Bayesian latent class analysis produced diagnostic accuracy estimates that were more interpretable than composite reference standards for extrapulmonary tuberculosis tests.

BACKGROUND: Evaluating the accuracy of extrapulmonary tuberculosis (TB) tests is challenging due to lack of a gold standard. Latent class analysis (LCA), a statistical modeling approach, can adjust for reference tests' imperfect accuracies to produce less biased test accuracy estimates than those produced by commonly used methods like composite reference standards (CRSs). Our objective is to illustrate how Bayesian LCA can address the problem of an unavailable gold standard and demonstrate how it compares to using CRSs for extrapulmonary TB tests. METHODS: We re-analyzed a dataset of presumptive extrapulmonary TB cases in New Delhi, India, for three forms of extrapulmonary TB. Results were available for culture, smear microscopy, Xpert MTB/RIF, and a non-microbiological test, cytopathology/histopathology, or adenosine deaminase (ADA). A diagram was used to define assumed relationships between observed tests and underlying latent variables in the Bayesian LCA with input from an inter-disciplinary team. We compared the results to estimates obtained from a sequence of CRSs defined by increasing numbers of positive reference tests necessary for positive disease status. RESULTS: Data were available from 298, 388, and 230 individuals with presumptive TB lymphadenitis, meningitis, and pleuritis, respectively. Using Bayesian LCA, estimates were obtained for accuracy of all tests and for extrapulmonary TB prevalence. Xpert sensitivity neared that of culture for TB lymphadenitis and meningitis but was lower for TB pleuritis, and specificities of all microbiological tests approached 100%. Non-microbiological tests' sensitivities were high, but specificities were only moderate, preventing disease rule-in. CRSs' only provided estimates of Xpert and these varied widely per CRS definition. Accuracy of the CRSs also varied by definition, and no CRS was 100% accurate. CONCLUSION: Unlike CRSs, Bayesian LCA takes into account known information about test performance resulting in accuracy estimates that are easier to interpret. LCA should receive greater consideration for evaluating extrapulmonary TB diagnostic tests.

Accuracy and ease-of-use of seven point-of-care SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting tests: A multi-centre clinical evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) for SARS-CoV-2 are important diagnostic tools. We assessed clinical performance and ease-of-use of seven Ag-RDTs in a prospective, manufacturer-independent, multi-centre cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study to inform global decision makers. METHODS: Unvaccinated participants suspected of a first SARS-CoV-2 infection were recruited at six sites (Germany, Brazil). Ag-RDTs were evaluated sequentially, with collection of paired swabs for routine reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing and Ag-RDT testing. Performance was compared to RT-PCR overall and in sub-group analyses (viral load, symptoms, symptoms duration). To understandusability a System Usability Scale (SUS) questionnaire and ease-of-use (EoU) assessment were performed. FINDINGS: 7471 participants were included in the analysis. Sensitivities across Ag-RDTs ranged from 70·4%-90·1%, specificities were above 97·2% for all Ag-RDTs but one (93·1%).Ag-RDTs, Mologic, Bionote, Standard Q, showed diagnostic accuracy in line with WHO targets (> 80% sensitivity, > 97% specificity). All tests showed high sensitivity in the first three days after symptom onset (≥87·1%) and in individuals with viral loads≥ 6 log10SARS-CoV2 RNA copies/mL (≥ 88·7%). Usability varied, with Rapigen, Bionote and Standard Q reaching very good scores; 90, 88 and 84/100, respectively. INTERPRETATION: Variability in test performance is partially explained by variable viral loads in population evaluated over the course of the pandemic. All Ag-RDTs reach high sensitivity early in the disease and in individuals with high viral loads, supporting their role in identifying transmission relevant infections. For easy-to-use tests, performance shown will likely be maintained in routine implementation. FUNDING: Ministry of Science, Research and Arts, State of Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany, internal funds from Heidelberg University Hospital, University Hospital Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, UK Department of International Development, WHO, Unitaid.

Description and analysis of representative COVID-19 cases-A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Most data on COVID-19 was collected in hospitalized cases. Much less is known about the spectrum of disease in entire populations. In this study, we examine a representative cohort of primarily symptomatic cases in an administrative district in Southern Germany. METHODS: We contacted all confirmed SARS-CoV-2 cases in the administrative district. Consenting participants answered a retrospective survey either via a telephone, electronically or via mail. Clinical and sociodemographic features were compared between hospitalized and non-hospitalized patients. Additionally, we assessed potential risk factors for hospitalization and time to hospitalization in a series of regression models. RESULTS: We included 897 participants in our study, 69% out of 1,305 total cases in the district with a mean age of 47 years (range 2-97), 51% of which were female and 47% had a pre-existing illness. The percentage of asymptomatic, mild, moderate (leading to hospital admission) and critical illness (requiring mechanical ventilation) was 54 patients (6%), 713 (79%), 97 (11%) and 16 (2%), respectively. Seventeen patients (2%) died. The most prevalent symptoms were fatigue (65%), cough (62%) and dysgeusia (60%). The risk factors for hospitalization included older age (OR 1.05 per year increase; 95% CI 1.04-1.07) preexisting lung conditions (OR 3.09; 95% CI 1.62-5.88). Female sex was a protective factor (OR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33-0.77). CONCLUSION: This representative analysis of primarily symptomatic COVID-19 cases confirms age, male sex and preexisting lung conditions but not cardiovascular disease as risk factors for severe illness. Almost 80% of infection take a mild course, whereas 13% of patients suffer moderate to severe illness. TRIAL REGISTRATION: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00022926. URL: https://www.drks.de/drks_web/setLocale_EN.do.