to three high-quality studies (2.69% (–0.79% to 6.18%)). Poor study quality (OR=2.27 (2.01 to 2.57)) and tertiary centres patients (OR=1.15 (1.03 to 1.28)) were significantly associated with increased treatment phase case fatality.ConclusionsCase fatality is a critical measure of the quality of TB care. While India’s treatment CFRs are in line with WHO targets, several key patient groups remain understudied and most studies suffer from methodological issues. Increased high-quality reporting on patient outcomes will help improve the evidence base on this topic.

No abstract

No abstract

IntroductionAlthough universal drug susceptibility testing (DST) is a component of the End-TB Strategy, over 70% of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) cases globally remain undetected. This detection gap reflects difficulties in DST scale-up and substantial heterogeneity in policies and implemented practices. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether implementation of universal DST yields increased DR-TB detection compared with only selectively testing high-risk groups.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Global Health, Cochrane Library and Web of Science Core Collection were searched for publications reporting on the differential yield of universal versus selective DST implementation on the proportion of DR-TB, from January 2007 to June 2019. Random-effects meta-analyses were used to calculate respective pooled proportions of DR-TB cases detected; Higgins test and prediction intervals were used to assess between-study heterogeneity. We adapted an existing risk-of-bias assessment tool for prevalence studies.ResultsOf 18 736 unique citations, 101 studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. All studies used WHO-endorsed DST methods, and most (87.1%) involved both high-risk groups and the general population. We found only cross-sectional, observational, non-randomised studies that compared universal with selective DST strategies. Only four studies directly compared the testing approaches in the same study population, with the proportion of DR-TB cases detected ranging from 2.2% (95% CI: 1.4% to 3.2%) to 12.8% (95% CI: 11.4% to 14.3%) with selective testing, versus 4.4% (95% CI: 3.3% to 5.8%) to 9.8% (95% CI: 8.9% to 10.7%) with universal testing. Broad population studies were very heterogeneous. The vast majority (88/101; 87.1%) reported on the results of universal testing. However, while 37 (36.6%)/101 included all presumptive TB cases, an equal number of studies applied sputum-smear as a preselection criterion. A meaningful meta-analysis was not possible.ConclusionGiven the absence of randomised studies and the paucity of studies comparing strategies head to head, and selection bias in many studies that applied universal testing, our findings have limited generalisability. The lack of evidence reinforces the need for better data to inform policies.