Rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance: a qualitative evidence synthesis of recipient and provider views

Nora Engel, Eleanor A Ochodo, Perpetua Wanjiku Karanja, Bey-Marrié Schmidt, Ricky Janssen, Karen R Steingart, Sandy Oliver

Research output: Contribution to JournalReview articleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Programmes that introduce rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance aim to bring tests closer to the community, and thereby cut delay in diagnosis, ensure early treatment, and improve health outcomes, as well as overcome problems with poor laboratory infrastructure and inadequately trained personnel. Yet, diagnostic technologies only have an impact if they are put to use in a correct and timely manner. Views of the intended beneficiaries are important in uptake of diagnostics, and their effective use also depends on those implementing testing programmes, including providers, laboratory professionals, and staff in health ministries. Otherwise, there is a risk these technologies will not fit their intended use and setting, cannot be made to work and scale up, and are not used by, or not accessible to, those in need. Objectives: To synthesize end-user and professional user perspectives and experiences with low-complexity nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) for detection of tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance; and to identify implications for effective implementation and health equity. Search methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycInfo and Science Citation Index Expanded databases for eligible studies from 1 January 2007 up to 20 October 2021. We limited all searches to 2007 onward because the development of Xpert MTB/RIF, the first rapid molecular test in this review, was completed in 2009. Selection criteria: We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis, and were focused on perspectives and experiences of users and potential users of low-complexity NAATs to diagnose tuberculosis and drug-resistant tuberculosis. NAATs included Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra, Xpert MTB/XDR, and the Truenat assays. Users were people with presumptive or confirmed tuberculosis and drug-resistant tuberculosis (including multidrug-resistant (MDR-TB)) and their caregivers, healthcare providers, laboratory technicians and managers, and programme officers and staff; and were from any type of health facility and setting globally. MDR-TB is tuberculosis caused by resistance to at least rifampicin and isoniazid, the two most effective first-line drugs used to treat tuberculosis. Data collection and analysis: We used a thematic analysis approach for data extraction and synthesis, and assessed confidence in the findings using GRADE CERQual approach. We developed a conceptual framework to illustrate how the findings relate. Main results: We found 32 studies. All studies were conducted in low- and middle-income countries. Twenty-seven studies were conducted in high-tuberculosis burden countries and 21 studies in high-MDR-TB burden countries. Only one study was from an Eastern European country. While the studies covered a diverse use of low-complexity NAATs, in only a minority of studies was it used as the initial diagnostic test for all people with presumptive tuberculosis. We identified 18 review findings and grouped them into three overarching categories. Critical aspects users value. People with tuberculosis valued reaching diagnostic closure with an accurate diagnosis, avoiding diagnostic delays, and keeping diagnostic-associated cost low. Similarly, healthcare providers valued aspects of accuracy and the resulting confidence in low-complexity NAAT results, rapid turnaround times, and keeping cost to people seeking a diagnosis low. In addition, providers valued diversity of sample types (for example, gastric aspirate specimens and stool in children) and drug resistance information. Laboratory professionals appreciated the improved ease of use, ergonomics, and biosafety of low-complexity NAATs compared to sputum microscopy, and increased staff satisfaction. Challenges reported to realizing those values. People with tuberculosis and healthcare workers were reluctant to test for tuberculosis (including MDR-TB) due to fears, stigma, or cost concerns. Thus, low-complexity NAAT testing is not implemented with sufficient support or discretion to overcome barriers that are common to other approaches to testing for tuberculosis. Delays were reported at many steps of the diagnostic pathway owing to poor sample quality; difficulties with transporting specimens; lack of sufficient resources; maintenance of low-complexity NAATs; increased workload; inefficient work and patient flows; over-reliance on low-complexity NAAT results in lieu of clinical judgement; and lack of data-driven and inclusive implementation processes. These challenges were reported to lead to underutilization. Concerns for access and equity. The reported concerns included sustainable funding and maintenance and equitable use of resources to access low-complexity NAATs, as well as conflicts of interest between donors and people implementing the tests. Also, lengthy diagnostic delays, underutilization of low-complexity NAATs, lack of tuberculosis diagnostic facilities in the community, and too many eligibility restrictions hampered access to prompt and accurate testing and treatment. This was particularly the case for vulnerable groups, such as children, people with MDR-TB, or people with limited ability to pay. We had high confidence in most of our findings. Authors' conclusions: Low-complexity diagnostics have been presented as a solution to overcome deficiencies in laboratory infrastructure and lack of skilled professionals. This review indicates this is misleading. The lack of infrastructure and human resources undermine the added value new diagnostics of low complexity have for recipients and providers. We had high confidence in the evidence contributing to these review findings. Implementation of new diagnostic technologies, like those considered in this review, will need to tackle the challenges identified in this review including weak infrastructure and systems, and insufficient data on ground level realities prior and during implementation, as well as problems of conflicts of interest in order to ensure equitable use of resources.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberCD014877
JournalCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Volume2022
Issue number4
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 26 Apr 2022
Externally publishedYes

Funding

The editorial base of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) is funded by UK aid from the UK government for the benefit of low-and middle-income countries (project number 300342-104). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies. We are grateful to Vittoria Lutje, CIDG Information Specialist, for helping us with the search strategy. This work was partly supported through a grant from the WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme, Agreement for Performance of Work (APW) (registration number 202582434). The views expressed in this review have not been influenced by, or necessarily reflect, WHO policy. The Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) supported the authors in the development of this qualitative evidence synthesis review. The following people conducted the editorial process for this article: Contact Editor: Professor Paul Garner Sign-off Editor (final editorial decision): Dr Hellen Gelband Managing Editor (selected peer reviewers, collated peer-reviewer comments, provided editorial guidance to authors, edited the article): Dr Deirdre Walshe Copy Editor (copy editing and production): Anne Lethaby, Cochrane Copy Edit Support Peer-reviewers (provided comments and recommended an editorial decision): protocol stage: Dr Andrew Booth, Convenor - Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group; Dr Ankur Gupta-Wright, Insititue for Global Health, University College London; Dr Heather Ames, The Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Cochrane Consumer and Communications Group protocol and review stage: Melissa Taylor, Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK review stage: Tom Wingfield, Senior Clinical Lecturer and Honorary Consultant Physician, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK, and Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; Yohanes Aditya Adhi Satria (Indonesia); Helene-Mari van der Westhuizen, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University; Angela Harden, Professor of Health Sciences, City, University of London. Contact Editor: Professor Paul Garner Sign-off Editor (final editorial decision): Dr Hellen Gelband Managing Editor (selected peer reviewers, collated peer-reviewer comments, provided editorial guidance to authors, edited the article): Dr Deirdre Walshe Copy Editor (copy editing and production): Anne Lethaby, Cochrane Copy Edit Support Peer-reviewers (provided comments and recommended an editorial decision): protocol stage: Dr Andrew Booth, Convenor - Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group; Dr Ankur Gupta-Wright, Insititue for Global Health, University College London; Dr Heather Ames, The Norwegian Institute of Public Health and Cochrane Consumer and Communications Group protocol and review stage: Melissa Taylor, Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK review stage: Tom Wingfield, Senior Clinical Lecturer and Honorary Consultant Physician, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, UK, and Karolinska Institutet, Sweden; Yohanes Aditya Adhi Satria (Indonesia); Helene-Mari van der Westhuizen, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, Oxford University; Angela Harden, Professor of Health Sciences, City, University of London. The editorial base of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group (CIDG) is funded by UK aid from the UK government for the benefit of low- and middle-income countries (project number 300342-104). The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government?s official policies. We are grateful to Vittoria Lutje, CIDG Information Specialist, for helping us with the search strategy. Sandy Oliver is partly supported by the Research, Evidence and Development Initiative (READ-It). READ-It (project number 300342-104) is funded by UK aid from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government?s official policies. We acknowledge the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, National Health Service (NHS), or the Department of Health. This work was partly supported through a grant from the WHO Global Tuberculosis Programme,?Agreement for Performance of Work (APW) (registration number 202582434). The views?expressed in this review have not been influenced by, or necessarily reflect, WHO policy. Sandy Oliver is partly supported by the Research, Evidence and Development Initiative (READ-It). READ-It (project number 300342-104) is funded by UK aid from the UK government; however, the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government’s official policies. We acknowledge the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, National Health Service (NHS), or the Department of Health. KRS received funding from the World Health Organization (WHO) Global Tuberculosis Programme, Switzerland and Maastricht University, Maastricht. She has received additional financial support from Cochrane Infectious Diseases, UK; McGill University, Canada; University of Washington, Seattle; Baylor College of Medicine, Houston; and the World Health Organization Global Tuberculosis Programme, Switzerland, for the preparation of related systematic reviews and educational materials; consultancy fees from Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND), Switzerland (for the preparation of systematic reviews and GRADE tables); consultancy fees from Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch (for guidance on evidence syntheses); and honoraria and travel support to attend WHO guideline meetings.

FundersFunder number
CIDG
EPOC
FIND
Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics
National Health Service
Organisation of Care
Vittoria Lutje
Yohanes Aditya Adhi Satria
World Health Organization202582434
World Health Organization
University of Washington
Baylor College of Medicine
McGill University
Government of the United Kingdom300342-104
Government of the United Kingdom
National Institute for Health and Care Research
University of London
Universiteit Maastricht
Karolinska Institutet
Universiteit Stellenbosch

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Rapid molecular tests for tuberculosis and tuberculosis drug resistance: a qualitative evidence synthesis of recipient and provider views'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this