Search

This month in PLOS Medicine we launched a Special Issue on New Tools and Strategies for Tuberculosis Diagnosis, Care, and Elimination. In this issue's Editorial, the Guest Editors Claudia Denkinger, Richard Chaisson, and Mark Hatherill highlight some of the research that will publish and how these studies focusing on discovery, clinical trials and implementation research collectively add to the prospects for reaching the EndTB targets of the WHO by 2035. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: SARS-CoV-2 antigen rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs) are increasingly being integrated in testing strategies around the world. Studies of the Ag-RDTs have shown variable performance. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we assessed the clinical accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) of commercially available Ag-RDTs.Methods and Findings: We registered the review on PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42020225140). We systematically searched multiple databases (PubMed, Web of Science Core Collection, medRvix, bioRvix, and FIND) for publications evaluating the accuracy of Ag-RDTs for SARS-CoV-2 up until 30 April 2021. Descriptive analyses of all studies were performed, and when more than 4 studies were available, a random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity in comparison to reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) testing. We assessed heterogeneity by subgroup analyses, and rated study quality and risk of bias using the QUADAS-2 assessment tool. From a total of 14,254 articles, we included 133 analytical and clinical studies resulting in 214 clinical accuracy datasets with 112,323 samples. Across all meta-analyzed samples, the pooled Ag-RDT sensitivity and specificity were 71.2% (95% CI 68.2% to 74.0%) and 98.9% (95% CI 98.6% to 99.1%), respectively. Sensitivity increased to 76.3% (95% CI 73.1% to 79.2%) if analysis was restricted to studies that followed the Ag-RDT manufacturers' instructions. LumiraDx showed the highest sensitivity, with 88.2% (95% CI 59.0% to 97.5%). Of instrument-free Ag-RDTs, Standard Q nasal performed best, with 80.2% sensitivity (95% CI 70.3% to 87.4%). Across all Ag-RDTs, sensitivity was markedly better on samples with lower RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values, i.e., <20 (96.5%, 95% CI 92.6% to 98.4%) and <25 (95.8%, 95% CI 92.3% to 97.8%), in comparison to those with Ct ≥ 25 (50.7%, 95% CI 35.6% to 65.8%) and ≥30 (20.9%, 95% CI 12.5% to 32.8%). Testing in the first week from symptom onset resulted in substantially higher sensitivity (83.8%, 95% CI 76.3% to 89.2%) compared to testing after 1 week (61.5%, 95% CI 52.2% to 70.0%). The best Ag-RDT sensitivity was found with anterior nasal sampling (75.5%, 95% CI 70.4% to 79.9%), in comparison to other sample types (e.g., nasopharyngeal, 71.6%, 95% CI 68.1% to 74.9%), although CIs were overlapping. Concerns of bias were raised across all datasets, and financial support from the manufacturer was reported in 24.1% of datasets. Our analysis was limited by the included studies' heterogeneity in design and reporting.Conclusions: In this study we found that Ag-RDTs detect the vast majority of SARS-CoV-2-infected persons within the first week of symptom onset and those with high viral load. Thus, they can have high utility for diagnostic purposes in the early phase of disease, making them a valuable tool to fight the spread of SARS-CoV-2. Standardization in conduct and reporting of clinical accuracy studies would improve comparability and use of data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tuberculosis (TB) is the most common cause of death in people living with HIV (PLHIV), yet TB often goes undiagnosed since many patients are not able to produce a sputum specimen, and traditional diagnostics are costly or unavailable. A novel, rapid lateral flow assay, Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (SILVAMP-LAM), detects the presence of TB lipoarabinomannan (LAM) in urine, and is substantially more sensitive for diagnosing TB in PLHIV than an earlier LAM assay (Alere Determine TB LAM lateral flow assay [LF-LAM]). Here, we present an individual participant data meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of SILVAMP-LAM in adult PLHIV, including both published and unpublished data.Methods and Findings: Adult PLHIV (≥18 years) were assessed in 5 prospective cohort studies in South Africa (3 cohorts), Vietnam, and Ghana, carried out during 2012 to 2017. Of the 1,595 PLHIV who met eligibility criteria, the majority (61%) were inpatients, median age was 37 years (IQR 30-43), 43% had a CD4 count ≤ 100 cells/μl, and 35% were receiving antiretroviral therapy. Most participants (94%) had a positive WHO symptom screen for TB on enrollment, and 45% were diagnosed with microbiologically confirmed TB, using mycobacterial culture or Xpert MTB/RIF testing of sputum, urine, or blood. Previously published data from inpatients were combined with unpublished data from outpatients. Biobanked urine samples were tested, using blinded double reading, with SILVAMP-LAM and LF-LAM. Applying a microbiological reference standard for assessment of sensitivity, the overall sensitivity for TB detection was 70.7% (95% CI 59.0%-80.8%) for SILVAMP-LAM compared to 34.9% (95% CI 19.5%-50.9%) for LF-LAM. Using a composite reference standard (which included patients with both microbiologically confirmed as well as clinically diagnosed TB), SILVAMP-LAM sensitivity was 65.8% (95% CI 55.9%-74.6%), and that of LF-LAM 31.4% (95% CI 19.1%-43.7%). In patients with CD4 count ≤ 100 cells/μl, SILVAMP-LAM sensitivity was 87.1% (95% CI 79.3%-93.6%), compared to 56.0% (95% CI 43.9%-64.9%) for LF-LAM. In patients with CD4 count 101-200 cells/μl, SILVAMP-LAM sensitivity was 62.7% (95% CI 52.4%-71.9%), compared to 25.3% (95% CI 15.8%-34.9%) for LF-LAM. In those with CD4 count > 200 cells/μl, SILVAMP-LAM sensitivity was 43.9% (95% CI 34.3%-53.9%), compared to 10.9% (95% CI 5.2%-18.4%) for LF-LAM. Using a microbiological reference standard, the specificity of SILVAMP-LAM was 90.9% (95% CI 87.2%-93.7%), and that of LF-LAM 95.3% (95% CI 92.2%-97.7%). Limitations of this study include the use of biobanked, rather than fresh urine samples, and testing by skilled laboratory technicians in research laboratories, rather than at the point of care.Conclusions: In this study, we found that SILVAMP-LAM identified a substantially higher proportion of TB patients in PLHIV than LF-LAM. The sensitivity of SILVAMP-LAM was highest in patients with CD4 count ≤ 100 cells/μl. Further work is needed to demonstrate accuracy when implemented as a point-of-care test. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]