(1→3)-β-D-glucan testing for the detection of invasive fungal infections in immunocompromised or critically ill people.

BACKGROUND Invasive fungal infections (IFIs) are life-threatening opportunistic infections that occur in immunocompromised or critically ill people. Early detection and treatment of IFIs is essential to reduce morbidity and mortality in these populations. (1→3)-β-D-glucan (BDG) is a component of the fungal cell wall that can be detected in the serum of infected individuals. The serum BDG test is a way to quickly detect these infections and initiate treatment before they become life-threatening. Five different versions of the BDG test are commercially available: Fungitell, Glucatell, Wako, Fungitec-G, and Dynamiker Fungus. OBJECTIVES To compare the diagnostic accuracy of commercially available tests for serum BDG to detect selected invasive fungal infections (IFIs) among immunocompromised or critically ill people. SEARCH METHODS We searched MEDLINE (via Ovid) and Embase (via Ovid) up to 26 June 2019. We used SCOPUS to perform a forward and backward citation search of relevant articles. We placed no restriction on language or study design. SELECTION CRITERIA We included all references published on or after 1995, which is when the first commercial BDG assays became available. We considered published, peer-reviewed studies on the diagnostic test accuracy of BDG for diagnosis of fungal infections in immunocompromised people or people in intensive care that used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) criteria or equivalent as a reference standard. We considered all study designs (case-control, prospective consecutive cohort, and retrospective cohort studies). We excluded case studies and studies with fewer than ten participants. We also excluded animal and laboratory studies. We excluded meeting abstracts because they provided insufficient information. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS We followed the standard procedures outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Diagnostic Test Accuracy Reviews. Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and performed a quality assessment for each study. For each study, we created a 2 × 2 matrix and calculated sensitivity and specificity, as well as a 95% confidence interval (CI). We evaluated the quality of included studies using the Quality Assessment of Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy-Revised (QUADAS-2). We were unable to perform a meta-analysis due to considerable variation between studies, with the exception of Candida, so we have provided descriptive statistics such as receiver operating characteristics (ROCs) and forest plots by test brand to show variation in study results. MAIN RESULTS We included in the review 49 studies with a total of 6244 participants. About half of these studies (24/49; 49%) were conducted with people who had cancer or hematologic malignancies. Most studies (36/49; 73%) focused on the Fungitell BDG test. This was followed by Glucatell (5 studies; 10%), Wako (3 studies; 6%), Fungitec-G (3 studies; 6%), and Dynamiker (2 studies; 4%). About three-quarters of studies (79%) utilized either a prospective or a retrospective consecutive study design; the remainder used a case-control design. Based on the manufacturer's recommended cut-off levels for the Fungitell test, sensitivity ranged from 27% to 100%, and specificity from 0% to 100%. For the Glucatell assay, sensitivity ranged from 50% to 92%, and specificity ranged from 41% to 94%. Limited studies have used the Dynamiker, Wako, and Fungitec-G assays, but individual sensitivities and specificities ranged from 50% to 88%, and from 60% to 100%, respectively. Results show considerable differences between studies, even by manufacturer, which prevented a formal meta-analysis. Most studies (32/49; 65%) had no reported high risk of bias in any of the QUADAS-2 domains. The QUADAS-2 domains that had higher risk of bias included participant selection and flow and timing. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS We noted considerable heterogeneity between studies, and these differences precluded a formal meta-analysis. Because of wide variation in the results, it is not possible to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the BDG test in specific settings. Future studies estimating the accuracy of BDG tests should be linked to the way the test is used in clinical practice and should clearly describe the sampling protocol and the relationship of time of testing to time of diagnosis.