Residual respiratory disability after successful treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) can result in long-term health consequences, even after successful treatment. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the occurrence of respiratory impairment, other disability states, and respiratory complications following successful PTB treatment. Methods: We identified studies from January 1, 1960, to December 6, 2022, describing populations of all ages that successfully completed treatment for active PTB and had been assessed for at least one of the following outcomes: occurrence of respiratory impairment, other disability states, or respiratory complications following PTB treatment. Studies were excluded if they reported on participants with self-reported TB, extra-pulmonary TB, inactive TB, latent TB, or if participants had been selected on the basis of having more advanced disease. Study characteristics and outcome-related data were abstracted. Meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model. We adapted the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic and prediction intervals. Publication bias was assessed using Doi plots and LFK indices. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021276327). Findings: 61 studies with 41,014 participants with PTB were included. In 42 studies reporting post-treatment lung function measurements, 59.1% (I2 = 98.3%) of participants with PTB had abnormal spirometry compared to 5.4% (I2 = 97.4%) of controls. Specifically, 17.8% (I2 = 96.6%) had obstruction, 21.3% (I2 = 95.4%) restriction, and 12.7% (I2 = 93.2%) a mixed pattern. Among 13 studies with 3179 participants with PTB, 72.6% (I2 = 92.8%) of participants with PTB had a Medical Research Council dyspnoea score of 1-2 and 24.7% (I2 = 92.2%) a score of 3-5. Mean 6-min walk distance in 13 studies was 440.5 m (I2 = 99.0%) in all participants (78.9% predicted, I2 = 98.9%) and 403.0 m (I2 = 95.1%) among MDR-TB participants in 3 studies (70.5% predicted, I2 = 97.6%). Four studies reported data on incidence of lung cancer, with an incidence rate ratio of 4.0 (95% CI 2.1-7.6) and incidence rate difference of 2.7 per 1000 person-years (95% CI 1.2-4.2) when compared to controls. Quality assessment indicated overall low-quality evidence in this field, heterogeneity was high for pooled estimates of nearly all outcomes of interest, and publication bias was considered likely for almost all outcomes. Interpretation: The occurrence of post-PTB respiratory impairment, other disability states, and respiratory complications is high, adding to the potential benefits of disease prevention, and highlighting the need for optimised management after successful treatment. Funding: Canadian Institutes of Health Research Foundation Grant.

Assessing the Diagnostic Performance of New Commercial Interferon-γ Release Assays for Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: We compared 6 new interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs; hereafter index tests: QFT-Plus, QFT-Plus CLIA, QIAreach, Wantai TB-IGRA, Standard E TB-Feron, and T-SPOT.TB/T-Cell Select) with World Health Organization (WHO)-endorsed tests for tuberculosis infection (hereafter reference tests). METHODS: Data sources (1 January 2007-18 August 2021) were Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and manufacturers' data. Cross-sectional and cohort studies comparing the diagnostic performance of index and reference tests were selected. The primary outcomes of interest were the pooled differences in sensitivity and specificity between index and reference tests. The certainty of evidence (CoE) was summarized using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Eighty-seven studies were included (44 evaluated the QFT-Plus, 4 QFT-Plus CLIA, 3 QIAreach, 26 TB-IGRA, 10 TB-Feron [1 assessing the QFT-Plus], and 1 T-SPOT.TB/T-Cell Select). Compared to the QFT-GIT, QFT Plus's sensitivity was 0.1 percentage points lower (95% confidence interval [CI], -2.8 to 2.6; CoE: moderate), and its specificity 0.9 percentage points lower (95% CI, -1.0 to -.9; CoE: moderate). Compared to QFT-GIT, TB-IGRA's sensitivity was 3.0 percentage points higher (95% CI, -.2 to 6.2; CoE: very low), and its specificity 2.6 percentage points lower (95% CI, -4.2 to -1.0; CoE: low). Agreement between the QFT-Plus CLIA and QIAreach with QFT-Plus was excellent (pooled κ statistics of 0.86 [95% CI, .78 to .94; CoE: low]; and 0.96 [95% CI, .92 to 1.00; CoE: low], respectively). The pooled κ statistic comparing the TB-Feron and the QFT-Plus or QFT-GIT was 0.85 (95% CI, .79 to .92; CoE: low). CONCLUSIONS: The QFT-Plus and the TB-IGRA have very similar sensitivity and specificity as WHO-approved IGRAs.

Efficacy and effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines for death prevention: A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is consistent evidence that SARS-CoV-2 vaccines have statistical and clinical significant efficacy to prevent incident and severe cases of COVID-19, although different outcomes were analyzed and different risk reductions were observed. However, randomized control trials (RCT) were not designed or powered to assess whether the vaccines prevent deaths, even though this was a secondary or exploratory outcome across many studies. Early real-world observational data suggest that these vaccines are highly effective in reducing hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Our objective is to summarize and appraise-the existing evidence on the efficacy and real-world effectiveness of all SARS-CoV-2 vaccines currently approved for full or limited use to prevent all-cause and COVID-19-attributed mortality. METHODS: The population consists of persons with a record of vaccination status and the outcome of interest. Randomized controlled trials, comparative cohort and case-control studies reporting vaccination with any of the vaccines approved (intervention) will be eligible. The primary outcome will be all cause deaths. COVID-19-attributed deaths and deaths attributable to the vaccination (adverse event deaths) will be secondary outcomes. We will compare deaths occurring in vaccinated persons versus those non-vaccinated or having received placebo. Studies in any language will be eligible. Two independent reviewers will screen for inclusion and assess quality of studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the ROBINS-1 tool, as appropriate. Hazard ratios will be calculated. Assessment of statistical heterogeneity amongst the studies will be done using I2 and prediction intervals, as well as visual inspection of the forest plots. Publication bias will be assessed using a funnel plot and Egger statistical test if we have more than 10 studies in a forest plot. We have followed the PRISMA-Protocol checklist for the current protocol, which is registered at Prospero (York University, CRD42021262211).