Diagnostic accuracy of tongue swab testing on two automated tuberculosis diagnostic platforms, Cepheid Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and Molbio Truenat MTB Ultima.

Tongue dorsum swabbing is a potential alternative to sputum collection for tuberculosis (TB) testing. Previous studies showed that Cepheid Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) can detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA on tongue swabs stored in buffer, with 72% sensitivity and 100% specificity relative to a sputum microbiological reference standard (sputum MRS). The present study evaluated a more convenient sample collection protocol (dry swab storage), combined with streamlined sample processing protocols, for evaluating two commercial TB diagnostic tests: Xpert Ultra and Molbio Truenat MTB Ultima (MTB Ultima). Copan FLOQSwabs were self-collected or collected by study workers from 321 participants in Western Cape, South Africa. All participants had symptoms suggestive of TB, and 245 of them had sputum MRS-confirmed TB (by sputum MGIT culture and/or Xpert Ultra). One tongue swab per participant was tested on Xpert Ultra, and another tongue swab was tested with MTB Ultima. Xpert Ultra was 75.5% sensitive and 100% specific relative to sputum MRS, similar to previous methods that used swabs stored in buffer. MTB Ultima was 71.6% sensitive and 96.9% specific relative to sputum MRS. When sample lysates that were false-negative or invalid by MTB Ultima were frozen, thawed, and re-tested, MTB Ultima sensitivity rose to 79.1%. Both tests were more sensitive with swabs from participants with higher sputum Xpert Ultra semi-quantitative results. Although additional development could improve diagnostic accuracy, these results further support tongue swabs as easy-to-collect samples for TB testing. IMPORTANCE: Tongue dorsum swabbing is a promising alternative to sputum collection for tuberculosis (TB) testing. Our results lend further support for tongue swabs as exceptionally easy-to-collect samples for high-throughput TB testing.

Target product profiles: tests for tuberculosis treatment monitoring and optimization.

The World Health Organization has developed target product profiles containing minimum and optimum targets for key characteristics for tests for tuberculosis treatment monitoring and optimization. Tuberculosis treatment optimization refers to initiating or switching to an effective tuberculosis treatment regimen that results in a high likelihood of a good treatment outcome. The target product profiles also cover tests of cure conducted at the end of treatment. The development of the target product profiles was informed by a stakeholder survey, a cost-effectiveness analysis and a patient-care pathway analysis. Additional feedback from stakeholders was obtained by means of a Delphi-like process, a technical consultation and a call for public comment on a draft document. A scientific development group agreed on the final targets in a consensus meeting. For characteristics rated of highest importance, the document lists: (i) high diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity); (ii) time to result of optimally ≤ 2 hours and no more than 1 day; (iii) required sample type to be minimally invasive, easily obtainable, such as urine, breath, or capillary blood, or a respiratory sample that goes beyond sputum; (iv) ideally the test could be placed at a peripheral-level health facility without a laboratory; and (v) the test should be affordable to low- and middle-income countries, and allow wide and equitable access and scale-up. Use of these target product profiles should facilitate the development of new tuberculosis treatment monitoring and optimization tests that are accurate and accessible for all people being treated for tuberculosis.

L'Organisation mondiale de la santé a élaboré des profils de produits cibles contenant des cibles minimales et optimales pour les caractéristiques principales des essais destinés au suivi et à l'optimisation du traitement de la tuberculose. L'optimisation du traitement de la tuberculose fait référence à l'instauration d'un régime de traitement efficace de la tuberculose ou à l'adoption d'un tel régime, avec une probabilité élevée d'obtenir de bons résultats thérapeutiques. Les profils de produits cibles couvrent également les essais de guérison effectués à l'issue du traitement. Les profils de produits cibles ont été élaborés sur la base d'un sondage auprès des parties prenantes, d'une analyse coût-efficacité et d'une analyse du parcours de soins du patient. Des retours supplémentaires des parties prenantes ont été obtenus au moyen d'un processus créé selon la méthode Delphi, d'une consultation technique et d'un appel à commentaires publics sur un projet de document. Un groupe d'élaboration scientifique s'est mis d'accord sur les objectifs finaux lors d'une réunion de concertation. En ce qui concerne les caractéristiques jugées les plus importantes, le document énumère ce qui suit: (i) une grande précision diagnostique (sensibilité et spécificité); (ii) un délai idéal d'obtention des résultats ≤ 2 heures et au maximum de 1 jour; (iii) le type d'échantillon requis doit être peu invasif et facile à obtenir, comme l'urine, l'haleine ou le sang capillaire, ou bien un échantillon respiratoire au-delà des expectorations; (iv) idéalement, l'essai pourrait avoir lieu dans un établissement de santé périphérique sans laboratoire ; et (v) l'essai devrait être abordable pour les pays à revenu faible et intermédiaire et permettre un accès large et équitable ainsi qu'une mise à l'échelle. L'utilisation de ces profils de produits cibles devrait faciliter la mise au point de nouveaux essais de surveillance et d'optimisation du traitement de la tuberculose qui soient précis et accessibles à toutes les personnes suivant un traitement pour la tuberculose.

La Organización Mundial de la Salud ha elaborado perfiles de productos objetivo que contienen objetivos mínimos y óptimos para las características principales de las pruebas de seguimiento y optimización del tratamiento de la tuberculosis. La optimización del tratamiento de la tuberculosis consiste en iniciar o cambiar a un régimen eficaz de tratamiento de la tuberculosis que ofrezca una alta probabilidad de un buen resultado terapéutico. Los perfiles de productos objetivo también abarcan las pruebas de curación realizadas al final del tratamiento. La elaboración de los perfiles de los productos objetivo se basó en una encuesta a las partes interesadas, un análisis de rentabilidad y un análisis de la vía de atención al paciente. Se obtuvo información adicional de las partes interesadas mediante un proceso tipo Delphi, una consulta técnica y una convocatoria de comentarios públicos sobre un borrador del documento. Un grupo de desarrollo científico acordó los objetivos finales en una reunión de consenso. Para las características clasificadas de mayor importancia, el documento enumera: (i) alta precisión diagnóstica (sensibilidad y especificidad); (ii) tiempo hasta el resultado de óptimamente ≤ 2 horas y no más de 1 día; (iii) el tipo de muestra requerida debe ser mínimamente invasiva, fácil de obtener, como orina, aliento o sangre capilar, o una muestra respiratoria que vaya más allá del esputo; (iv) idealmente la prueba podría realizarse en un centro sanitario periférico sin laboratorio; y (v) la prueba debe ser asequible para los países de ingresos bajos y medios y permitir un acceso amplio y equitativo y su expansión. El uso de estos perfiles de producto objetivo debería facilitar el desarrollo de pruebas nuevas de seguimiento y optimización del tratamiento de la tuberculosis que sean precisas y accesibles para todas las personas que reciben tratamiento antituberculoso.

Biomarkers That Correlate with Active Pulmonary Tuberculosis Treatment Response: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Current WHO recommendations for monitoring treatment response in adult pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) are sputum smear microscopy and/or culture conversion at the end of the intensive phase of treatment. These methods either have suboptimal accuracy or a long turnaround time. There is a need to identify alternative biomarkers to monitor TB treatment response. We conducted a systematic review of active pulmonary TB treatment monitoring biomarkers. We screened 9,739 articles published between 1 January 2008 and 31 December 2020, of which 77 met the inclusion criteria. When studies quantitatively reported biomarker levels, we meta-analyzed the average fold change in biomarkers from pretreatment to week 8 of treatment. We also performed a meta-analysis pooling the fold change since the previous time point collected. A total of 81 biomarkers were identified from 77 studies. Overall, these studies exhibited extensive heterogeneity with regard to TB treatment monitoring study design and data reporting. Among the biomarkers identified, C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), interferon gamma-induced protein 10 (IP-10), and tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) had sufficient data to analyze fold changes. All four biomarker levels decreased during the first 8 weeks of treatment relative to baseline and relative to previous time points collected. Based on limited data available, CRP, IL-6, IP-10, and TNF-α have been identified as biomarkers that should be further explored in the context of TB treatment monitoring. The extensive heterogeneity in TB treatment monitoring study design and reporting is a major barrier to evaluating the performance of novel biomarkers and tools for this use case. Guidance for designing and reporting treatment monitoring studies is urgently needed.

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.

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.

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra assays for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis is a leading cause of infectious disease-related death and is one of the top 10 causes of death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of specific rapid molecular tests, including Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra, as initial diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in people with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. However, the WHO estimates that nearly one-third of all active tuberculosis cases go undiagnosed and unreported. We were interested in whether a single test, Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra, could be useful as a screening test to close this diagnostic gap and improve tuberculosis case detection. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in high-risk groups and in the general population. Screening "irrespective of signs or symptoms" refers to screening of people who have not been assessed for the presence of tuberculosis symptoms (e.g. cough). To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for detecting rifampicin resistance in adults screened for tuberculosis, irrespective of signs and symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in high-risk groups and in the general population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched 12 databases including the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and Embase, on 19 March 2020 without language restrictions. We also reviewed reference lists of included articles and related Cochrane Reviews, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional and cohort studies in which adults (15 years and older) in high-risk groups (e.g. people living with HIV, household contacts of people with tuberculosis) or in the general population were screened for pulmonary tuberculosis using Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra. For tuberculosis detection, the reference standard was culture. For rifampicin resistance detection, 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 and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. We used a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) separately for tuberculosis detection and rifampicin resistance detection. We estimated all models using a Bayesian approach. For tuberculosis detection, we first estimated screening accuracy in distinct high-risk groups, including people living with HIV, household contacts, people residing in prisons, and miners, and then in several high-risk groups combined. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of 21 studies: 18 studies (13,114 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test for pulmonary tuberculosis and one study (571 participants) evaluated both Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra. Three studies (159 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance. Fifteen studies (75%) were conducted in high tuberculosis burden and 16 (80%) in high TB/HIV-burden countries. We judged most studies to have low risk of bias in all four QUADAS-2 domains and low concern for applicability. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra as screening tests for pulmonary tuberculosis In people living with HIV (12 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) were 61.8% (53.6 to 69.9) (602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 98.8% (98.0 to 99.4) (4173 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 50 have tuberculosis on culture, 40 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive; of these, 9 (22%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 960 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative; of these, 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). In people living with HIV (1 study), Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 69% (57 to 80) (68 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 98% (97 to 99) (503 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 50 have tuberculosis on culture, 53 would be Xpert Ultra-positive; of these, 19 (36%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 947 would be Xpert Ultra-negative; of these, 16 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). In non-hospitalized people in high-risk groups (5 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 69.4% (47.7 to 86.2) (337 participants, low-certainty evidence) and 98.8% (97.2 to 99.5) (8619 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 10 have tuberculosis on culture, 19 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive; of these, 12 (63%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 981 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative; of these, 3 (0%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). We did not identify any studies using Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra for screening in the general population. Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test for rifampicin resistance Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was 81% and 100% (2 studies, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity was 94% to 100%, (3 studies, 139 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Of the high-risks groups evaluated, Xpert MTB/RIF applied as a screening test was accurate for tuberculosis in high tuberculosis burden settings. Sensitivity and specificity were similar in people living with HIV and non-hospitalized people in high-risk groups. In people living with HIV, Xpert Ultra sensitivity was slightly higher than that of Xpert MTB/RIF and specificity similar. As there was only one study of Xpert Ultra in this analysis, results should be interpreted with caution. There were no studies that evaluated the tests in people with diabetes mellitus and other groups considered at high-risk for tuberculosis, or in the general population.

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.

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.

Lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan assay for detecting active tuberculosis in people living with HIV.

BACKGROUND: The lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) assay Alere Determine™ TB LAM Ag is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) to help detect active tuberculosis in HIV-positive people with severe HIV disease. This review update asks the question, "does new evidence justify the use of LF-LAM in a broader group of people?", and is part of the WHO process for updating guidance on the use of LF-LAM. OBJECTIVES: To assess the accuracy of LF-LAM for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis among HIV-positive adults with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis (symptomatic participants) and among HIV-positive adults irrespective of signs and symptoms of tuberculosis (unselected participants not assessed for tuberculosis signs and symptoms).The proposed role for LF-LAM is as an add on to clinical judgement and with other tests to assist in diagnosing tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register; MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, without language restriction to 11 May 2018. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials, cross-sectional, and observational cohort studies that evaluated LF-LAM for active tuberculosis (pulmonary and extrapulmonary) in HIV-positive adults. We included studies that used the manufacturer's recommended threshold for test positivity, either the updated reference card with four bands (grade 1 of 4) or the corresponding prior reference card grade with five bands (grade 2 of 5). The reference standard was culture or nucleic acid amplification test from any body site (microbiological). We considered a higher quality reference standard to be one in which two or more specimen types were evaluated for tuberculosis diagnosis and a lower quality reference standard to be one in which only one specimen type was evaluated. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form and REDCap electronic data capture tools. We appraised the quality of studies using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool and performed meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity using a bivariate random-effects model and a Bayesian approach. We analyzed studies enrolling strictly symptomatic participants separately from those enrolling unselected participants. We investigated pre-defined sources of heterogeneity including the influence of CD4 count and clinical setting on the accuracy estimates. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 unique studies (nine new studies and six studies from the original review that met the inclusion criteria): eight studies among symptomatic adults and seven studies among unselected adults. All studies were conducted in low- or middle-income countries. Risk of bias was high in the patient selection and reference standard domains, mainly because studies excluded participants unable to produce sputum and used a lower quality reference standard.Participants with tuberculosis symptomsLF-LAM pooled sensitivity (95% credible interval (CrI) ) was 42% (31% to 55%) (moderate-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 91% (85% to 95%) (very low-certainty evidence), (8 studies, 3449 participants, 37% with tuberculosis).For a population of 1000 people where 300 have microbiologically-confirmed tuberculosis, the utilization of LF-LAM would result in: 189 to be LF-LAM positive: of these, 63 (33%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 811 to be LF-LAM negative: of these, 174 (21%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives).By clinical setting, pooled sensitivity was 52% (40% to 64%) among inpatients versus 29% (17% to 47%) among outpatients; and pooled specificity was 87% (78% to 93%) among inpatients versus 96% (91% to 99%) among outpatients. Stratified by CD4 cell count, pooled sensitivity increased, and specificity decreased with lower CD4 cell count.Unselected participants not assessed for signs and symptoms of tuberculosisLF-LAM pooled sensitivity was 35% (22% to 50%), (moderate-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 95% (89% to 96%), (low-certainty evidence), (7 studies, 3365 participants, 13% with tuberculosis).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have microbiologically-confirmed tuberculosis, the utilization of LF-LAM would result in: 80 to be LF-LAM positive: of these, 45 (56%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 920 to be LF-LAM negative: of these, 65 (7%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives).By clinical setting, pooled sensitivity was 62% (41% to 83%) among inpatients versus 31% (18% to 47%) among outpatients; pooled specificity was 84% (48% to 96%) among inpatients versus 95% (87% to 99%) among outpatients. Stratified by CD4 cell count, pooled sensitivity increased, and specificity decreased with lower CD4 cell count. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that LF-LAM has a sensitivity of 42% to diagnose tuberculosis in HIV-positive individuals with tuberculosis symptoms and 35% in HIV-positive individuals not assessed for tuberculosis symptoms, consistent with findings reported previously. Regardless of how people are enrolled, sensitivity is higher in inpatients and those with lower CD4 cell, but a concomitant lower specificity. As a simple point-of-care test that does not depend upon sputum evaluation, LF-LAM may assist with the diagnosis of tuberculosis, particularly when a sputum specimen cannot be produced.

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

BACKGROUND: Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert MTB/RIF) and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra), the newest version, are the only World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid tests that simultaneously detect tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in persons with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis, at lower health system levels. A previous Cochrane Review found Xpert MTB/RIF sensitive and specific for tuberculosis (Steingart 2014). Since the previous review, new studies have been published. We performed a review update for an upcoming WHO policy review. OBJECTIVES: To determine diagnostic accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for tuberculosis in adults with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and for rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, to 11 October 2018, without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized trials, cross-sectional, and cohort studies using respiratory specimens that evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra, or both against the reference standard, culture for tuberculosis and culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus for rifampicin resistance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Four review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form. When possible, we also extracted data by smear and HIV status. We assessed study quality using QUADAS-2 and performed meta-analyses to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity separately for tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance. We investigated potential sources of heterogeneity. Most analyses used a bivariate random-effects model. For tuberculosis detection, we first estimated accuracy using all included studies and then only the subset of studies where participants were unselected, i.e. not selected based on prior microscopy testing. MAIN RESULTS: We identified in total 95 studies (77 new studies since the previous review): 86 studies (42,091 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for tuberculosis and 57 studies (8287 participants) for rifampicin resistance. One study compared Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra on the same participant specimen.Tuberculosis detectionOf the total 86 studies, 45 took place in high tuberculosis burden and 50 in high TB/HIV burden countries. Most studies had low risk of bias.Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible Interval (CrI)) were 85% (82% to 88%) and 98% (97% to 98%), (70 studies, 37,237 unselected participants; high-certainty evidence). We found similar accuracy when we included all studies.For a population of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculosis on culture, 103 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 18 (17%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); 897 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 15 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives).Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% confidence interval (CI)) was 88% (85% to 91%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 83% (79% to 86%); Xpert Ultra specificity was 96% (94% to 97%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 98% (97% to 99%), (1 study, 1439 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 98% (97% to 98%) in smear-positive and 67% (62% to 72%) in smear-negative, culture-positive participants, (45 studies). Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity was 88% (83% to 92%) in HIV-negative and 81% (75% to 86%) in HIV-positive participants; specificities were similar 98% (97% to 99%), (14 studies).Rifampicin resistance detectionXpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% Crl) were 96% (94% to 97%) and 98% (98% to 99%), (48 studies, 8020 participants; high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis, 114 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and 18 (16%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); 886 would be would be negative for rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis and four (0.4%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).Xpert Ultra sensitivity (95% CI) was 95% (90% to 98%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 95% (91% to 98%); Xpert Ultra specificity was 98% (97% to 99%) versus Xpert MTB/RIF 98% (96% to 99%), (1 study, 551 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found Xpert MTB/RIF to be sensitive and specific for diagnosing PTB and rifampicin resistance, consistent with findings reported previously. Xpert MTB/RIF was more sensitive for tuberculosis in smear-positive than smear-negative participants and HIV-negative than HIV-positive participants. Compared with Xpert MTB/RIF, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity for tuberculosis and similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance (1 study). Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra provide accurate results and can allow rapid initiation of treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.

Xpert® MTB/RIF assay for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis (TB) is the world's leading infectious cause of death. Extrapulmonary TB accounts for 15% of TB cases, but the proportion is increasing, and over half a million people were newly diagnosed with rifampicin-resistant TB in 2016. Xpert® MTB/RIF (Xpert) is a World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended, rapid, automated, nucleic acid amplification assay that is used widely for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum specimens. This Cochrane Review assessed the accuracy of Xpert in extrapulmonary specimens. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of Xpert a) for extrapulmonary TB by site of disease in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB; and b) for rifampicin resistance in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number (ISRCTN) Registry, and ProQuest up to 7 August 2017 without language restriction. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included diagnostic accuracy studies of Xpert in people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB. We included TB meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, and disseminated TB. We used culture as the reference standard. For pleural TB, we also included a composite reference standard, which defined a positive result as the presence of granulomatous inflammation or a positive culture result. For rifampicin resistance, we used culture-based drug susceptibility testing or MTBDRplus as the reference standard. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data, assessed risk of bias and applicability using the QUADAS-2 tool. We determined pooled predicted sensitivity and specificity for TB, grouped by type of extrapulmonary specimen, and for rifampicin resistance. For TB detection, we used a bivariate random-effects model. Recognizing that use of culture may lead to misclassification of cases of extrapulmonary TB as 'not TB' owing to the paucibacillary nature of the disease, we adjusted accuracy estimates by applying a latent class meta-analysis model. For rifampicin resistance detection, we performed univariate meta-analyses for sensitivity and specificity separately to include studies in which no rifampicin resistance was detected. We used theoretical populations with an assumed prevalence to provide illustrative numbers of patients with false positive and false negative results. MAIN RESULTS: We included 66 unique studies that evaluated 16,213 specimens for detection of extrapulmonary TB and rifampicin resistance. We identified only one study that evaluated the newest test version, Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), for TB meningitis. Fifty studies (76%) took place in low- or middle-income countries. Risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains and was high or unclear for the reference standard domain (most of these studies decontaminated sterile specimens before culture inoculation). Regarding applicability, in the patient selection domain, we scored high or unclear concern for most studies because either patients were evaluated exclusively as inpatients at tertiary care centres, or we were not sure about the clinical settings.Pooled Xpert sensitivity (defined by culture) varied across different types of specimens (31% in pleural tissue to 97% in bone or joint fluid); Xpert sensitivity was > 80% in urine and bone or joint fluid and tissue. Pooled Xpert specificity (defined by culture) varied less than sensitivity (82% in bone or joint tissue to 99% in pleural fluid and urine). Xpert specificity was ≥ 98% in cerebrospinal fluid, pleural fluid, urine, and peritoneal fluid.Xpert testing in cerebrospinal fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% credible interval (CrI)) against culture were 71.1% (60.9% to 80.4%) and 98.0% (97.0% to 98.8%), respectively (29 studies, 3774 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 100 have TB meningitis on culture, 89 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 18 (20%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 911 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have TB (false-negatives).For TB meningitis, ultra sensitivity and specificity against culture (95% confidence interval (CI)) were 90% (55% to 100%) and 90% (83% to 95%), respectively (one study, 129 participants).Xpert testing in pleural fluidXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 50.9% (39.7% to 62.8%) and 99.2% (98.2% to 99.7%), respectively (27 studies, 4006 specimens; low-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 150 have pleural TB on culture, 83 would be Xpert-positive: of these, seven (8%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 917 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 74 (8%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing in urineXpert pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 82.7% (69.6% to 91.1%) and 98.7% (94.8% to 99.7%), respectively (13 studies, 1199 specimens; moderate-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 70 have genitourinary TB on culture, 70 would be Xpert-positive: of these, 12 (17%) would not have TB (false-positives); and 930 would be Xpert-negative: of these, 12 (1%) would have TB (false-negatives).Xpert testing for rifampicin resistanceXpert pooled sensitivity (20 studies, 148 specimens) and specificity (39 studies, 1088 specimens) were 95.0% (89.7% to 97.9%) and 98.7% (97.8% to 99.4%), respectively (high-certainty evidence).For a population of 1000 people where 120 have rifampicin-resistant TB, 125 would be positive for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 11 (9%) would not have rifampicin resistance (false-positives); and 875 would be negative for rifampicin-resistant TB: of these, 6 (1%) would have rifampicin resistance (false-negatives).For lymph node TB, the accuracy of culture, the reference standard used, presented a greater concern for bias than in other forms of extrapulmonary TB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In people presumed to have extrapulmonary TB, Xpert may be helpful in confirming the diagnosis. Xpert sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens, while for most specimens, specificity is high, the test rarely yielding a positive result for people without TB (defined by culture). Xpert is accurate for detection of rifampicin resistance. For people with presumed TB meningitis, treatment should be based on clinical judgement, and not withheld solely on an Xpert result, as is common practice when culture results are negative.

Oral swabs with a rapid molecular diagnostic test for pulmonary tuberculosis in adults and children: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis is a leading cause of infectious disease mortality worldwide, but diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis remains challenging. Oral swabs are a promising non-sputum alternative sample type for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis. We aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of oral swabs to detect pulmonary tuberculosis in adults and children and suggest research implications. METHODS: In this systematic review, we searched published and preprint studies from Jan 1, 2000, to July 5, 2022, from eight databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Science Citation Index, medRxiv, bioRxiv, Global Index Medicus, and Google Scholar). We included diagnostic accuracy studies including cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies in adults and children from which we could extract or derive sensitivity and specificity of oral swabs as a sample type for the diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis against a sputum microbiological (nucleic acid amplification test [NAAT] on sputum or culture) or composite reference standard. FINDINGS: Of 550 reports identified by the search, we included 16 eligible reports (including 20 studies and 3083 participants) that reported diagnostic accuracy estimates on oral swabs for pulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity on oral swabs ranged from 36% (95% CI 26-48) to 91% (80-98) in adults and 5% (1-14) to 42% (23-63) in children. Across all studies, specificity ranged from 66% (95% CI 52-78) to 100% (97-100), with most studies reporting specificity of more than 90%. Meta-analysis was not performed because of sampling and testing heterogeneity. INTERPRETATION: Sensitivity varies in both adults and children when diverse methods are used. Variability in sampling location, swab type, and type of NAAT used in accuracy studies limits comparison. Although data are suggestive that high accuracy is achievable using oral swabs with molecular testing, more research is needed to define optimal methods for using oral swabs as a specimen for tuberculosis detection. The current data suggest that tongue swabs and swab types that collect increased biomass might have increased sensitivity. We would recommend that future studies use these established methods to continue to refine sample processing to maximise sensitivity. FUNDING: Bill and Melinda Gates foundation (INV-045721) and FIND (Netherlands Enterprise Agency on behalf of the Minister for Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation [NL-GRNT05] and KfW Development Bank, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research [KFW-TBBU01/02]).

Trade-offs between clinical performance and test accessibility in tuberculosis diagnosis: a multi-country modelling approach for target product profile development.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis continues to be a leading cause of infectious disease mortality, and effective screening and diagnosis remains crucial. Despite progress made, diagnostic gaps remain due to poor access to diagnostic tools and testing, particularly in rural and remote areas. As such, the development of target product profiles is essential in guiding the development of new diagnostic tools, however target product profiles often lack evidence-based information and do not consider trade-offs between test accuracy and accessibility. METHODS: A simulation-based model, in the form of a decision tree, was used to map out the baseline patient tuberculosis diagnostic pathway for individuals in Kenya, South Africa, and India. The model was then used to adapt this pathway to evaluate the trade-offs between increased access to testing and varying accuracy of new tuberculosis diagnostic tools within the health-care contexts of Kenya, South Africa, and India. The model aims to support target product profile development by quantifying the impact of new diagnostics on the standard of care. The model considered three diagnostic attributes, namely sample type (sputum vs non-sputum), site of testing (point of care, near point of care, and health setting) and turnaround time. FINDINGS: Our results indicate that per sample type, novel point-of-care tests would be the most accessible and even with lower sensitivities can achieve comparable or better case detection than the current standard of care in each country. Non-sputum diagnostics also have lower sensitivity requirements. Overall, target product profile parameters with reduced sensitivities from 70% for non-sputum and 78% for sputum tests could be accepted. INTERPRETATION: Diagnostics which bring tuberculosis tests and test results closer to the patient could reduce overall diagnostic loss despite potential reductions in sensitivity. This work provides a novel framework for guiding the future development of diagnostics, with an approach towards balancing accessibility and test performance. FUNDING: The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (INV-045721).

Classification of early tuberculosis states to guide research for improved care and prevention: an international Delphi consensus exercise.

The current active-latent paradigm of tuberculosis largely neglects the documented spectrum of disease. Inconsistency with regard to definitions, terminology, and diagnostic criteria for different tuberculosis states has limited the progress in research and product development that are needed to achieve tuberculosis elimination. We aimed to develop a new framework of classification for tuberculosis that accommodates key disease states but is sufficiently simple to support pragmatic research and implementation. Through an international Delphi exercise that involved 71 participants representing a wide range of disciplines, sectors, income settings, and geographies, consensus was reached on a set of conceptual states, related terminology, and research gaps. The International Consensus for Early TB (ICE-TB) framework distinguishes disease from infection by the presence of macroscopic pathology and defines two subclinical and two clinical tuberculosis states on the basis of reported symptoms or signs of tuberculosis, further differentiated by likely infectiousness. The presence of viable Mycobacterium tuberculosis and an associated host response are prerequisites for all states of infection and disease. Our framework provides a clear direction for tuberculosis research, which will, in time, improve tuberculosis clinical care and elimination policies.

Developing biomarker assays to accelerate tuberculosis drug development: defining target product profiles.

Drug development for tuberculosis is hindered by the methodological limitations in the definitions of patient outcomes, particularly the slow organism growth and difficulty in obtaining suitable and representative samples throughout the treatment. We developed target product profiles for biomarker assays suitable for early-phase and late-phase clinical drug trials by consulting subject-matter experts on the desirable performance and operational characteristics of such assays for monitoring of tuberculosis treatment in drug trials. Minimal and optimal criteria were defined for scope, intended use, pricing, performance, and operational characteristics of the biomarkers. Early-stage trial assays should accurately quantify the number of viable bacilli, whereas late-stage trial assays should match the number, predict relapse-free cure, and replace culture conversion endpoints. The operational criteria reflect the infrastructure and resources available for drug trials. The effective tools should define the sterilising activity of the drug and lower the probability of treatment failure or relapse in people with tuberculosis. The target product profiles outlined in this Review should guide and de-risk the development of biomarker-based assays suitable for phase 2 and 3 clinical drug trials.

Factors associated with tuberculosis treatment initiation among bacteriologically negative individuals evaluated for tuberculosis: an individual patient data meta-analysis.

Background: Globally, over one-third of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) disease diagnoses are made based on clinical criteria after a negative diagnostic test result. Understanding factors associated with clinicians' decisions to initiate treatment for individuals with negative test results is critical for predicting the potential impact of new diagnostics. Methods: We performed a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis using studies conducted between January/2010 and December/2022 (PROSPERO: CRD42022287613). We included trials or cohort studies that enrolled individuals evaluated for TB in routine settings. In these studies participants were evaluated based on clinical examination and routinely-used diagnostics, and were followed for ≥1 week after the initial test result. We used hierarchical Bayesian logistic regression to identify factors associated with treatment initiation following a negative result on an initial bacteriological test (e.g., sputum smear microscopy, Xpert MTB/RIF). Findings: Multiple factors were positively associated with treatment initiation: male sex [adjusted Odds Ratio (aOR) 1.61 (1.31-1.95)], history of prior TB [aOR 1.36 (1.06-1.73)], reported cough [aOR 4.62 (3.42-6.27)], reported night sweats [aOR 1.50 (1.21-1.90)], and having HIV infection but not on ART [aOR 1.68 (1.23-2.32)]. Treatment initiation was substantially less likely for individuals testing negative with Xpert [aOR 0.77 (0.62-0.96)] compared to smear microscopy and declined in more recent years. Interpretation: Multiple factors influenced decisions to initiate TB treatment despite negative test results. Clinicians were substantially less likely to treat in the absence of a positive test result when using more sensitive, PCR-based diagnostics.

Diagnostic yield as an important metric for the evaluation of novel tuberculosis tests: rationale and guidance for future research.

Better access to tuberculosis testing is a key priority for fighting tuberculosis, the leading cause of infectious disease deaths in people. Despite the roll-out of molecular WHO-recommended rapid diagnostics to replace sputum smear microscopy over the past decade, a large diagnostic gap remains. Of the estimated 10·6 million people who developed tuberculosis globally in 2022, more than 3·1 million were not diagnosed. An exclusive focus on improving tuberculosis test accuracy alone will not be sufficient to close the diagnostic gap for tuberculosis. Diagnostic yield, which we define as the proportion of people in whom a diagnostic test identifies tuberculosis among all people we attempt to test for tuberculosis, is an important metric not adequately explored. Diagnostic yield is particularly relevant for subpopulations unable to produce sputum such as young children, people living with HIV, and people with subclinical tuberculosis. As more accessible non-sputum specimens (eg, urine, oral swabs, saliva, capillary blood, and breath) are being explored for point-of-care tuberculosis testing, the concept of yield will be of growing importance. Using the example of urine lipoarabinomannan testing, we illustrate how even tests with limited sensitivity can diagnose more people with tuberculosis if they enable increased diagnostic yield. Using tongue swab-based molecular tuberculosis testing as another example, we provide definitions and guidance for the design and conduct of pragmatic studies that assess diagnostic yield. Lastly, we show how diagnostic yield and other important test characteristics, such as cost and implementation feasibility, are essential for increased effective population coverage, which is required for optimal clinical care and transmission impact. We are calling for diagnostic yield to be incorporated into tuberculosis test evaluation processes, including the WHO Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations process, providing a crucial real-life implementation metric that complements traditional accuracy measures.

The diagnostic yield of nasopharyngeal aspirate for pediatric pulmonary tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) is a leading cause of death in children, but many cases are never diagnosed. Microbiological diagnosis of pulmonary TB is challenging in young children who cannot spontaneously expectorate sputum. Nasopharyngeal aspirates (NPA) may be more easily collected than gastric aspirate and induced sputum and can be obtained on demand, unlike stool. However, further information on its diagnostic yield is needed. Methods: We systematically reviewed and meta-analyzed the diagnostic yield of one NPA for testing by either culture or nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis from children. We searched three bibliographic databases and two trial registers up to 24th November 2022. Studies that reported the proportion of children diagnosed by NPA compared to a microbiological reference standard (MRS) were eligible. Culture and/or WHO-endorsed NAAT on at least one respiratory specimen served as the MRS. We also estimated the incremental yield of two NPA samples compared to one and summarized operational aspects of NPA collection and processing. Univariate random-effect meta-analyses were performed to calculate pooled diagnostic yield estimates. Results: From 1483 citations, 54 were selected for full-text review, and nine were included. Based on six studies including 256 children with microbiologically confirmed TB, the diagnostic yield of NAAT on one NPA ranged from 31 to 60% (summary estimate 44%, 95% CI 36-51%). From seven studies including 242 children with confirmed TB, the diagnostic yield of culture was 17-88% (summary estimate 58%, 95% CI 42-73%). Testing a second NPA increased the yield by 8-19% for NAAT and 4-35% for culture. NPA collection procedures varied between studies, although most children had NPA successfully obtained (96-100%), with a low rate of indeterminate results (< 5%). Data on NPA acceptability and specifically for children under 5 years were limited. Conclusions: NPA is a suitable and feasible specimen for diagnosing pediatric TB. The high rates of successful collection across different levels of healthcare improve access to microbiological testing, supporting its inclusion in diagnostic algorithms for TB, especially if sampling is repeated. Future research into the acceptability of NPA and how to standardize collection to optimize diagnostic yield is needed.