Performance of a stool-based quantitative PCR assay for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in adolescents and adults: a multinational, prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Despite increasing availability of rapid molecular tests for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in high-burden settings, many people with tuberculosis are undiagnosed. Reliance on sputum as the primary specimen for tuberculosis diagnostics contributes to this diagnostic gap. We evaluated the diagnostic accuracy and additive yield of a novel stool quantitative PCR (qPCR) assay for the diagnosis of tuberculosis in three countries in Africa with high tuberculosis burdens. METHODS: We undertook a prospective diagnostic accuracy study in Eswatini, Mozambique, and Tanzania from Sept 21, 2020, to Feb 2, 2023, to compare the diagnostic accuracy for tuberculosis of a novel stool qPCR test with the current diagnostic standard for Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA detection from sputum and stool, Xpert-MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra). Sputum, stool, and urine samples were provided by a cohort of participants, aged 10 years or older, diagnosed with tuberculosis. Participants with tuberculosis (cases) were enrolled within 72 h of treatment initiation for tuberculosis diagnosed clinically or following laboratory confirmation. Participants without tuberculosis (controls) consisted of household contacts of the cases who did not develop tuberculosis during a 6-month follow-up. The performance was compared with a robust composite microbiological reference standard (CMRS). FINDINGS: The cohort of adolescents and adults (n=408) included 268 participants with confirmed or clinical tuberculosis (cases), 147 (55%) of whom were living with HIV, and 140 participants (controls) without tuberculosis. The sensitivity of the novel stool qPCR was 93·7% (95% CI 87·4-97·4) compared with participants with detectable growth on M tuberculosis culture, and 88·1% (81·3-93·0) compared with sputum Xpert Ultra. The stool qPCR had an equivalent sensitivity as sputum Xpert Ultra (94·8%, 89·1-98·1) compared with culture. Compared with the CMRS, the sensitivity of the stool qPCR was higher than the current standard for tuberculosis diagnostics on stool, Xpert Ultra (80·4%, 73·4-86·2 vs 73·5%, 66·0-80·1; p=0·025 on paired comparison). The qPCR also identified 17-21% additional tuberculosis cases compared to sputum Xpert Ultra or sputum culture. In controls without tuberculosis, the specificity of the stool qPCR was 96·9% (92·2-99·1). INTERPRETATION: In this study, a novel qPCR for the diagnosis of tuberculosis from stool specimens had a higher accuracy in adolescents and adults than the current diagnostic PCR gold standard on stool, Xpert-MTB/RIF Ultra, and equivalent sensitivity to Xpert-MTB/RIF Ultra on sputum. FUNDING: National Institutes of Health (NIH) Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and NIH Fogarty International Center.

Factors Associated With Epinephrine Use in the Treatment of Anaphylaxis in Infants and Toddlers.

BACKGROUND: Undertreatment of anaphylaxis with epinephrine continues to be an unmet need and is a particular challenge among infants and toddlers. OBJECTIVE: To address this gap by identifying barriers and solutions to appropriate and timely administration of epinephrine. METHODS: We conducted a national online survey among primary caregivers of children who experienced a severe food-induced allergic reaction when younger than 36 months. Outcomes of interest included epinephrine use in community and health care settings to treat probable anaphylaxis. RESULTS: Of 264 probable anaphylaxis cases, 39% of infants (aged <12 months) and 61% of toddlers (aged 12-35 months) received epinephrine at any time during the child's most severe allergic reaction (P = .001). A previous diagnosis of a food allergy was reported in 62% of cases where epinephrine was used compared with 26% of cases where epinephrine was not used (P < .001). In children with a previous diagnosis of a food allergy, epinephrine was used in 89% of those who were prescribed an anaphylaxis action plan compared with 50% of those without a plan (P = .001). The adjusted odds ratio for the association between having an anaphylaxis action plan and epinephrine use in cases of probable anaphylaxis was 5.39 (95% confidence interval, 2.18-13.30). CONCLUSIONS: Epinephrine use at any time (including in health care settings) during probable anaphylaxis is more likely in infants and toddlers with a previously diagnosed food allergy than those without diagnosis. The provision of an anaphylaxis action plan is also associated with increased epinephrine use during probable anaphylaxis in this population.

Realizing the Promise of Dolutegravir in Effectively Treating Children and Adolescents Living With HIV in Real-world Settings in 6 Countries in Eastern and Southern Africa.

BACKGROUND: Despite encouraging results from clinical trials and in high-income countries, large-scale data on the effectiveness and safety of dolutegravir (DTG) in children and adolescents living with HIV (CALHIV) are lacking in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Retrospective analysis was performed among CALHIV 0-19 years old and weighing greater than or equal to 20 kg who received DTG from 2017 to 2020 at sites in Botswana, Eswatini, Lesotho, Malawi, Tanzania and Uganda to determine effectiveness, safety and predictors of viral load suppression (VLS) among CALHIV using DTG, including through single drug substitutions (SDS). RESULTS: Among 9419 CALHIV using DTG, 7898 had a documented post-DTG VL, and VLS post-DTG was 93.4% (7378/7898). VLS for antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiations was 92.4% (246/263), and VLS was maintained for the ART-experienced [92.9% (7026/7560) pre- vs. 93.5% (7071/7560) post-DTG; P = 0.14). Among previously unsuppressed, 79.8% (426/534) achieved VLS with DTG. Only 5 patients reported a Grade 3 or 4 adverse event (0.057 per 100 patient-years) requiring DTG discontinuation. History of protease inhibitor-based ART [odds ratio (OR) = 1.53; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-2.03], care in Tanzania (OR = 5.45; 95% CI: 3.41-8.70), and being 15-19 years old (OR = 1.31; 95% CI: 1.03-1.65) were associated with gain of VLS post-DTG. Predictors of VLS on DTG included VLS before DTG (OR = 3.87; 95% CI: 3.03-4.95) and using the once-daily, single tab tenofovir-lamivudine-DTG regimen (OR = 1.78; 95% CI: 1.43-2.22). SDS maintained VLS [95.9% (2032/2120) pre- vs. 95.0% (2014/2120) post-SDS with DTG; P = 0.19], and 83.0% (73/88) of unsuppressed gained VLS using SDS with DTG. CONCLUSIONS: We found DTG to be highly effective and safe within our cohort of CALHIV in LMICs. These findings can empower clinicians to prescribe DTG confidently to eligible CALHIV.

Caregiver-Reported Presentation of Severe Food-Induced Allergic Reactions in Infants and Toddlers.

BACKGROUND: Recognizing anaphylaxis in infants and toddlers can be challenging for health care providers and caregivers, and current diagnostic criteria and anaphylaxis action plans do not specifically address this younger population. OBJECTIVE: To describe symptoms and signs observed by primary caregivers of infants and toddlers during severe food-induced allergic reactions. METHODS: We conducted a national online survey among primary caregivers of children who experienced a severe food-induced allergic reaction when less than 36 months of age. Respondents who were present during the child's most severe reaction were asked to report symptoms and signs observed. The survey asked about infant- and toddler-specific symptoms and signs in lay language for caregivers. Data were compared with patient-reported data from past studies to identify distinct patterns among the younger population. RESULTS: The survey was completed for 374 children (193 infants, 181 toddlers). The most common symptoms and signs reported were skin reactions (90%), facial and extremity swelling (59%), gastrointestinal issues (51%), and coughing/wheezing (45%). Infants (aged <12 months) more frequently experienced skin reactions, skin mottling, and ear pulling/scratching or putting fingers in ears, as compared with toddlers (aged 12-35 months). Toddlers experienced throat itching and coughing/wheezing more frequently than infants. CONCLUSIONS: Anaphylaxis presentation demonstrates similarities and differences in infants and toddlers. Modifying the terminology used in the current criteria allowed for reporting of symptoms and signs of anaphylaxis that are more common in infants and toddlers. Diagnostic criteria, clinical guidelines, and anaphylaxis action plans may be enhanced to address this young, often nonverbal, population.