Accuracy of upper respiratory tract samples to diagnose Mycobacterium tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary tuberculosis due to Mycobacterium tuberculosis can be challenging to diagnose when sputum samples cannot be obtained, which is especially problematic in children and older people. We systematically appraised the performance characteristics and diagnostic accuracy of upper respiratory tract sampling for diagnosing active pulmonary tuberculosis. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Cinahl, Web of Science, Global Health, and Global Health Archive databases for studies published between database inception and Dec 6, 2022 that reported on the accuracy of upper respiratory tract sampling for tuberculosis diagnosis compared with microbiological testing of sputum or gastric aspirate reference standard. We included studies that evaluated the accuracy of upper respiratory tract sampling (laryngeal swabs, nasopharyngeal aspirate, oral swabs, saliva, mouth wash, nasal swabs, plaque samples, and nasopharyngeal swabs) to be tested for microbiological diagnosis of tuberculous (by culture and nucleic acid amplification tests) compared with a reference standard using either sputum or gastric lavage for a microbiological test. We included cohort, case-control, cross-sectional, and randomised controlled studies that recruited participants from any community or clinical setting. We excluded post-mortem studies. We used a random-effects meta-analysis with a bivariate hierarchical model to estimate pooled sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostics odds ratio (DOR; odds of a positive test with disease relative to without), stratified by sampling method. We assessed bias using QUADAS-2 criteria. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021262392). FINDINGS: We screened 10 159 titles for inclusion, reviewed 274 full texts, and included 71, comprising 119 test comparisons published between May 13, 1933, and Dec 19, 2022, in the systematic review (53 in the meta-analysis). For laryngeal swabs, pooled sensitivity was 57·8% (95% CI 50·5-65·0), specificity was 93·8% (88·4-96·8), and DOR was 20·7 (11·1-38·8). Nasopharyngeal aspirate sensitivity was 65·2% (52·0-76·4), specificity was 97·9% (96·0-99·0), and DOR was 91·0 (37·8-218·8). Oral swabs sensitivity was 56·7% (44·3-68·2), specificity was 91·3% (CI 81·0-96·3), and DOR was 13·8 (5·6-34·0). Substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic accuracy was found, probably due to differences in reference and index standards. INTERPRETATION: Upper respiratory tract sampling holds promise to expand access to tuberculosis diagnosis. Exploring historical methods using modern microbiological techniques might further increase options for alternative sample types. Prospective studies are needed to optimise accuracy and utility of sampling methods in clinical practice. FUNDING: UK Medical Research Council, Wellcome, and UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

Evaluation of eight lateral flow tests for the detection of anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in a vaccinated population.

BACKGROUND: Rapid determination of an individual's antibody status can be beneficial in understanding an individual's immune response to SARS-CoV-2 and for initiation of therapies that are only deemed effective in sero-negative individuals. Antibody lateral flow tests (LFTs) have potential to address this need as a rapid, point of care test. METHODS: Here we present a proof-of-concept evaluation of eight LFT brands using sera from 95 vaccinated individuals to determine sensitivity for detecting vaccination generated antibodies. Samples were analysed on eight different brands of antibody LFT and an automated chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) that identifies anti-spike antibodies which was used as our reference standard. RESULTS: All 95 (100%) participants tested positive for anti-spike antibodies by the chemiluminescent microparticle immunoassay (CMIA) reference standard post-dose two of their SARS-CoV-2 vaccine: BNT162b2 (Pfizer/BioNTech, n = 60), AZD1222 (AstraZeneca, n = 31), mRNA-1273 (Moderna, n = 2) and Undeclared Vaccine Brand (n = 2). Sensitivity increased from dose one to dose two in six out of eight LFTs with three tests achieving 100% sensitivity at dose two in detecting anti-spike antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: These tests are demonstrated to be highly sensitive to detect raised antibody levels in vaccinated individuals. RDTs are low cost and rapid alternatives to ELISA based systems.

A prospective diagnostic evaluation of accuracy of self-taken and healthcare worker-taken swabs for rapid COVID-19 testing.

BACKGROUND: Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) developed for point of care detection of SARS-CoV-2 antigen are recommended by WHO to use trained health care workers to collect samples. We hypothesised that self-taken samples are non-inferior for use with RDTs to diagnose COVID-19. We designed a prospective diagnostic evaluation comparing self-taken and healthcare worker (HCW)-taken throat/nasal swabs to perform RDTs for SARS-CoV-2, and how these compare to RT-PCR. METHODS: Eligible participants 18 years or older with symptoms of COVID-19. 250 participants recruited at the NHS Test and Trace drive-through community PCR testing site (Liverpool, UK); one withdrew before analysis. Self-administered throat/nasal swab for the Covios® RDT, a trained HCW taken throat/nasal sample for PCR and HCW comparison throat/nasal swab for RDT were collected. RDT results were compared to RT-PCR, as the reference standard, to calculate sensitivity and specificity. FINDINGS: Seventy-five participants (75/249, 30.1%) were positive by RT-PCR. RDTs with self-taken swabs had a sensitivity of 90.5% (67/74, 95% CI: 83.9-97.2), compared to 78.4% (58/74, 95% CI: 69.0-87.8) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 12.2%, 95% CI: 4.7-19.6, p = 0.003). Specificity for self-taken swabs was 99.4% (173/174, 95% CI: 98.3-100.0), versus 98.9% (172/174, 95% CI: 97.3-100.0) for HCW-taken swabs (absolute difference 0.6%, 95% CI: 0.5-1.7, p = 0.317). The PPV of self-taken RDTs (98.5%, 67/68, 95% CI: 95.7-100.0) and HCW-taken RDTs (96.7%, 58/60, 95% CI 92.1-100.0) were not significantly different (p = 0.262). However, the NPV of self-taken swab RDTs was significantly higher (96.1%, 173/180, 95% CI: 93.2-98.9) than HCW-taken RDTs (91.5%, 172/188, 95% CI 87.5-95.5, p = 0.003). INTERPRETATION: In conclusion, self-taken swabs for COVID-19 testing offer an accurate alternative to healthcare worker taken swabs for use with RDTs. Our results demonstrate that, with no training, self-taken throat/nasal samples can be used by lay individuals as part of rapid testing programmes for symptomatic adults. This is especially important where the lack of trained healthcare workers restricts access to testing.

Prevalence of neutralising antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in acute infection and convalescence: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Individuals infected with SARS-CoV-2 develop neutralising antibodies. We investigated the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how this proportion varies with selected covariates. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: This systematic review and meta-analysis examined the proportion of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 neutralising antibodies after infection and how these proportions vary with selected covariates. Three models using the maximum likelihood method assessed these proportions by study group, covariates and individually extracted data (protocol CRD42020208913). A total of 983 reports were identified and 27 were included. The pooled (95%CI) proportion of individuals with neutralising antibodies was 85.3% (83.5-86.9) using the titre cut off >1:20 and 83.9% (82.2-85.6), 70.2% (68.1-72.5) and 54.2% (52.0-56.5) with titres >1:40, >1:80 and >1:160, respectively. These proportions were higher among patients with severe COVID-19 (e.g., titres >1:80, 84.8% [80.0-89.2], >1:160, 74.4% [67.5-79.7]) than those with mild presentation (56.7% [49.9-62.9] and 44.1% [37.3-50.6], respectively) and lowest among asymptomatic infections (28.6% [17.9-39.2] and 10.0% [3.7-20.1], respectively). IgG and neutralising antibody levels correlated poorly. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: 85% of individuals with proven SARS-CoV-2 infection had detectable neutralising antibodies. This proportion varied with disease severity, study setting, time since infection and the method used to measure antibodies.