Search

Testing for mycobacterial lipoarabinomannan (LAM) in urine is a practical but insensitive alternative to sputum testing to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) in people with HIV (PWH). Here, we evaluated urine LAM testing alongside PCR-based tests for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) DNA in tongue swabs. We hypothesized that the two nonsputum samples would deliver complementary, not redundant, results. The study included 131 South African patients of whom 64 (48.1%) were confirmed to have TB by GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) or culture analysis of sputum. A total of 120 patients (91.6%) were coinfected with HIV and 130 yielded a valid urine LAM result (Alere DETERMINE LAM Ag). Tongue swab samples were tested by IS6110-targeted qPCR with a quantification cycle (Cq) cutoff of 32. Relative to reference sputum testing (TB culture and Xpert Ultra), combined urine LAM and oral swab testing (either sample positive) was significantly more sensitive than either nonsputum sample alone (57% sensitivity for combined testing versus 35% and 39% sensitivity for urine LAM and tongue swabs; P = 0.01 and 0.04, respectively). Specificity of combined testing (neither sample positive) was 97%. On average, tongue swab-positive participants had higher sputum signal strength than urine-LAM positive participants, as measured by sputum Xpert Ultra Cq value (P = 0.037). A subset of tongue swabs (N = 18) was also tested by using Xpert Ultra, which reproduced true positive and true negative IS6110 qPCR results and resolved the two false-positive tongue swabs. With further development, tongue swabs and urine may feasibly serve as complementary nonsputum samples for diagnosis of TB in PWH.

Testing for mycobacterial lipoarabinomannan (LAM) in urine is a practical but insensitive alternative to sputum testing to diagnose tuberculosis (TB) in people with HIV (PWH). We evaluated urine LAM testing conducted in parallel with tests for Mycobacterium tuberculosis DNA in oral swabs. In a cohort of 131 South Africans (92% with HIV), combined urine LAM and oral swab testing was significantly more sensitive than either sample tested alone (57% vs. 35% and 39%, respectively), and 97% specific, compared to reference sputum testing (TB culture and Xpert Ultra). Complementary non-sputum sample testing increased sensitivity of TB diagnosis, without sacrificing specificity.