Use of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing for screening of tuberculosis in the community in high-burden settings: a prospective, cross-sectional study in Zambia and South Africa.

BACKGROUND: WHO recommends community-wide, systematic tuberculosis screening in high-prevalence settings. C-reactive protein has been proposed as a tuberculosis screening tool for people living with HIV. We aimed to assess the performance of a point-of-care C-reactive protein test for tuberculosis screening in the community in two countries with a high tuberculosis burden. METHODS: We conducted a prospective, cross-sectional study in four communities in Zambia and South Africa, nested in a tuberculosis prevalence survey. We included adults (aged ≥15 years) who were sputum-eligible (tuberculosis-suggestive symptoms or computer-aided-detection score ≥40 on chest x-ray) and whose sputum was tested with Xpert Ultra and liquid culture. A 5% random sample of individuals who were non-sputum-eligible was also included. We calculated sensitivity and specificity of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing, alone and combined with symptom screening, to detect tuberculosis in participants who were sputum-eligible, compared with a microbiological reference standard (positive result in Xpert Ultra, culture, or both). FINDINGS: Between Feb 19 and Aug 11, 2019, 9588 participants were enrolled in the tuberculosis prevalence study, 1588 of whom had C-reactive protein testing and received results (875 [55·1%] were women and girls, 713 [44·9%] were men and boys, 1317 [82·9%] were sputum-eligible, and 271 [17·1%] were non-sputum-eligible). Among participants who were sputum-eligible, we identified 76 individuals with tuberculosis, of whom 25 were living with HIV. Sensitivity of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing with a cutoff point of 5 mg/L or more was 50·0% (38/76, 95% CI 38·3-61·7) and specificity was 72·3% (890/1231, 69·7-74·8). Point-of-care C-reactive protein combined in parallel with symptom screening had higher sensitivity than symptom screening alone (60·5% [46/76, 95% CI 48·6-71·6] vs 34·2% [26/76, 23·7-46·0]). Specificity of point-of-care C-reactive protein combined in parallel with symptom screening was 51·7% (636/1231, 95% CI 48·8-54·5) versus 70·5% (868/1231, 67·9-73·0) with symptom screening alone. Similarly, in people living with HIV, sensitivity of point-of-care C-reactive protein combined with symptom screening was 72·0% (18/25, 95% CI 50·6-87·9) and that of symptom screening alone was 36·0% (9/25, 18·0-57·5). Specificity of point-of-care C-reactive protein testing combined in parallel with symptom screening in people living with HIV was 47·0% (118/251, 95% CI 40·7-53·4) versus 72·1% (181/251, 66·1-77·6) with symptom screening alone. INTERPRETATION: Point-of-care C-reactive protein testing alone does not meet the 90% sensitivity stipulated by WHO's target product profile for desirable characteristics for screening tests for detecting tuberculosis. However, combined with symptom screening, it might improve identification of individuals with tuberculosis in communities with high prevalence, and might be particularly useful where other recommended tools, such as chest x-ray, might not be readily available. FUNDING: European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership.

Optimising Xpert-Ultra and culture testing to reliably measure tuberculosis prevalence in the community: findings from surveys in Zambia and South Africa.

OBJECTIVES: Prevalence surveys remain the best way to assess the national tuberculosis (TB) burden in many countries. Challenges with using culture (the reference standard) for TB diagnosis in prevalence surveys have led to increasing use of molecular tests (Xpert assays), but discordance between these two tests has created problems for deciding which individuals have TB. We aimed to design an accurate diagnostic algorithm for TB prevalence surveys (TBPS) that limits the use of culture. DESIGN: TBPS in four communities, conducted during 2019. SETTING: Three Zambian communities and one South-African community included in the TBPS of the Tuberculosis Reduction through Expanded Anti-retroviral Treatment and Screening study. PARTICIPANTS: Randomly sampled individuals aged ≥15 years. Among those who screened positive on chest X-ray or symptoms, two sputum samples were collected for field Xpert-Ultra testing and a third for laboratory liquid-culture testing. Clinicians reviewed screening and test results; in Zambia, participants with Mycobacterium tuberculosis-positive results were followed up 6-13 months later. Among 10 984 participants, 2092 screened positive, 1852 provided two samples for Xpert-Ultra testing, and 1009 had valid culture results. OUTCOMES: Culture and Xpert-Ultra test results. RESULTS: Among 946 culture-negative individuals, 917 were Xpert-negative, 12 Xpert-trace-positive and 17 Xpert-positive (grade very low, low, medium or high), with Xpert categorised as the highest grade of the two sample results. Among 63 culture-positive individuals, 8 were Xpert-negative, 9 Xpert-trace-positive and 46 Xpert-positive. Counting trace-positive results as positive, the sensitivity of Xpert-Ultra compared with culture was 87% (95% CI 76% to 94%) using two samples compared with 76% (95% CI 64% to 86%) using one. Specificity was 97% when trace-positive results were counted as positive and 98% when trace-positive results were counted as negative. Most Xpert-Ultra-positive/culture-negative discordance was among individuals whose Xpert-positive results were trace-positive or very low grade or they reported previous TB treatment. Among individuals with both Xpert-Ultra results grade low or above, the positive-predictive-value was 90% (27/30); 3/30 were plausibly false-negative culture results. CONCLUSION: Using Xpert-Ultra as the primary diagnostic test in TBPS, with culture only for confirmatory testing, would identify a high proportion of TB cases while massively reducing survey culture requirements. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03739736.