Effectiveness and Pharmacokinetic Exposures of First-Line Drugs Used to Treat Drug-Susceptible Tuberculosis in Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Optimal doses of first-line drugs for treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis in children and young adolescents remain uncertain. We aimed to determine whether children treated using World Health Organization-recommended or higher doses of first-line drugs achieve successful outcomes and sufficient pharmacokinetic (PK) exposures. METHODS: Titles, abstracts, and full-text articles were screened. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and trial registries from 2010 to 2021. We included studies in children aged <18 years being treated for drug-susceptible tuberculosis with rifampicin (RIF), pyrazinamide, isoniazid, and ethambutol. Outcomes were treatment success rates and drug exposures. The protocol for the systematic review was preregistered in PROSPERO (no. CRD42021274222). RESULTS: Of 304 studies identified, 46 were eligible for full-text review, and 12 and 18 articles were included for the efficacy and PK analyses, respectively. Of 1830 children included in the efficacy analysis, 82% had favorable outcomes (range, 25%-95%). At World Health Organization-recommended doses, exposures to RIF, pyrazinamide, and ethambutol were lower in children than in adults. Children ≤6 years old have 35% lower areas under the concentration-time curve (AUCs) than older children (mean of 14.4 [95% CI 9.9-18.8] vs 22.0 [13.8-30.1] µg·h/mL) and children with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) had 35% lower RIF AUCs than HIV-negative children (17.3 [11.4-23.2] vs 26.5 [21.3-31.7] µg·h/mL). Heterogeneity and small sample sizes were major limitations. CONCLUSIONS: There is large variability in outcomes, with an average of 82% favorable outcomes. Drug exposures are lower in children than in adults. Younger children and/or those with HIV are underexposed to RIF. Standardization of PK pediatric studies and individual patient data analysis with safety assessment are needed to inform optimal dosing.

Impact of molecular diagnostic tests on diagnostic and treatment delays in tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Countries with high TB burden have expanded access to molecular diagnostic tests. However, their impact on reducing delays in TB diagnosis and treatment has not been assessed. Our primary aim was to summarize the quantitative evidence on the impact of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) on diagnostic and treatment delays compared to that of the standard of care for drug-sensitive and drug-resistant tuberculosis (DS-TB and DR-TB). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Global Health databases (from their inception to October 12, 2020) and extracted time delay data for each test. We then analysed the diagnostic and treatment initiation delay separately for DS-TB and DR-TB by comparing smear vs Xpert for DS-TB and culture drug sensitivity testing (DST) vs line probe assay (LPA) for DR-TB. We conducted random effects meta-analyses of differences of the medians to quantify the difference in diagnostic and treatment initiation delay, and we investigated heterogeneity in effect estimates based on the period the test was used in, empiric treatment rate, HIV prevalence, healthcare level, and study design. We also evaluated methodological differences in assessing time delays. RESULTS: A total of 45 studies were included in this review (DS = 26; DR = 20). We found considerable heterogeneity in the definition and reporting of time delays across the studies. For DS-TB, the use of Xpert reduced diagnostic delay by 1.79 days (95% CI - 0.27 to 3.85) and treatment initiation delay by 2.55 days (95% CI 0.54-4.56) in comparison to sputum microscopy. For DR-TB, use of LPAs reduced diagnostic delay by 40.09 days (95% CI 26.82-53.37) and treatment initiation delay by 45.32 days (95% CI 30.27-60.37) in comparison to any culture DST methods. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the use of World Health Organization recommended diagnostics for TB reduced delays in diagnosing and initiating TB treatment. Future studies evaluating performance and impact of diagnostics should consider reporting time delay estimates based on the standardized reporting framework.

Xpert MTB/XDR for detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) End TB Strategy stresses universal access to drug susceptibility testing (DST). DST determines whether Mycobacterium tuberculosis bacteria are susceptible or resistant to drugs. Xpert MTB/XDR is a rapid nucleic acid amplification test for detection of tuberculosis and drug resistance in one test suitable for use in peripheral and intermediate level laboratories. In specimens where tuberculosis is detected by Xpert MTB/XDR, Xpert MTB/XDR can also detect resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/XDR for pulmonary tuberculosis in people with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (having signs and symptoms suggestive of tuberculosis, including cough, fever, weight loss, night sweats). To assess the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/XDR for resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, and amikacin in people with tuberculosis detected by Xpert MTB/XDR, irrespective of rifampicin resistance (whether or not rifampicin resistance status was known) and with known rifampicin resistance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched multiple databases to 23 September 2021. We limited searches to 2015 onwards as Xpert MTB/XDR was launched in 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Diagnostic accuracy studies using sputum in adults with presumptive or confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture (pulmonary tuberculosis detection); phenotypic DST (pDST), genotypic DST (gDST),composite (pDST and gDST) (drug resistance detection). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently reviewed reports for eligibility and extracted data using a standardized form. For multicentre studies, we anticipated variability in the type and frequency of mutations associated with resistance to a given drug at the different centres and considered each centre as an independent study cohort for quality assessment and analysis. We assessed methodological quality with QUADAS-2, judging risk of bias separately for each target condition and reference standard. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, owing to heterogeneity in participant characteristics and observed specificity estimates, we reported a range of sensitivity and specificity estimates and did not perform a meta-analysis. For drug resistance detection, we performed meta-analyses by reference standard using bivariate random-effects models. Using GRADE, we assessed certainty of evidence of Xpert MTB/XDR accuracy for detection of resistance to isoniazid and fluoroquinolones in people irrespective of rifampicin resistance and to ethionamide and amikacin in people with known rifampicin resistance, reflecting real-world situations. We used pDST, except for ethionamide resistance where we considered gDST a better reference standard. MAIN RESULTS: We included two multicentre studies from high multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis burden countries, reporting on six independent study cohorts, involving 1228 participants for pulmonary tuberculosis detection and 1141 participants for drug resistance detection. The proportion of participants with rifampicin resistance in the two studies was 47.9% and 80.9%. For tuberculosis detection, we judged high risk of bias for patient selection owing to selective recruitment. For ethionamide resistance detection, we judged high risk of bias for the reference standard, both pDST and gDST, though we considered gDST a better reference standard. Pulmonary tuberculosis detection - Xpert MTB/XDR sensitivity range, 98.3% (96.1 to 99.5) to 98.9% (96.2 to 99.9) and specificity range, 22.5% (14.3 to 32.6) to 100.0% (86.3 to 100.0); median prevalence of pulmonary tuberculosis 91.3%, (interquartile range, 89.3% to 91.8%), (2 studies; 1 study reported on 2 cohorts, 1228 participants; very low-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). Drug resistance detection People irrespective of rifampicin resistance - Isoniazid resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 94.2% (87.5 to 97.4) and 98.5% (92.6 to 99.7) against pDST, (6 cohorts, 1083 participants, moderate-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). - Fluoroquinolone resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 93.2% (88.1 to 96.2) and 98.0% (90.8 to 99.6) against pDST, (6 cohorts, 1021 participants; high-certainty evidence, sensitivity; moderate-certainty evidence, specificity). People with known rifampicin resistance - Ethionamide resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 98.0% (74.2 to 99.9) and 99.7% (83.5 to 100.0) against gDST, (4 cohorts, 434 participants; very low-certainty evidence, sensitivity and specificity). - Amikacin resistance: Xpert MTB/XDR summary sensitivity and specificity were 86.1% (75.0 to 92.7) and 98.9% (93.0 to 99.8) against pDST, (4 cohorts, 490 participants; low-certainty evidence, sensitivity; high-certainty evidence, specificity). Of 1000 people with pulmonary tuberculosis, detected as tuberculosis by Xpert MTB/XDR: - where 50 have isoniazid resistance, 61 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating isoniazid resistance: of these, 14/61 (23%) would not have isoniazid resistance (FP); 939 (of 1000 people) would have a result indicating the absence of isoniazid resistance: of these, 3/939 (0%) would have isoniazid resistance (FN). - where 50 have fluoroquinolone resistance, 66 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating fluoroquinolone resistance: of these, 19/66 (29%) would not have fluoroquinolone resistance (FP); 934 would have a result indicating the absence of fluoroquinolone resistance: of these, 3/934 (0%) would have fluoroquinolone resistance (FN). - where 300 have ethionamide resistance, 296 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating ethionamide resistance: of these, 2/296 (1%) would not have ethionamide resistance (FP); 704 would have a result indicating the absence of ethionamide resistance: of these, 6/704 (1%) would have ethionamide resistance (FN). - where 135 have amikacin resistance, 126 would have an Xpert MTB/XDR result indicating amikacin resistance: of these, 10/126 (8%) would not have amikacin resistance (FP); 874 would have a result indicating the absence of amikacin resistance: of these, 19/874 (2%) would have amikacin resistance (FN). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Review findings suggest that, in people determined by Xpert MTB/XDR to be tuberculosis-positive, Xpert MTB/XDR provides accurate results for detection of isoniazid and fluoroquinolone resistance and can assist with selection of an optimised treatment regimen. Given that Xpert MTB/XDR targets a limited number of resistance variants in specific genes, the test may perform differently in different settings. Findings in this review should be interpreted with caution. Sensitivity for detection of ethionamide resistance was based only on Xpert MTB/XDR detection of mutations in the inhA promoter region, a known limitation. High risk of bias limits our confidence in Xpert MTB/XDR accuracy for pulmonary tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/XDR's impact will depend on its ability to detect tuberculosis (required for DST), prevalence of resistance to a given drug, health care infrastructure, and access to other tests.

Accuracy of a Novel Urine Test, Fujifilm SILVAMP Tuberculosis Lipoarabinomannan, for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Children.

BACKGROUND: An accurate point-of-care test for tuberculosis (TB) in children remains an elusive goal. Recent evaluation of a novel point-of-care urinary lipoarabinomannan test, Fujifilm SILVAMP Tuberculosis Lipoarabinomannan (FujiLAM), in adults living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) showed significantly superior sensitivity than the current Alere Determine Tuberculosis Lipoarabinomannan test (AlereLAM). We therefore compared the accuracy of FujiLAM and AlereLAM in children with suspected TB. METHODS: Children hospitalized with suspected TB in Cape Town, South Africa, were enrolled (consecutive admissions plus enrichment for a group of children living with HIV and with TB), their urine was collected and biobanked, and their sputum was tested with mycobacterial culture and Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra. Biobanked urine was subsequently batch tested with FujiLAM and AlereLAM. Children were categorized as having microbiologically confirmed TB, unconfirmed TB (clinically diagnosed), or unlikely TB. RESULTS: A total of 204 children were enrolled and had valid results from both index tests, as well as sputum microbiological testing. Compared to a microbiological reference standard, the sensitivity of FujiLAM and AlereLAM was similar (42% and 50%, respectively), but lower than that of Xpert MTB/RIF of sputum (74%). The sensitivity of FujiLAM was higher in children living with HIV (60%) and malnourished children (62%). The specificity of FujiLAM was substantially higher than that of AlereLAM (92% vs 66%, respectively). The specificity of both tests was higher in children 2 years or older (FujiLAM, 96%; AlereLAM, 72%). CONCLUSIONS: The high specificity of FujiLAM suggests utility as a "rule-in" test for children with a high pretest probability of TB, including hospitalized children living with HIV or with malnutrition.

Diagnostic accuracy of centralised assays for TB detection and detection of resistance to rifampicin and isoniazid: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Various diagnostic companies have developed high throughput molecular assays for tuberculosis (TB) and resistance detection for rifampicin and isoniazid. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to assess the diagnostic accuracy of five of these tests for pulmonary specimens. The tests included were Abbott RealTime MTB, Abbott RealTime RIF/INH, FluoroType MTB, FluoroType MTDBR and BD Max MDR-TB assay.A comprehensive search of six databases for relevant citations was performed. Cross-sectional, case-control, cohort studies, and randomised controlled trials of any of the index tests were included. Respiratory specimens (such as sputum, bronchoalveolar lavage, tracheal aspirate, etc) or their culture isolates.A total of 21 included studies contributed 26 datasets. We could only meta-analyse data for three of the five assays identified, as data were limited for the remaining two. For TB detection, the included assays had a sensitivity of 91% or more and the specificity ranged from 97% to 100%. For rifampicin resistance detection, all the included assays had a sensitivity of more than 92%, with a specificity of 99-100%. Sensitivity for isoniazid resistance detection varied from 70 to 91%, with higher specificity of 99-100% across all index tests. Studies that included head-to-head comparisons of these assays with Xpert MTB/RIF for detection of TB and rifampicin resistance suggested comparable diagnostic accuracy.In people with symptoms of pulmonary TB, the centralised molecular assays demonstrate comparable diagnostic accuracy for detection of TB, rifampicin and isoniazid resistance to Xpert MTB/RIF assay, a WHO recommended molecular test.

Quantifying the potential value of antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests for COVID-19: a modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Testing plays a critical role in treatment and prevention responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared to nucleic acid tests (NATs), antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) can be more accessible, but typically have lower sensitivity and specificity. By quantifying these trade-offs, we aimed to inform decisions about when an Ag-RDT would offer greater public health value than reliance on NAT. METHODS: Following an expert consultation, we selected two use cases for analysis: rapid identification of people with COVID-19 amongst patients admitted with respiratory symptoms in a 'hospital' setting and early identification and isolation of people with mildly symptomatic COVID-19 in a 'community' setting. Using decision analysis, we evaluated the health system cost and health impact (deaths averted and infectious days isolated) of an Ag-RDT-led strategy, compared to a strategy based on NAT and clinical judgement. We adopted a broad range of values for 'contextual' parameters relevant to a range of settings, including the availability of NAT and the performance of clinical judgement. We performed a multivariate sensitivity analysis to all of these parameters. RESULTS: In a hospital setting, an Ag-RDT-led strategy would avert more deaths than a NAT-based strategy, and at lower cost per death averted, when the sensitivity of clinical judgement is less than 90%, and when NAT results are available in time to inform clinical decision-making for less than 85% of patients. The use of an Ag-RDT is robustly supported in community settings, where it would avert more transmission at lower cost than relying on NAT alone, under a wide range of assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: Despite their imperfect sensitivity and specificity, Ag-RDTs have the potential to be simultaneously more impactful, and have a lower cost per death and infectious person-days averted, than current approaches to COVID-19 diagnostic testing.

Diagnostic accuracy of a novel point-of-care urine lipoarabinomannan assay for the detection of tuberculosis among adult outpatients in Zambia: a prospective cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: A novel, rapid, point-of-care urine-based lipoarabinomannan assay (Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM ("FujiLAM")) has previously demonstrated substantially higher sensitivity for tuberculosis (TB) compared with the commercially available Determine TB LAM assay using biobanked specimens. However, FujiLAM has not been prospectively evaluated using fresh urine specimens. Therefore, we determined the diagnostic accuracy of FujiLAM among HIV-positive and HIV-negative outpatients with presumptive TB in Zambia. METHODS: Adult (≥18 years old) presumptive TB patients presenting to two outpatient public health facilities in Lusaka were included. All patients submitted sputa samples for smear microscopy, Xpert MTB/RIF and mycobacterial culture, and urine samples for the FujiLAM assay. Microbiologically confirmed TB was defined by the detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in sputum using culture; this served as the reference standard to assess the diagnostic accuracy of FujiLAM. RESULTS: 151 adults with paired sputum microbiological tests and urine FujiLAM results were included; 45% were HIV-positive. Overall, 34 out of 151 (23%) patients had culture-confirmed pulmonary TB. The overall sensitivity and specificity of FujiLAM was 77% (95% CI 59-89%) and 92% (95% CI 86-96%), respectively. FujiLAM's sensitivity among HIV-positive patients was 75% (95% CI 43-95%) compared with 75% (95% CI 51-91%) among HIV-negative patients. The sensitivity of FujiLAM in patients with smear-positive, confirmed pulmonary TB was 87% (95% CI 60-98%) compared with 68% (95% CI 43-87%) among patients with smear-negative, confirmed pulmonary TB. CONCLUSIONS: FujiLAM demonstrated high sensitivity for the detection of TB among both HIV-positive and HIV-negative adults, and also demonstrated good specificity despite the lack of systematic extrapulmonary sampling to inform a comprehensive microbiological reference standard.

A prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study for the Truenat tuberculosis assays.

BACKGROUND: Bringing reliable and accurate tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis closer to patients is a key priority for global TB control. Molbio Diagnostics have developed the Truenat point-of-care molecular assays for detection of TB and rifampicin (RIF) resistance. METHODS: We conducted a prospective multicentre diagnostic accuracy study at 19 primary healthcare centres and seven reference laboratories in Peru, India, Ethiopia and Papua New Guinea to estimate the diagnostic accuracy of the point-of-care Truenat MTB, MTB Plus and MTB-RIF Dx assays for pulmonary TB using culture and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing as the reference standard, compared with Xpert MTB/RIF or Ultra. RESULTS: Of 1807 enrolled participants with TB signs/symptoms, 24% were culture-positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis, of which 15% were RIF-resistant. In microscopy centres, the pooled sensitivity of Truenat MTB and Truenat MTB Plus was 73% (95% CI 67-78%) and 80% (95% CI 75-84%), respectively. Among smear-negative specimens, sensitivities were 36% (95% CI 27-47%) and 47% (95% CI 37-58%), respectively. Sensitivity of Truenat MTB-RIF was 84% (95% CI 62-95%). Truenat assays showed high specificity. Head-to-head comparison in the central reference laboratories suggested that the Truenat assays have similar performance to Xpert MTB/RIF. CONCLUSION: We found the performance of Molbio's Truenat MTB, MTB Plus and MTB-RIF Dx assays to be comparable to that of the Xpert MTB/RIF assay. Performing the Truenat tests in primary healthcare centres with very limited infrastructure was feasible. These data supported the development of a World Health Organization policy recommendation of the Molbio assays.

Comparative Analytical Evaluation of Four Centralized Platforms for the Detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis Complex and Resistance to Rifampicin and Isoniazid.

Failure to rapidly identify drug-resistant tuberculosis (TB) increases the risk of patient mismanagement, the amplification of drug resistance, and ongoing transmission. We generated comparative analytical data for four automated assays for the detection of TB and multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB): Abbott RealTime MTB and MTB RIF/INH (Abbott), Hain Lifescience FluoroType MTBDR (Hain), BD Max MDR-TB (BD), and Roche cobas MTB and MTB-RIF/INH (Roche). We included Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) and GenoType MTBDRplus as comparators for TB and drug resistance detection, respectively. We assessed analytical sensitivity for the detection of the Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex using inactivated strains (M. tuberculosis H37Rv and M. bovis) spiked into TB-negative sputa and computed the 95% limits of detection (LOD95). We assessed the accuracy of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance detection using well-characterized M. tuberculosis strains with high-confidence mutations accounting for >85% of first-line resistance mechanisms globally. For H37Rv and M. bovis, we measured LOD95 values of 3,781 and 2,926 (Xpert), 322 and 2,182 (Abbott), 826 and 4,301 (BD), 10,398 and 23,139 (Hain), and 2,416 and 2,136 (Roche) genomes/ml, respectively. Assays targeting multicopy genes or targets (Abbott, BD, and Roche) showed increased analytical sensitivity compared to Xpert. Quantification of the panel by quantitative real-time PCR prevents the determination of absolute values, and results reported here can be interpreted for comparison purposes only. All assays showed accuracy comparable to that of Genotype MTBDRplus for the detection of rifampicin and isoniazid resistance. The data from this analytical study suggest that the assays may have clinical performances similar to those of WHO-recommended molecular TB and MDR-TB assays.

Diagnostic Accuracy Study of a Novel Blood-Based Assay for Identification of Tuberculosis in People Living with HIV.

A nonsputum triage test to rule out tuberculosis (TB) disease is a WHO high-priority diagnostic, and a combinatory score based on a 3-gene host signature has shown promise in discriminating TB from other illnesses. We evaluated the accuracy of an early-prototype cartridge assay ("Xpert MTB Host Response" or Xpert-MTB-HR-Prototype) of this 3-gene signature on biobanked blood samples from people living with HIV (PLHIV) against a comprehensive microbiological reference standard (CMRS) and against Xpert MTB/RIF on the first sputum sample alone. We depict results based on performance targets set by the WHO in comparison with a laboratory-based C-reactive protein (CRP) assay. Of 201 patients included, 67 were culture positive for Mycobacterium tuberculosis The areas under the concentration-time curve (AUCs) for Xpert-MTB-HR-Prototype were 0.89 (confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 0.94) against the CMRS and 0.94 (CI, 0.89 to 0.98) against Xpert MTB/RIF. Considering Xpert-MTB-HR-Prototype as a triage test (at the nearest upper value of sensitivity to 90%), specificities were 55.8% (CI, 47.2 to 64.1%) compared to the CMRS and 85.9% (CI, 79.3 to 90.7%) compared to Xpert MTB/RIF as confirmatory tests. Considering Xpert-MTB-HR-Prototype as a stand-alone diagnostic test, at a specificity near 95%, the test achieved a sensitivity of 65.7% (CI, 53.7 to 75.9%), while the CRP assay achieved a sensitivity of only 13.6% (CI, 7.3 to 23.4%). In this first accuracy study of a prototype blood-based host marker assay, we show the possible value of the assay for triage and diagnosis in PLHIV.

Antigen-based Rapid Diagnostic Testing or Alternatives for Diagnosis of Symptomatic COVID-19: A Simulation-based Net Benefit Analysis.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detection rapid diagnostic tests can diagnose COVID-19 rapidly and at low cost, but lower sensitivity compared with reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (PCR) has limited clinical adoption. METHODS: We compared antigen testing, PCR testing, and clinical judgment alone for diagnosing symptomatic COVID-19 in an outpatient setting (10% COVID-19 prevalence among the patients tested, 3-day PCR turnaround) and a hospital setting (40% prevalence, 24-hour PCR turnaround). We simulated transmission from cases and contacts, and relationships between time, viral burden, transmission, and case detection. We compared diagnostic approaches using a measure of net benefit that incorporated both clinical and public health benefits and harms of the intervention. RESULTS: In the outpatient setting, we estimated that using antigen testing instead of PCR to test 200 individuals could be equivalent to preventing all symptomatic transmission from one person with COVID-19 (one "transmission-equivalent"). In a hospital, net benefit analysis favored PCR and testing 25 patients with PCR instead of antigen testing achieved one transmission-equivalent of benefit. In both settings, antigen testing was preferable to PCR if PCR turnaround time exceeded 2 days. Both tests provided greater net benefit than management based on clinical judgment alone unless intervention carried minimal harm and was provided equally regardless of diagnostic approach. CONCLUSIONS: For diagnosis of symptomatic COVID-19, we estimated that the speed of diagnosis with antigen testing is likely to outweigh its lower accuracy compared with PCR, wherever PCR turnaround time is 2 days or longer. This advantage may be even greater if antigen tests are also less expensive.

"I got tested at home, the help came to me": acceptability and feasibility of home-based TB testing of household contacts using portable molecular diagnostics in South Africa.

OBJECTIVE: The effectiveness of household contact investigations is limited by low referral uptake for clinic-based TB testing by symptomatic household contacts. We qualitatively investigated the acceptability and perceived benefits of home-based TB testing using a portable GeneXpert-I instrument (GX-I) in an urban South African township. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with household contacts tested and those that observed testing. Semi-structured interviews explored household contact's understanding of TB, perceptions of the GX-I device and testing procedures, confidentiality, willingness to refer others, and views on home- vs. clinic-based testing. Focus group discussions with home-based TB testing implementing staff assessed operational considerations for scale-up. Data were analysed using a constant comparison approach to qualitatively evaluate the acceptability and feasibility of home-based TB testing. RESULTS: Thirty in-depth interviews and two focus group discussions were conducted. Observing one's own sputum being tested resulted in an emergent trust in home-based TB testing, the GX-I device and one's test results. Home-based TB testing was considered convenient, helped to overcome apathy towards testing and mitigated barriers to clinic-based testing. Perceptions that home-based TB testing contributes to improved household and community health resulted in an emergent theme of alleviation of health insecurities. Operational concerns regarding inadvertent disclosure of one's diagnosis to household members and time spent in people's homes were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Home-based TB testing was acceptable and feasible. Individuals expressed belief in the machine by being able to witness the testing process. Though most themes mirrored qualitative studies of home-based HIV testing, the alleviation of health insecurities theme is unique to home-based TB testing. Future research must evaluate the impact of home-based TB testing on case finding yield, time-to-treatment initiation and household outcomes.

OBJECTIF: L'efficacité des enquêtes sur les contacts familiaux est limitée par le faible taux de respect de l'orientation pour le dépistage de la tuberculose (TB) en clinique par les contacts familiaux symptomatiques. Nous avons investigué qualitativement l'acceptabilité et les avantages perçus du dépistage de la TB à domicile à l'aide d'un dispositif portable GeneXpert-I (GX-I) dans une ville urbaine sud-africaine. MÉTHODES: Des entretiens approfondis ont été menés avec des contacts familiaux testés et ceux qui ont observé la pratique des tests. Des entretiens semi-structurés ont permis d'explorer la compréhension de la TB par les contacts familiaux, les perceptions sur le dispositif GX-I et les procédures de test, la confidentialité, la volonté de référer d'autres personnes et les opinions sur le dépistage à domicile ou en clinique. Des discussions de groupe focalisées avec le personnel chargé de la mise en œuvre du dépistage de la TB à domicile ont évalué les considérations opérationnelles pour le déploiement. Les données ont été analysées en utilisant une approche de comparaison constante pour évaluer qualitativement l'acceptabilité et la faisabilité du dépistage de la TB à domicile. RÉSULTATS: Trente entretiens approfondis et deux discussions de groupe ont été menés. L'observation de ses propres expectorations testées a conduit à une émergente de confiance dans le dépistage de la TB à domicile, le dispositif GX-I et les résultats des tests. Le dépistage de la TB à domicile était considéré comme pratique, aidait à surmonter l'apathie envers le dépistage et atténuait les obstacles au dépistage en clinique. La perception selon laquelle le dépistage de la TB à domicile contribue à l'amélioration de la santé des ménages et de la communauté a donné lieu à l'émergence du thème de la réduction des insécurités sanitaires. Des préoccupations opérationnelles concernant la divulgation par inadvertance de son diagnostic aux membres du ménage et le temps passé au domicile des personnes ont été identifiées. CONCLUSION: Le dépistage de la TB à domicile était acceptable et faisable. Les individus ont exprimé leur croyance en la machine en étant en mesure d'assister au processus de test. Bien que la plupart des thèmes reflètent des études qualitatives sur le dépistage du VIH à domicile, le thème de l'atténuation des insécurités sanitaires est unique au dépistage de la TB à domicile. Les recherches futures doivent évaluer l'impact du dépistage de la TB à domicile sur le rendement de la recherche des cas, le délai de mise en route du traitement et les résultats au sein des ménages.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF assays for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults.

BACKGROUND: Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum. To extend our previous review on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (Kohli 2018), we performed this update to inform updated WHO policy (WHO Consolidated Guidelines (Module 3) 2020). OBJECTIVES: To estimate diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, 2 August 2019 and 28 January 2020 (Xpert Ultra studies), without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional and cohort studies using non-respiratory specimens. Forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: tuberculous meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, disseminated tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture and a study-defined composite reference standard (tuberculosis detection); phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays (rifampicin resistance detection). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. For tuberculosis detection, we performed separate analyses by specimen type and reference standard using the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We applied a latent class meta-analysis model to three forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: 69 studies: 67 evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and 11 evaluated Xpert Ultra, of which nine evaluated both tests. Most studies were conducted in China, India, South Africa, and Uganda. Overall, risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains, and low (49%) or unclear (43%) for the reference standard domain. Applicability for the patient selection domain was unclear for most studies because we were unsure of the clinical settings. Cerebrospinal fluid Xpert Ultra (6 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 89.4% (79.1 to 95.6) (89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 91.2% (83.2 to 95.7) (386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 168 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 79 (47%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives) and 832 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 11 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). Xpert MTB/RIF (30 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 71.1% (62.8 to 79.1) (571 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 96.9% (95.4 to 98.0) (2824 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 99 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 28 (28%) would not have tuberculosis; and 901 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Pleural fluid Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 75.0% (58.0 to 86.4) (158 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 87.0% (63.1 to 97.9) (240 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 192 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 117 (61%) would not have tuberculosis; and 808 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (25 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 49.5% (39.8 to 59.9) (644 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.9% (97.6 to 99.7) (2421 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 60 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 10 (17%) would not have tuberculosis; and 940 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 50 (5%) would have tuberculosis. Lymph node aspirate Xpert Ultra (1 study) Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) against composite reference standard were 70% (51 to 85) (30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 100% (92 to 100) (43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 70 would be Xpert Ultra-positive and 0 (0%) would not have tuberculosis; 930 would be Xpert Ultra-negative and 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against composite reference standard were 81.6% (61.9 to 93.3) (377 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 96.4% (91.3 to 98.6) (302 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 118 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 37 (31%) would not have tuberculosis; 882 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis. In lymph node aspirate, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity against culture was 86.2% (78.0 to 92.3), lower than that against a composite reference standard. Using the latent class model, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity was 99.5% (99.1 to 99.7), similar to that observed with a composite reference standard. Rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95.1 to 100.0), (24 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 100.0% (99.0 to 100.0) (105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 100 would be Xpert Ultra-positive (resistant): of these, zero (0%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 900 would be Xpert Ultra-negative (susceptible): of these, zero (0%) would have rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF (19 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 96.5% (91.9 to 98.8) (148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 99.1% (98.0 to 99.7) (822 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 105 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive (resistant): of these, 8 (8%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 895 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative (susceptible): of these, 3 (0.3%) would have rifampicin resistance. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF may be helpful in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens: while for most specimens specificity is high, the tests rarely yield a positive result for people without tuberculosis. For tuberculous meningitis, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF against culture. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance. Future research should acknowledge the concern associated with culture as a reference standard in paucibacillary specimens and consider ways to address this limitation.

Impact of the diagnostic test Xpert MTB/RIF on patient outcomes for tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends Xpert MTB/RIF in place of smear microscopy to diagnose tuberculosis (TB), and many countries have adopted it into their diagnostic algorithms. However, it is not clear whether the greater accuracy of the test translates into improved health outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the impact of Xpert MTB/RIF on patient outcomes in people being investigated for tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases, without language restriction, from 2007 to 24 July 2020: Cochrane Infectious Disease Group (CIDG) Specialized Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE OVID; Embase OVID; CINAHL EBSCO; LILACS BIREME; Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), Social Sciences citation index (Web of Science), and Conference Proceedings Citation Index - Social Science & Humanities (Web of Science). We also searched the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry for ongoing trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included individual- and cluster-randomized trials, and before-after studies, in participants being investigated for tuberculosis. We analysed the randomized and non-randomized studies separately.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For each study, two review authors independently extracted data, using a piloted data extraction tool. We assessed the risk of bias using Cochrane and Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) tools. We used random effects meta-analysis to allow for heterogeneity between studies in setting and design.  The certainty of the  evidence in the randomized trials was assessed by GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 studies: eight were randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and four were before-and-after studies. Most included RCTs had a low risk of bias in most domains of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool. There was inconclusive evidence of an effect of Xpert MTB/RIF on all-cause mortality, both overall (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75 to 1.05; 5 RCTs, 9932 participants, moderate-certainty evidence), and restricted to studies with six-month follow-up (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 3 RCTs, 8143 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was probably a reduction in mortality in participants known to be infected with HIV (odds ratio (OR) 0.80, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96; 5 RCTs, 5855 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether Xpert MTB/RIF has no or a modest effect on the proportion of participants starting tuberculosis treatment who had a successful treatment outcome (OR) 1.10, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.26; 3RCTs, 4802 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was also inconclusive evidence of an effect on the  proportion of participants who were treated for tuberculosis (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.23; 5 RCTs, 8793 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants treated for tuberculosis who had bacteriological confirmation was probably higher in the Xpert MTB/RIF group (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.61; 6 RCTs, 2068 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). The proportion of participants with bacteriological confirmation who were lost to follow-up pre-treatment was probably reduced (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.85; 3 RCTs, 1217 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We were unable to confidently rule in or rule out the effect on all-cause mortality of using Xpert MTB/RIF rather than smear microscopy. Xpert MTB/RIF probably reduces mortality among participants known to be infected with HIV. We are uncertain whether Xpert MTB/RIF has a modest effect or not on the proportion treated or, among those treated, on the proportion with a successful outcome. It probably does not have a substantial effect on these outcomes. Xpert MTB/RIF probably increases both the proportion of treated participants who had bacteriological confirmation, and the proportion with a laboratory-confirmed diagnosis who were treated. These findings may inform decisions about uptake alongside evidence on cost-effectiveness and implementation.

ANTECEDENTES: La Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS) recomienda la Xpert MTB/RIF en lugar de la baciloscopia para diagnosticar la tuberculosis (TB) y muchos países la han adoptado en sus algoritmos de diagnóstico. Sin embargo, no está claro si la mayor exactitud de la prueba se traduce en mejores desenlaces de salud. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar el impacto de la Xpert MTB/RIF en los desenlaces de las personas sometidas a pruebas para la tuberculosis. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en las siguientes bases de datos, sin restricción de idioma, desde 2007 hasta el 24 de julio de 2020: Registro especializado del Grupo Cochrane de Enfermedades infecciosas (Cochrane Infectious Disease Group [CIDG]); CENTRAL; MEDLINE OVID; Embase OVID; CINAHL EBSCO; LILACS BIREME; Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science), Social Sciences citation index (Web of Science), y Conference Proceedings Citation Index ­ Social Science & Humanities (Web of Science). También se buscaron ensayos en curso en la Plataforma de registros internacionales de ensayos clínicos de la OMS, en ClinicalTrials.gov y en el Pan African Clinical Trials Registry. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron ensayos aleatorizados individuales y por conglomerados, y estudios tipo antes y después (before­after studie), con participantes sometidos a pruebas para la tuberculosis. Los estudios aleatorizados y no aleatorizados se analizaron por separado. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Dos autores de la revisión, de forma independiente, extrajeron los datos de cada estudio mediante una herramienta de extracción de datos analizada. El riesgo de sesgo se evaluó mediante las herramientas de Cochrane y del Grupo Cochrane para una Práctica y organización sanitarias efectivas (Effective Practice and Organisation of Care [EPOC]). Se utilizó el metanálisis de efectos aleatorios para considerar la heterogeneidad entre los estudios en cuanto al contexto y el diseño. La certeza de la evidencia en los ensayos aleatorizados se evaluó mediante el método GRADE. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 12 estudios: ocho eran ensayos controlados aleatorizados (ECA) y cuatro eran estudios tipo antes y después. La mayoría de los ECA incluidos tenían un bajo riesgo de sesgo en la mayoría de los dominios de la herramienta Cochrane "Risk of bias". Hubo evidencia no concluyente de un efecto de la Xpert MTB/RIF sobre la mortalidad por todas las causas, tanto en general (razón de riesgos [RR] 0,89; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,75 a 1,05; cinco ECA, 9932 participantes, evidencia de certeza moderada), como limitada a los estudios con seguimiento de seis meses (RR 0,98; IC del 95%: 0,78 a 1,22; tres ECA, 8143 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). Probablemente hubo una reducción de la mortalidad en los participantes que se sabía que estaban infectados por el VIH (odds ratio [OR] 0,80; IC del 95%: 0,67 a 0,96; cinco ECA, 5855 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). No está claro si la Xpert MTB/RIF no tiene efectos o tiene un efecto modesto sobre la proporción de participantes que inician el tratamiento de la tuberculosis y que tienen un desenlace exitoso del tratamiento (OR 1,10; IC del 95%: 0,96 a 1,26; tres ECA, 4802 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). También hubo evidencia no concluyente de un efecto sobre el porcentaje de participantes que recibieron tratamiento para la tuberculosis (RR 1,10; IC del 95%: 0,98 a 1,23; cinco ECA, 8793 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). Es probable que la proporción de participantes tratados por tuberculosis que tuvieron confirmación bacteriológica fuera mayor en el grupo de Xpert MTB/RIF (RR 1,44; IC del 95%: 1,29 a 1,61; seis ECA, 2068 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). Es probable que se redujera la proporción de participantes con confirmación bacteriológica que se perdió durante el seguimiento previo al tratamiento (RR 0,59; IC del 95%: 0,41 a 0,85; tres ECA, 1217 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: No fue posible descartar con seguridad el efecto sobre la mortalidad por todas las causas del uso de Xpert MTB/RIF en lugar de la baciloscopia. La Xpert MTB/RIF probablemente reduce la mortalidad en los participantes que se sabe que están infectados por el VIH. No hay certeza con respecto a si la Xpert MTB/RIF tiene un efecto modesto o no en la proporción tratada o, entre los tratados, en la proporción con un desenlace exitoso. Probablemente no tenga un efecto importante sobre estos desenlaces. La Xpert MTB/RIF probablemente aumenta la proporción de participantes tratados que tenían confirmación bacteriológica, así como la de aquellos con un diagnóstico confirmado por el laboratorio que fueron tratados. Estos hallazgos podrían servir de base para las decisiones sobre la adopción de la prueba, junto con la evidencia sobre la coste­efectividad y la aplicación.

Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND: Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in people with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. This review builds on our recent extensive Cochrane Review of Xpert MTB/RIF accuracy. OBJECTIVES: To compare the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for the detection of pulmonary tuberculosis and detection of rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis. For pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance, we also investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. We also summarized the frequency of Xpert Ultra trace-positive results, and estimated the accuracy of Xpert Ultra after repeat testing in those with trace-positive results. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, LILACS, Scopus, the WHO ICTRP, the ISRCTN registry, and ProQuest to 28 January 2020 with no language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies using respiratory specimens in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis that directly compared the index tests. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, the reference standards were culture and a composite reference standard. For rifampicin resistance, the reference standards were culture-based drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form, including data by smear and HIV status. We assessed risk of bias using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. We performed meta-analyses comparing pooled sensitivities and specificities, separately for pulmonary tuberculosis detection and rifampicin resistance detection, and separately by reference standard. Most analyses used a bivariate random-effects model. For tuberculosis detection, we estimated accuracy in studies in participants who were not selected based on prior microscopy testing or history of tuberculosis. We performed subgroup analyses by smear status, HIV status, and history of tuberculosis. We summarized Xpert Ultra trace results. MAIN RESULTS: We identified nine studies (3500 participants): seven had unselected participants (2834 participants). All compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis detection; seven studies used a paired comparative accuracy design, and two studies used a randomized design. Five studies compared Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance detection; four studies used a paired design, and one study used a randomized design. Of the nine included studies, seven (78%) were mainly or exclusively in high tuberculosis burden countries. For pulmonary tuberculosis detection, most studies had low risk of bias in all domains. Pulmonary tuberculosis detection Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval) against culture were 90.9% (86.2 to 94.7) and 95.6% (93.0 to 97.4) (7 studies, 2834 participants; high-certainty evidence) versus Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity of 84.7% (78.6 to 89.9) and 98.4% (97.0 to 99.3) (7 studies, 2835 participants; high-certainty evidence). The difference in the accuracy of Xpert Ultra minus Xpert MTB/RIF was estimated at 6.3% (0.1 to 12.8) for sensitivity and -2.7% (-5.7 to -0.5) for specificity. If the point estimates for Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, where 10% of those presenting with symptoms have pulmonary tuberculosis, Xpert Ultra will miss 9 cases, and Xpert MTB/RIF will miss 15 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis would be 40 with Xpert Ultra and 14 with Xpert MTB/RIF. In smear-negative, culture-positive participants, pooled sensitivity was 77.5% (67.6 to 85.6) for Xpert Ultra versus 60.6% (48.4 to 71.7) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 95.8% (92.9 to 97.7) for Xpert Ultra versus 98.8% (97.7 to 99.5) for Xpert MTB/RIF (6 studies). In people living with HIV, pooled sensitivity was 87.6% (75.4 to 94.1) for Xpert Ultra versus 74.9% (58.7 to 86.2) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 92.8% (82.3 to 97.0) for Xpert Ultra versus 99.7% (98.6 to 100.0) for Xpert MTB/RIF (3 studies). In participants with a history of tuberculosis, pooled sensitivity was 84.2% (72.5 to 91.7) for Xpert Ultra versus 81.8% (68.7 to 90.0) for Xpert MTB/RIF; pooled specificity was 88.2% (70.5 to 96.6) for Xpert Ultra versus 97.4% (91.7 to 99.5) for Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies). The proportion of Ultra trace-positive results ranged from 3.0% to 30.4%. Data were insufficient to estimate the accuracy of Xpert Ultra repeat testing in individuals with initial trace-positive results. Rifampicin resistance detection Pooled sensitivity and specificity were 94.9% (88.9 to 97.9) and 99.1% (97.7 to 99.8) (5 studies, 921 participants; high-certainty evidence) for Xpert Ultra versus 95.3% (90.0 to 98.1) and 98.8% (97.2 to 99.6) (5 studies, 930 participants; high-certainty evidence) for Xpert MTB/RIF. The difference in the accuracy of Xpert Ultra minus Xpert MTB/RIF was estimated at -0.3% (-6.9 to 5.7) for sensitivity and 0.3% (-1.2 to 2.0) for specificity. If the point estimates for Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF are applied to a hypothetical cohort of 1000 patients, where 10% of those presenting with symptoms have rifampicin resistance, Xpert Ultra will miss 5 cases, and Xpert MTB/RIF will miss 5 cases. The number of people wrongly diagnosed with rifampicin resistance would be 8 with Xpert Ultra and 11 with Xpert MTB/RIF. We identified a higher number of rifampicin resistance indeterminate results with Xpert Ultra, pooled proportion 7.6% (2.4 to 21.0) compared to Xpert MTB/RIF pooled proportion 0.8% (0.2 to 2.4). The estimated difference in the pooled proportion of indeterminate rifampicin resistance results for Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF was 6.7% (1.4 to 20.1). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Xpert Ultra has higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF for pulmonary tuberculosis, especially in smear-negative participants and people living with HIV. Xpert Ultra specificity was lower than that of Xpert MTB/RIF in participants with a history of tuberculosis. The sensitivity and specificity trade-off would be expected to vary by setting. For detection of rifampicin resistance, Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity. Ultra trace-positive results were common. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF provide accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of treatment for rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

"SILVAMP TB LAM" Rapid Urine Tuberculosis Test Predicts Mortality in Patients Hospitalized With Human Immunodeficiency Virus in South Africa.

Reducing diagnostic delay is key toward decreasing tuberculosis-associated deaths in people living with human immunodeficiency virus. In tuberculosis patients with retrospective urine testing, the point-of-care Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) could have rapidly diagnosed tuberculosis in up to 89% who died. In FujiLAM negative patients, the probability of 12-week survival was 86-97%.

The potential impact of urine-LAM diagnostics on tuberculosis incidence and mortality: A modelling analysis.

BACKGROUND: Lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan (LAM) tests could offer important new opportunities for the early detection of tuberculosis (TB). The currently licensed LAM test, Alere Determine TB LAM Ag ('LF-LAM'), performs best in the sickest people living with HIV (PLHIV). However, the technology continues to improve, with newer LAM tests, such as Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM ('SILVAMP-LAM') showing improved sensitivity, including amongst HIV-negative patients. It is important to anticipate the epidemiological impact that current and future LAM tests may have on TB incidence and mortality. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Concentrating on South Africa, we examined the impact that widening LAM test eligibility would have on TB incidence and mortality. We developed a mathematical model of TB transmission to project the impact of LAM tests, distinguishing 'current' tests (with sensitivity consistent with LF-LAM), from hypothetical 'future' tests (having sensitivity consistent with SILVAMP-LAM). We modelled the impact of both tests, assuming full adoption of the 2019 WHO guidelines for the use of these tests amongst those receiving HIV care. We also simulated the hypothetical deployment of future LAM tests for all people presenting to care with TB symptoms, not restricted to PLHIV. Our model projects that 2,700,000 (95% credible interval [CrI] 2,000,000-3,600,000) and 420,000 (95% CrI 350,000-520,000) cumulative TB incident cases and deaths, respectively, would occur between 2020 and 2035 if the status quo is maintained. Relative to this comparator, current and future LAM tests would respectively avert 54 (95% CrI 33-86) and 90 (95% CrI 55-145) TB deaths amongst inpatients between 2020 and 2035, i.e., reductions of 5% (95% CrI 4%-6%) and 9% (95% CrI 7%-11%) in inpatient TB mortality. This impact in absolute deaths averted doubles if testing is expanded to include outpatients, yet remains <1% of country-level TB deaths. Similar patterns apply to incidence results. However, deploying a future LAM test for all people presenting to care with TB symptoms would avert 470,000 (95% CrI 220,000-870,000) incident TB cases (18% reduction, 95% CrI 9%-29%) and 120,000 (95% CrI 69,000-210,000) deaths (30% reduction, 95% CrI 18%-44%) between 2020 and 2035. Notably, this increase in impact arises largely from diagnosis of TB amongst those with HIV who are not yet in HIV care, and who would thus be ineligible for a LAM test under current guidelines. Qualitatively similar results apply under an alternative comparator assuming expanded use of GeneXpert MTB/RIF ('Xpert') for TB diagnosis. Sensitivity analysis demonstrates qualitatively similar results in a setting like Kenya, which also has a generalised HIV epidemic, but a lower burden of HIV/TB coinfection. Amongst limitations of this analysis, we do not address the cost or cost-effectiveness of future tests. Our model neglects drug resistance and focuses on the country-level epidemic, thus ignoring subnational variations in HIV and TB burden. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that LAM tests could have an important effect in averting TB deaths amongst PLHIV with advanced disease. However, achieving population-level impact on the TB epidemic, even in high-HIV-burden settings, will require future LAM tests to have sufficient performance to be deployed more broadly than in HIV care.

Diagnostic accuracy of a novel tuberculosis point-of-care urine lipoarabinomannan assay for people living with HIV: A meta-analysis of individual in- and outpatient data.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) is the most common cause of death in people living with HIV (PLHIV), yet TB often goes undiagnosed since many patients are not able to produce a sputum specimen, and traditional diagnostics are costly or unavailable. A novel, rapid lateral flow assay, Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (SILVAMP-LAM), detects the presence of TB lipoarabinomannan (LAM) in urine, and is substantially more sensitive for diagnosing TB in PLHIV than an earlier LAM assay (Alere Determine TB LAM lateral flow assay [LF-LAM]). Here, we present an individual participant data meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of SILVAMP-LAM in adult PLHIV, including both published and unpublished data. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Adult PLHIV (≥18 years) were assessed in 5 prospective cohort studies in South Africa (3 cohorts), Vietnam, and Ghana, carried out during 2012 to 2017. Of the 1,595 PLHIV who met eligibility criteria, the majority (61%) were inpatients, median age was 37 years (IQR 30-43), 43% had a CD4 count ≤ 100 cells/µl, and 35% were receiving antiretroviral therapy. Most participants (94%) had a positive WHO symptom screen for TB on enrollment, and 45% were diagnosed with microbiologically confirmed TB, using mycobacterial culture or Xpert MTB/RIF testing of sputum, urine, or blood. Previously published data from inpatients were combined with unpublished data from outpatients. Biobanked urine samples were tested, using blinded double reading, with SILVAMP-LAM and LF-LAM. Applying a microbiological reference standard for assessment of sensitivity, the overall sensitivity for TB detection was 70.7% (95% CI 59.0%-80.8%) for SILVAMP-LAM compared to 34.9% (95% CI 19.5%-50.9%) for LF-LAM. Using a composite reference standard (which included patients with both microbiologically confirmed as well as clinically diagnosed TB), SILVAMP-LAM sensitivity was 65.8% (95% CI 55.9%-74.6%), and that of LF-LAM 31.4% (95% CI 19.1%-43.7%). In patients with CD4 count ≤ 100 cells/µl, SILVAMP-LAM sensitivity was 87.1% (95% CI 79.3%-93.6%), compared to 56.0% (95% CI 43.9%-64.9%) for LF-LAM. In patients with CD4 count 101-200 cells/µl, SILVAMP-LAM sensitivity was 62.7% (95% CI 52.4%-71.9%), compared to 25.3% (95% CI 15.8%-34.9%) for LF-LAM. In those with CD4 count > 200 cells/µl, SILVAMP-LAM sensitivity was 43.9% (95% CI 34.3%-53.9%), compared to 10.9% (95% CI 5.2%-18.4%) for LF-LAM. Using a microbiological reference standard, the specificity of SILVAMP-LAM was 90.9% (95% CI 87.2%-93.7%), and that of LF-LAM 95.3% (95% CI 92.2%-97.7%). Limitations of this study include the use of biobanked, rather than fresh urine samples, and testing by skilled laboratory technicians in research laboratories, rather than at the point of care. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we found that SILVAMP-LAM identified a substantially higher proportion of TB patients in PLHIV than LF-LAM. The sensitivity of SILVAMP-LAM was highest in patients with CD4 count ≤ 100 cells/µl. Further work is needed to demonstrate accuracy when implemented as a point-of-care test.

Advances in Molecular Diagnosis of Tuberculosis.

Molecular tests for tuberculosis (TB) have the potential to help reach the three million people with TB who are undiagnosed or not reported each year and to improve the quality of care TB patients receive by providing accurate, quick results, including rapid drug-susceptibility testing. The World Health Organization (WHO) has recommended the use of molecular nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) tests for TB detection instead of smear microscopy, as they are able to detect TB more accurately, particularly in patients with paucibacillary disease and in people living with HIV. Importantly, some of these WHO-endorsed tests can detect mycobacterial gene mutations associated with anti-TB drug resistance, allowing clinicians to tailor effective TB treatment. Currently, a wide array of molecular tests for TB detection is being developed and evaluated, and while some tests are intended for reference laboratory use, others are being aimed at the point-of-care and peripheral health care settings. Notably, there is an emergence of molecular tests designed, manufactured, and rolled out in countries with high TB burden, of which some are explicitly aimed for near-patient placement. These developments should increase access to molecular TB testing for larger patient populations. With respect to drug susceptibility testing, NAATs and next-generation sequencing can provide results substantially faster than traditional phenotypic culture. Here, we review recent advances and developments in molecular tests for detecting TB as well as anti-TB drug resistance.

Incipient and Subclinical Tuberculosis: a Clinical Review of Early Stages and Progression of Infection.

Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading infectious cause of mortality worldwide, due in part to a limited understanding of its clinical pathogenic spectrum of infection and disease. Historically, scientific research, diagnostic testing, and drug treatment have focused on addressing one of two disease states: latent TB infection or active TB disease. Recent research has clearly demonstrated that human TB infection, from latent infection to active disease, exists within a continuous spectrum of metabolic bacterial activity and antagonistic immunological responses. This revised understanding leads us to propose two additional clinical states: incipient and subclinical TB. The recognition of incipient and subclinical TB, which helps divide latent and active TB along the clinical disease spectrum, provides opportunities for the development of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions to prevent progression to active TB disease and transmission of TB bacilli. In this report, we review the current understanding of the pathogenesis, immunology, clinical epidemiology, diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of both incipient and subclinical TB, two emerging clinical states of an ancient bacterium.