Community views on active case finding for tuberculosis in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Active case finding (ACF) refers to the systematic identification of people with tuberculosis in communities and amongst populations who do not present to health facilities, through approaches such as door-to-door screening or contact tracing. ACF may improve access to tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment for the poor and for people remote from diagnostic and treatment facilities. As a result, ACF may also reduce onward transmission. However, there is a need to understand how these programmes are experienced by communities in order to design appropriate services. OBJECTIVES: To synthesize community views on tuberculosis active case finding (ACF) programmes in low- and middle-income countries. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other databases up to 22 June 2023, together with reference checking, citation searching, and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. We did not include grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: This review synthesized qualitative research and mixed-methods studies with separate qualitative data. Eligible studies explored community experiences, perceptions, or attitudes towards ACF programmes for tuberculosis in any endemic low- or middle-income country, with no time restrictions. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Due to the large volume of studies identified, we chose to sample studies that had 'thick' description and that investigated key subgroups of children and refugees. We followed standard Cochrane methods for study description and appraisal of methodological limitations. We conducted thematic synthesis and developed codes inductively using ATLAS.ti software. We examined codes for underlying ideas, connections, and interpretations and, from this, generated analytical themes. We assessed the confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach, and produced a conceptual model to display how the different findings interact. MAIN RESULTS: We included 45 studies in this synthesis, and sampled 20. The studies covered a broad range of World Health Organization (WHO) regions (Africa, South-East Asia, Eastern Mediterranean, and the Americas) and explored the views and experiences of community members, community health workers, and clinical staff in low- and middle-income countries endemic for tuberculosis. The following five themes emerged. • ACF improves access to diagnosis for many, but does little to help communities on the edge. Tuberculosis ACF and contact tracing improve access to health services for people with worse health and fewer resources (High confidence). ACF helps to find this population, exposed to deprived living conditions, but is not sensitive to additional dimensions of their plight (High confidence) and out-of-pocket costs necessary to continue care (High confidence). Finally, migration and difficult geography further reduce communities' access to ACF (High confidence). • People are afraid of diagnosis and its impact. Some community members find screening frightening. It exposes them to discrimination along distinct pathways (isolation from their families and wider community, lost employment and housing). HIV stigma compounds tuberculosis stigma and heightens vulnerability to discrimination along these same pathways (High confidence). Consequently, community members may refuse to participate in screening, contact tracing, and treatment (High confidence). In addition, people with tuberculosis reported their emotional turmoil upon diagnosis, as they anticipated intense treatment regimens and the prospect of living with a serious illness (High confidence). • Screening is undermined by weak health infrastructure. In many settings, a lack of resources results in weak services in competition with other disease control programmes (Moderate confidence). In this context of low investment, people face repeated tests and clinic visits, wasted time, and fraught social interaction with health providers (Moderate confidence). ACF can create expectations for follow-up health care that it cannot deliver (High confidence). Finally, community education improves awareness of tuberculosis in some settings, but lack of full information impacts community members, parents, and health workers, and sometimes leads to harm for children (High confidence). • Health workers are an undervalued but important part of ACF. ACF can feel difficult for health workers in the context of a poorly resourced health system and with people who may not wish to be identified. In addition, the evidence suggests health workers are poorly protected against tuberculosis and fear they or their families might become infected (Moderate confidence). However, they appear to be central to programme success, as the humanity they offer often acts as a driving force for retaining people with tuberculosis in care (Moderate confidence). • Local leadership is necessary but not sufficient for ensuring appropriate programmes. Local leadership creates an intrinsic motivation for communities to value health services (High confidence). However, local leadership cannot guarantee the success of ACF and contact tracing programmes. It is important to balance professional authority with local knowledge and rapport (High confidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Tuberculosis active case finding (ACF) and contact tracing bring a diagnostic service to people who may otherwise not receive it, such as those who are well or without symptoms and those who are sick but who have fewer resources and live further from health facilities. However, capturing these 'missing cases' may in itself be insufficient without appropriate health system strengthening to retain people in care. People who receive a tuberculosis diagnosis must contend with a complex and unsustainable cascade of care, and this affects their perception of ACF and their decision to engage with it.

Case-Finding Strategies for Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis: Protocol for a Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Transmission of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB) is ongoing. Finding individuals with DR-TB and initiating treatment as early as possible is important to improve patient clinical outcomes and to break the chain of transmission to control the pandemic. To our knowledge systematic reviews assessing effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of different case-finding strategies for DR-TB to inform research, policy, and practice have not been conducted, and it is unknown whether enough research exists to conduct such reviews. It is unknown whether case-finding strategies are similar for DR-TB and drug-susceptible TB and whether we can draw on findings from drug-susceptible reviews to inform decisions on case-finding strategies for DR-TB. OBJECTIVE: This protocol aims to describe the available literature on case-finding for DR-TB and to describe case-finding strategies. METHODS: We will screen systematic reviews, trials, qualitative studies, diagnostic test accuracy studies, and other primary research that specifically sought to improve DR-TB case detection. We will exclude studies that invited individuals seeking care for TB symptoms, those including individuals already diagnosed with TB, or laboratory-based studies. We will search the academic databases including MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Library, Africa-Wide Information, CINAHL, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO with no language or date restrictions. We will screen titles, abstracts, and full-text articles in duplicate. Data extraction and analyses will be performed using Excel (Microsoft Corp). RESULTS: We will provide a narrative report with supporting figures or tables to summarize the data. A systems-based logic model, developed from a synthesis of case-finding strategies for drug-susceptible TB, will be used as a framework to describe different strategies, resulting pathways, and enhancements of pathways. The search will be conducted at the end of 2021. Title and abstract screening, full text screening, and data extraction will be undertaken from January to June 2022. Thereafter, analysis will be conducted, and results compiled. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review will chart existing literature on case-finding for DR-TB-this will help determine whether primary studies on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of different case-finding strategies for DR-TB exist and will help formulate potential questions for a systematic review. We will also describe case-finding strategies for DR-TB and how they fit into a model of case-finding pathways for drug-susceptible TB. This review has some limitations. One limitation is the diverse, inconsistent use of intervention terminology within the literature, which may result in missing relevant studies. Poor reporting of intervention strategies may also cause misunderstanding and misclassification of interventions. Lastly, case-finding strategies for DR-TB may not fit into a model developed from strategies for drug-susceptible TB. Nevertheless, such a situation will provide an opportunity to refine the model for future research. The review will guide further research to inform decisions on case-finding policies and practices for DR-TB. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/40009.

Storyboarding HIV Infected Young People's Adherence to Antiretroviral Therapy in Lower- to Upper Middle-Income Countries: A New-Materialist Qualitative Evidence Synthesis.

Young people living with perinatal infections of Human Immunodeficiency Virus (YLPHIV) face a chronic disease, with treatment including adherence to lifelong antiretroviral treatment (ART). The aim of this QES was to explore adherence to ART for YLPHIV as an assemblage within the framework of the biopsychosocial model with a new materialist perspective. We searched up to November 2021 and followed the ENTREQ and Cochrane guidelines for QES. All screening, data extraction, and critical appraisal were done in duplicate. We analysed and interpreted the findings innovatively by creating images of meaning, a storyboard, and storylines. We then reported the findings in a first-person narrative story. We included 47 studies and identified 9 storylines. We found that treatment adherence has less to do with humans' preferences, motivations, needs, and dispositions and more to do with how bodies, viruses, things, ideas, institutions, environments, social processes, and social structures assemble. This QES highlights that adherence to ART for YLPHIV is a multisensorial experience in a multi-agentic world. Future research into rethinking the linear and casual inferences we are accustomed to in evidence-based health care is needed if we are to adopt multidisciplinary approaches to address pressing issues such as adherence to ART.

Rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection.

BACKGROUND: Accurate rapid diagnostic tests for SARS-CoV-2 infection would be a useful tool to help manage the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing strategies that use rapid antigen tests to detect current infection have the potential to increase access to testing, speed detection of infection, and inform clinical and public health management decisions to reduce transmission. This is the second update of this review, which was first published in 2020. OBJECTIVES: To assess the diagnostic accuracy of rapid, point-of-care antigen tests for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We consider accuracy separately in symptomatic and asymptomatic population groups. Sources of heterogeneity investigated included setting and indication for testing, assay format, sample site, viral load, age, timing of test, and study design. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the COVID-19 Open Access Project living evidence database from the University of Bern (which includes daily updates from PubMed and Embase and preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv) on 08 March 2021. We included independent evaluations from national reference laboratories, FIND and the Diagnostics Global Health website. We did not apply language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies of people with either suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection, known SARS-CoV-2 infection or known absence of infection, or those who were being screened for infection. We included test accuracy studies of any design that evaluated commercially produced, rapid antigen tests. We included evaluations of single applications of a test (one test result reported per person) and evaluations of serial testing (repeated antigen testing over time). Reference standards for presence or absence of infection were any laboratory-based molecular test (primarily reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)) or pre-pandemic respiratory sample. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard screening procedures with three people. Two people independently carried out quality assessment (using the QUADAS-2 tool) and extracted study results. Other study characteristics were extracted by one review author and checked by a second. We present sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for each test, and pooled data using the bivariate model. We investigated heterogeneity by including indicator variables in the random-effects logistic regression models. We tabulated results by test manufacturer and compliance with manufacturer instructions for use and according to symptom status. MAIN RESULTS: We included 155 study cohorts (described in 166 study reports, with 24 as preprints). The main results relate to 152 evaluations of single test applications including 100,462 unique samples (16,822 with confirmed SARS-CoV-2). Studies were mainly conducted in Europe (101/152, 66%), and evaluated 49 different commercial antigen assays. Only 23 studies compared two or more brands of test. Risk of bias was high because of participant selection (40, 26%); interpretation of the index test (6, 4%); weaknesses in the reference standard for absence of infection (119, 78%); and participant flow and timing 41 (27%). Characteristics of participants (45, 30%) and index test delivery (47, 31%) differed from the way in which and in whom the test was intended to be used. Nearly all studies (91%) used a single RT-PCR result to define presence or absence of infection. The 152 studies of single test applications reported 228 evaluations of antigen tests. Estimates of sensitivity varied considerably between studies, with consistently high specificities. Average sensitivity was higher in symptomatic (73.0%, 95% CI 69.3% to 76.4%; 109 evaluations; 50,574 samples, 11,662 cases) compared to asymptomatic participants (54.7%, 95% CI 47.7% to 61.6%; 50 evaluations; 40,956 samples, 2641 cases). Average sensitivity was higher in the first week after symptom onset (80.9%, 95% CI 76.9% to 84.4%; 30 evaluations, 2408 cases) than in the second week of symptoms (53.8%, 95% CI 48.0% to 59.6%; 40 evaluations, 1119 cases). For those who were asymptomatic at the time of testing, sensitivity was higher when an epidemiological exposure to SARS-CoV-2 was suspected (64.3%, 95% CI 54.6% to 73.0%; 16 evaluations; 7677 samples, 703 cases) compared to where COVID-19 testing was reported to be widely available to anyone on presentation for testing (49.6%, 95% CI 42.1% to 57.1%; 26 evaluations; 31,904 samples, 1758 cases). Average specificity was similarly high for symptomatic (99.1%) or asymptomatic (99.7%) participants. We observed a steady decline in summary sensitivities as measures of sample viral load decreased. Sensitivity varied between brands. When tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, average sensitivities by brand ranged from 34.3% to 91.3% in symptomatic participants (20 assays with eligible data) and from 28.6% to 77.8% for asymptomatic participants (12 assays). For symptomatic participants, summary sensitivities for seven assays were 80% or more (meeting acceptable criteria set by the World Health Organization (WHO)). The WHO acceptable performance criterion of 97% specificity was met by 17 of 20 assays when tests were used according to manufacturer instructions, 12 of which demonstrated specificities above 99%. For asymptomatic participants the sensitivities of only two assays approached but did not meet WHO acceptable performance standards in one study each; specificities for asymptomatic participants were in a similar range to those observed for symptomatic people. At 5% prevalence using summary data in symptomatic people during the first week after symptom onset, the positive predictive value (PPV) of 89% means that 1 in 10 positive results will be a false positive, and around 1 in 5 cases will be missed. At 0.5% prevalence using summary data for asymptomatic people, where testing was widely available and where epidemiological exposure to COVID-19 was suspected, resulting PPVs would be 38% to 52%, meaning that between 2 in 5 and 1 in 2 positive results will be false positives, and between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3 cases will be missed. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Antigen tests vary in sensitivity. In people with signs and symptoms of COVID-19, sensitivities are highest in the first week of illness when viral loads are higher. Assays that meet appropriate performance standards, such as those set by WHO, could replace laboratory-based RT-PCR when immediate decisions about patient care must be made, or where RT-PCR cannot be delivered in a timely manner. However, they are more suitable for use as triage to RT-PCR testing. The variable sensitivity of antigen tests means that people who test negative may still be infected. Many commercially available rapid antigen tests have not been evaluated in independent validation studies. Evidence for testing in asymptomatic cohorts has increased, however sensitivity is lower and there is a paucity of evidence for testing in different settings. Questions remain about the use of antigen test-based repeat testing strategies. Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of screening programmes at reducing transmission of infection, whether mass screening or targeted approaches including schools, healthcare setting and traveller screening.

Repairing boundaries along pathways to tuberculosis case detection: a qualitative synthesis of intervention designs.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis case-finding interventions often involve several activities to enhance patient pathways, and it is unclear which activity defines the type of case-finding intervention. When conducting studies to identify the most effective case-finding intervention it is important to have a clear understanding of these interventions for meaningful comparisons. This review aimed to construct a systems-based logic model of all pathways to tuberculosis case detection through a synthesis of intervention designs. METHODS: We identified an existing systematic review on the effectiveness of interventions to increase tuberculosis case detection and updated the search from December 2016 to October 2020. We included randomized controlled trials, as these designs encourage detailed description of interventions. Taking each study in turn, intervention descriptions were read in detail. The texts were analysed qualitatively by constantly comparing emerging codes to construct patient journeys, visualized as logical chains. Actions taken as part of interventions were positioned along patient journeys to theorize the sequence of outcomes. Patient journeys formed the basis of the model, which was refined through discussion. RESULTS: Based on intervention descriptions from 17 randomized controlled trials, our model distinguishes two care-seeking pathways and four screening pathways. An open invitation to people with tuberculosis symptoms creates care-seeking pathways. On care-seeking pathways, systematic screening can be conducted at general health services, but not at specific TB care services. People invited to tuberculosis services regardless of symptoms follow tuberculosis screening pathways and may be identified with presumptive tuberculosis even if they do not seek care for tuberculosis symptoms. Tuberculosis screening pathways include screening offered to all people accessing care at general health services, screening at a mobile clinic or health facility with open invitation to a whole population or tuberculosis contacts, screening personally offered to a whole population or tuberculosis contacts at home, work or school, and screening offered to people receiving care for human immunodeficiency virus or other clinical risk-group care. CONCLUSION: This systems-based logic model of tuberculosis case-finding pathways may support standardized terminology, consistency, transparency and improved communication among researchers, policy-makers, health workers and community members when implementing and evaluating interventions to improve tuberculosis case detection.

Screening tests for active pulmonary tuberculosis in children.

BACKGROUND: Globally, children under 15 years represent approximately 12% of new tuberculosis cases, but 16% of the estimated 1.4 million deaths. This higher share of mortality highlights the urgent need to develop strategies to improve case detection in this age group and identify children without tuberculosis disease who should be considered for tuberculosis preventive treatment. One such strategy is systematic screening for tuberculosis in high-risk groups. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of the presence of one or more tuberculosis symptoms, or symptom combinations; chest radiography (CXR); Xpert MTB/RIF; Xpert Ultra; and combinations of these as screening tests for detecting active pulmonary childhood tuberculosis in the following groups. - Tuberculosis contacts, including household contacts, school contacts, and other close contacts of a person with infectious tuberculosis. - Children living with HIV. - Children with pneumonia. - Other risk groups (e.g. children with a history of previous tuberculosis, malnourished children). - Children in the general population in high tuberculosis burden settings. SEARCH METHODS: We searched six databases, including the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and Embase, on 14 February 2020 without language restrictions and contacted researchers in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional and cohort studies where at least 75% of children were aged under 15 years. Studies were eligible if conducted for screening rather than diagnosing tuberculosis. Reference standards were microbiological (MRS) and composite reference standard (CRS), which may incorporate symptoms and CXR. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed study quality using QUADAS-2. We consolidated symptom screens across included studies into groups that used similar combinations of symptoms as follows: one or more of cough, fever, or poor weight gain and one or more of cough, fever, or decreased playfulness. For combination of symptoms, a positive screen was the presence of one or more than one symptom. We used a bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and performed analyses separately by reference standard. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Nineteen studies assessed the following screens: one symptom (15 studies, 10,097 participants); combinations of symptoms (12 studies, 29,889 participants); CXR (10 studies, 7146 participants); and Xpert MTB/RIF (2 studies, 787 participants). Several studies assessed more than one screening test. No studies assessed Xpert Ultra. For 16 studies (84%), risk of bias for the reference standard domain was unclear owing to concern about incorporation bias. Across other quality domains, risk of bias was generally low. Symptom screen (verified by CRS) One or more of cough, fever, or poor weight gain in tuberculosis contacts (4 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 2% to 13%): pooled sensitivity was 89% (95% CI 52% to 98%; 113 participants; low-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 69% (95% CI 51% to 83%; 2582 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 339 would be screen-positive, of whom 294 (87%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis (false positives); 661 would be screen-negative, of whom five (1%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis (false negatives). One or more of cough, fever, or decreased playfulness in children aged under five years, inpatient or outpatient (3 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 3% to 13%): sensitivity ranged from 64% to 76% (106 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and specificity from 37% to 77% (2339 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 251 to 636 would be screen-positive, of whom 219 to 598 (87% to 94%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 364 to 749 would be screen-negative, of whom 12 to 18 (2% to 3%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis. One or more of cough, fever, poor weight gain, or tuberculosis close contact (World Health Organization four-symptom screen) in children living with HIV, outpatient (2 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 3% and 8%): pooled sensitivity was 61% (95% CI 58% to 64%; 1219 screens; moderate-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 94% (95% CI 86% to 98%; 201,916 screens; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 symptom screens where 50 of the screens are on children with pulmonary tuberculosis, 88 would be screen-positive, of which 57 (65%) would be on children who do not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 912 would be screen-negative, of which 19 (2%) would be on children who have pulmonary tuberculosis. CXR (verified by CRS) CXR with any abnormality in tuberculosis contacts (8 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 2% to 25%): pooled sensitivity was 87% (95% CI 75% to 93%; 232 participants; low-certainty evidence) and pooled specificity was 99% (95% CI 68% to 100%; 3281 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children, where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 63 would be screen-positive, of whom 19 (30%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 937 would be screen-negative, of whom 6 (1%) would have pulmonary tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (verified by MRS) Xpert MTB/RIF, inpatient or outpatient (2 studies, tuberculosis prevalence 1% and 4%): sensitivity was 43% and 100% (16 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and specificity was 99% and 100% (771 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 children, where 50 have pulmonary tuberculosis, 31 to 69 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive, of whom 9 to 19 (28% to 29%) would not have pulmonary tuberculosis; 969 to 931 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative, of whom 0 to 28 (0% to 3%) would have tuberculosis. Studies often assessed more symptoms than those included in the index test and symptom definitions varied. These differences complicated data aggregation and may have influenced accuracy estimates. Both symptoms and CXR formed part of the CRS (incorporation bias), which may have led to overestimation of sensitivity and specificity. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found that in children who are tuberculosis contacts or living with HIV, screening tests using symptoms or CXR may be useful, but our review is limited by design issues with the index test and incorporation bias in the reference standard. For Xpert MTB/RIF, we found insufficient evidence regarding screening accuracy. Prospective evaluations of screening tests for tuberculosis in children will help clarify their use. In the meantime, screening strategies need to be pragmatic to address the persistent gaps in prevention and case detection that exist in resource-limited settings.