Vulnerability and tuberculosis treatment outcomes in urban settings in England: A mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on factors contributing to poor treatment outcome and healthcare priorities in vulnerable populations affected by tuberculosis (TB) in urban areas of England other than London is needed to inform setting-specific prevention and care policies. We addressed this knowledge gap in a cohort of TB patients and healthcare providers in Birmingham and Leicester, UK. METHODS: A mixed-methods study was performed. Logistic regression was used to identify TB patients more likely to have poor treatment outcomes according to clinical and demographic characteristics and social risk factors (SRFs) in a 2013-18 cohort. 25 semi-structured interviews were undertaken in purposely selected individuals (9 patients and 16 healthcare professionals) to glean insights on their healthcare priorities and the factors that contribute to poor treatment outcome. RESULTS: The quantitative cohort comprised 2252 patients. Those who were ≥ 55 years of age, foreign-born from Central Europe, East Asia and Sub Saharan Africa and with MDR-TB were more likely to have poor treatment outcomes. According to patients and healthcare professionals, the factors that contribute to vulnerability to develop TB and poor treatment outcomes include poor working and living conditions, inadequate or absent welfare protection, poor primary healthcare responsiveness, treatment duration and side effects. These factors could be addressed by increased networking, partnership and integration between healthcare and social services and better integration between primary and secondary healthcare. CONCLUSIONS: In both cities, being ≥ 55 years of age, having MDR-TB and being of foreign-birth are predictors of unfavourable treatment outcome. Risk of poor treatment outcome and vulnerability seem to be multidimensional. A better understanding of specific vulnerabilities and how they affect patient care pathway is needed to design adequate support programmes.

Defining the Role of Cellular Immune Signatures in Diagnostic Evaluation of Suspected Tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of paucibacillary tuberculosis (TB) including extrapulmonary TB is a significant challenge, particularly in high-income, low-incidence settings. Measurement of Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb)-specific cellular immune signatures by flow cytometry discriminates active TB from latent TB infection (LTBI) in case-control studies; however, their diagnostic accuracy and clinical utility in routine clinical practice is unknown. METHODS: Using a nested case-control study design within a prospective multicenter cohort of patients presenting with suspected TB in England, we assessed diagnostic accuracy of signatures in 134 patients who tested interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA)-positive and had final diagnoses of TB or non-TB diseases with coincident LTBI. Cellular signatures were measured using flow cytometry. RESULTS: All signatures performed less well than previously reported. Only signatures incorporating measurement of phenotypic markers on functional Mtb-specific CD4 T cells discriminated active TB from non-TB diseases with LTBI. The signatures measuring HLA-DR+IFNγ + CD4 T cells and CD45RA-CCR7-CD127- IFNγ -IL-2-TNFα + CD4 T cells performed best with 95% positive predictive value (95% confidence interval, 90-97) in the clinically challenging subpopulation of IGRA-positive but acid-fast bacillus (AFB) smear-negative TB suspects. CONCLUSIONS: Two cellular immune signatures could improve and accelerate diagnosis in the challenging group of patients who are IGRA-positive, AFB smear-negative, and have paucibacillary TB.

Interferon gamma release assays for Diagnostic Evaluation of Active tuberculosis (IDEA): test accuracy study and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) are blood tests recommended for the diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB) infection. There is currently uncertainty about the role and clinical utility of IGRAs in the diagnostic workup of suspected active TB in routine NHS clinical practice. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness of T-SPOT.TB® (Oxford Immunotec, Abingdon, UK) and QuantiFERON® TB GOLD In-Tube (Cellestis, Carnegie, VIC, Australia) for diagnosis of suspected active TB and to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of second-generation IGRAs. DESIGN: Prospective within-patient comparative diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Secondary care. PARTICIPANTS: Adults (aged ≥ 16 years) presenting as inpatients or outpatients at 12 NHS hospital trusts in London, Slough, Oxford, Leicester and Birmingham with suspected active TB. INTERVENTIONS: The index tests [T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON GOLD In-Tube (QFT-GIT)] and new enzyme-linked immunospot assays utilising novel Mycobacterium tuberculosis antigens (Rv3615c, Rv2654, Rv3879c and Rv3873) were verified against a composite reference standard applied by a panel of clinical experts blinded to IGRA results. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios were calculated to determine diagnostic accuracy. A decision tree model was developed to calculate the incremental costs and incremental health utilities [quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs)] of changing from current practice to using an IGRA as an initial rule-out test. RESULTS: A total of 363 patients had active TB (culture-confirmed and highly probable TB cases), 439 had no active TB and 43 had an indeterminate final diagnosis. Comparing T-SPOT.TB and QFT-GIT, the sensitivities [95% confidence interval (CI)] were 82.3% (95% CI 77.7% to 85.9%) and 67.3% (95% CI 62.1% to 72.2%), respectively, whereas specificities were 82.6% (95% CI 78.6% to 86.1%) and 80.4% (95% CI 76.1% to 84.1%), respectively. T-SPOT.TB was more sensitive than QFT-GIT (relative sensitivity 1.22, 95% CI 1.14 to 1.31; p < 0.001), but the specificities were similar (relative specificity 1.02, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.08; p = 0.3). For both IGRAs the sensitivity was lower and the specificity was higher for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-positive than for HIV-negative patients. The most promising novel antigen was Rv3615c. The added value of Rv3615c to T-SPOT.TB was a 9% (95% CI 5% to 12%) relative increase in sensitivity at the expense of specificity, which had a relative decrease of 7% (95% CI 4% to 10%). The use of current IGRA tests for ruling out active TB is unlikely to be considered cost-effective if a QALY was valued at £20,000 or £30,000. For T-SPOT.TB, the probability of being cost-effective for a willingness to pay of £20,000/QALY was 26% and 21%, when patients with indeterminate test results were excluded or included, respectively. In comparison, the QFT-GIT probabilities were 8% and 6%. Although the use of IGRAs is cost saving, the health detriment is large owing to delay in diagnosing active TB, leading to prolonged illness. There was substantial between-patient variation in the tests used in the diagnostic pathway. LIMITATIONS: The recruitment target for the HIV co-infected population was not achieved. CONCLUSIONS: Although T-SPOT.TB was more sensitive than QFT-GIT for the diagnosis of active TB, the tests are insufficiently sensitive for ruling out active TB in routine clinical practice in the UK. Novel assays offer some promise. FUTURE WORK: The novel assays require evaluation in distinct clinical settings and in immunosuppressed patient groups. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and the NIHR Health Protection Research Unit in Respiratory Infections, Imperial College London, London, UK.

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the world's most important infectious diseases. In 2014, 1.5 million deaths were caused by the disease ­ about one death every 25 seconds. Traditional diagnosis of TB is based partly on the tuberculin skin test. Blood tests such as QuantiFERON GOLD In-Tube (QFT-GIT; Cellestis, Carnegie, VIC, Australia) and T-SPOT.TB^® (Oxford Immunotec, Abingdon, UK) are now available. However, these two tests are not used as part of current NHS practice because of the lack of evidence about how well the tests perform when diagnosing symptomatic (active) TB in routine clinical practice. The purpose of our study was to compare the ability of QFT-GIT and T-SPOT.TB to differentiate people with active TB from those without active TB in a population suspected of the disease. We also assessed new blood tests that are currently being developed for diagnosis of active TB. We recruited 1074 patients with suspected TB from 14 NHS hospitals in London, Slough, Oxford, Leicester and Birmingham into our study. We found that T-SPOT.TB correctly detected more people with active TB than QFT-GIT; T-SPOT.TB would miss about 18 people out of every 100, whereas QFT-GIT would miss about 33 people out of every 100 with active TB. For this reason, neither test is good enough for routine clinical use because the number of people with active TB who are incorrectly diagnosed as not having active TB is unacceptably high. In addition, neither test is good value for money. However, we did find that some of the newer blood tests performed better than T-SPOT.TB and their usefulness should be further investigated.

Clinical utility of existing and second-generation interferon-γ release assays for diagnostic evaluation of tuberculosis: an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The clinical utility of interferon-γ release assays (IGRAs) for diagnosis of active tuberculosis is unclear, although they are commonly used in countries with a low incidence of tuberculosis. We aimed to resolve this clinical uncertainty by determining the accuracy and utility of commercially available and second-generation IGRAs in the diagnostic assessment of suspected tuberculosis in a low-incidence setting. METHODS: We did a prospective cohort study of adults with suspected tuberculosis in routine secondary care in England. Patients were tested for Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection at baseline with commercially available (T-SPOT.TB and QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube [QFT-GIT]) and second-generation (incorporating novel M tuberculosis antigens) IGRAs and followed up for 6-12 months to establish definitive diagnoses. Sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios, and predictive values of the tests were determined. FINDINGS: Of the 1060 adults enrolled in the study, 845 were included in the analyses and 363 were diagnosed with tuberculosis. Sensitivity of T-SPOT.TB for all tuberculosis diagnosis, including culture-confirmed and highly probable cases, was 81·4% (95% CI 76·6-85·3), which was higher than QFT-GIT (67·3% [62·0-72·1]). Second-generation IGRAs had a sensitivity of 94·0% (90·0-96·4) for culture-confirmed tuberculosis and 89·2% (85·2-92·2) when including highly probable tuberculosis, giving a negative likelihood ratio for all tuberculosis cases of 0·13 (95% CI 0·10-0·19). Specificity ranged from 86·2% (95% CI 82·3-89·4) for T-SPOT.TB to 80·0% (75·6-83·8) for second-generation IGRAs. INTERPRETATION: Commercially available IGRAs do not have sufficient accuracy for diagnostic evaluation of suspected tuberculosis. Second-generation tests, however, might have sufficiently high sensitivity, low negative likelihood ratio, and correspondingly high negative predictive value in low-incidence settings to facilitate prompt rule-out of tuberculosis. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

Stratification of Latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis Infection by Cellular Immune Profiling.

Background: Recently acquired and remotely acquired latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection (LTBI) are clinically indistinguishable, yet recent acquisition of infection is the greatest risk factor for progression to tuberculosis in immunocompetent individuals. We aimed to evaluate the ability of cellular immune signatures that differ between active tuberculosis and LTBI to distinguish recently from remotely acquired LTBI. Methods: Fifty-nine individuals were recruited: 20 had active tuberculosis, 19 had recently acquired LTBI, and 20 had remotely acquired LTBI. The proportion of mycobacteria-specific CD4+ T cells secreting tumor necrosis factor α (TNF-α) but not interferon γ or interleukin 2 which had a differentiated effector phenotype (TNF-α-only TEFF), and the level of CD27 expression on IFN-γ-producing CD4+ T cells, were detected by flow cytometry. Results: The TNF-α-only TEFF signature was significantly higher in the group with recently acquired LTBI, compared with the group with remotely acquired LTBI (P < .0001), and it discriminated between these groups with high sensitivity and specificity, with an area under the curve of 0.87. Two signatures incorporating CD27 expression did not distinguish between recently and remotely acquired LTBI. Interestingly, the TNF-α-only TEFF signature in participants with recently acquired LTBI was more similar to that in participants with tuberculosis than that in participants with remotely acquired LTBI, suggesting that recently acquired LTBI is immunologically more similar to tuberculosis than remotely acquired LTBI. Conclusions: These findings reveal marked biological heterogeneity underlying the clinically homogeneous phenotype of LTBI, providing a rationale for immunological risk stratification to improve targeting of LTBI treatment.