Search

Background: The WHO End TB Strategy requires drug susceptibility testing and treatment of all people with tuberculosis, but second-line diagnostic testing with line-probe assays needs to be done in experienced laboratories with advanced infrastructure. Fewer than half of people with drug-resistant tuberculosis receive appropriate treatment. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the rapid Xpert MTB/XDR automated molecular assay (Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) to overcome these limitations., Methods: We did a prospective study involving individuals presenting with pulmonary tuberculosis symptoms and at least one risk factor for drug resistance in four sites in India (New Delhi and Mumbai), Moldova, and South Africa between July 31, 2019, and March 21, 2020. The Xpert MTB/XDR assay was used as a reflex test to detect resistance to isoniazid, fluoroquinolones, ethionamide, amikacin, kanamycin, and capreomycin in adults with positive results for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex on Xpert MTB/RIF or Ultra (Cepheid). Diagnostic performance was assessed against a composite reference standard of phenotypic drug-susceptibility testing and whole-genome sequencing. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT03728725., Findings: Of 710 participants, 611 (86%) had results from both Xpert MTB/XDR and the reference standard for any drug and were included in analysis. Sensitivity for Xpert MTB/XDR detection of resistance was 94% (460 of 488, 95% CI 92-96) for isoniazid, 94% (222 of 235, 90-96%) for fluoroquinolones, 54% (178 of 328, 50-61) for ethionamide, 73% (60 of 82, 62-81) for amikacin, 86% (181 of 210, 81-91) for kanamycin, and 61% (53 of 87, 49-70) for capreomycin. Specificity was 98-100% for all drugs. Performance was equivalent to that of line-probe assays. The non-determinate rate of Xpert MTB/XDR (ie, invalid M tuberculosis complex detection) was 2·96%., Interpretation: The Xpert MTB/XDR assay showed high diagnostic accuracy and met WHO's minimum target product profile criteria for a next-generation drug susceptibility test. The assay has the potential to diagnose drug-resistant tuberculosis rapidly and accurately and enable optimum treatment., Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research through KfW, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests APN, MR, CMD, SBG, and SGS are employed by FIND, Geneva, Switzerland, a not-for-profit foundation that supports the evaluation of publicly prioritised tuberculosis assays and the implementation of WHO-approved (guidance and prequalification) assays using donor grants. FIND has product evaluation agreements with several private sector companies that design diagnostics for tuberculosis and other diseases. These agreements strictly define FIND's independence and neutrality with regards to these private sector companies. LS declares she is an inventor of the Dried Culture Spot technology (USP 8,709,712), which is used to measure the quality of molecular diagnostic M tuberculosis assays, and has received royalties from the University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. These assays are used within the context of this study but had no influence on the outcomes. The other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Novel skin-based tests for tuberculosis infection might present suitable alternatives to current tests; however, diagnostic performance of new tests compared with the purified protein derivative-tuberculin skin test (TST) or interferon-γ release assays (IGRA) needs systematic assessment., Methods: In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched English (Medline OVID), Chinese (Chinese Biomedical Literature Database and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure), and Russian (e-library) databases from the inception of each database to May 15, 2019, (with updated search of the Russian and English databases on Oct, 20 2020) using terms "ESAT6" OR "CFP10" AND "skin test" AND "Tuberculosis" OR "C-Tb" OR "Diaskintest". We included studies reporting on the performance of index tests alone or compared with a comparator. Inclusion criteria varied according to review objectives and performance outcome, but reporting of test cut-offs for positivity applied to study population was required from all studies. We used a hierarchy of reference standards for tuberculosis infection consistent with the 2020 WHO framework to evaluate diagnostic performance. Two authors independently reviewed the titles and abstracts for English and Chinese (LF and MK) and Russian studies (MK and VN). Study quality was assessed with QUADAS-2. Pooled random-effects estimates are presented when appropriate for total agreement proportion, sensitivity in microbiologically confirmed tuberculosis and specificity in cohorts with low risk of tuberculosis infection. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42019135572., Findings: We identified 1466 original articles, of which 37 (2·5%) studies, including 10 915 individuals (7111 Diaskintest, 2744 C-Tb, 887 EC, 173 DPPD), were included in the qualitative analysis (29 [78%] studies of Diaskintest, five [15%] studies of C-Tb, two [5%] studies of EC-skintest, and one [3%] study of DPPD). 22 (1·5%) studies including 5810 individuals (3143 Diaskintest, 2129 C-Tb, 538 EC-skintest) were included in the quantitative analysis: 15 (68%) of Diaskintest, five (23%) of C-Tb, and two (9%) of EC-skintest. Tested sub-populations included individuals with HIV, children (0-18 years), and individuals exposed to tuberculosis. Studies were heterogeneous with moderate to high risk of bias. Nine head-to-head studies of index test versus TST and IGRA permitted direct comparisons and pooling. In a mixed cohort of people with and without tuberculosis, Diaskintest pooled agreement with IGRA was 87·16% (95% CI 79·47-92·24) and 55·45% (46·08-64·45) with TST-5 mm cut-off (TST 5 mm ). Diaskintest sensitivity was 91·18% (95% CI 81·72-95·98) compared with 88·24% (78·20-94·01) for TST 5 mm , 89·66 (78·83-95·28) for IGRA QuantiFERON, and 90·91% (79·95-96·16) for TSPOT.TB. C-Tb agreement with IGRA in individuals with active tuberculosis was 79·80% (95% CI 76·10-83·07) compared with 78·92% (74·65-82·63) for TST5 mm/15 mm cut-off (TST 5 mm/15 mm ). TST 5/15mm reflects threshold in cohorts that applied stratified cutoffs: 5 mm for HIV-infected, immunocompromised, or BCG-naive individuals, and 15mm for BCG-vaccinated immunocompetent individuals. C-Tb sensitivity was 74·52% (95% CI 70·39-78·25) compared with a sensitivity of 78·18% (67·75-85·94) for TST 5 mm/15 mm , and 71·67% (63·44-78·68) for IGRA. Specificity was 97·85% (95% CI 93·96-99·25) for C-Tb versus 93·31% (90·22-95·48) for TST 15 mm cut-off and 99·15% (79·66-99·97) for IGRA. EC-skintest sensitivity was 86·06% (95% CI 82·39-89·07)., Interpretation: Novel skin-based tests for tuberculosis infection appear to perform similarly to IGRA or TST; however, study quality varied. Evaluation of test performance, patient-important outcomes, and diagnostic use in current clinical algorithms will inform implementation in key populations., Funding: StopTB (New Diagnostics Working Group) and FIND., Translations: For the Chinese and Russian translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Considering the possibility of nasal self-sampling and the ease of use in performing SARS-CoV-2 antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic tests (Ag-RDTs), self-testing is a feasible option., Objective: The goal of this study was a head-to-head comparison of diagnostic accuracy of patient self-testing with professional testing using a SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT., Study Design: We performed a manufacturer-independent, prospective diagnostic accuracy study of nasal mid-turbinate self-sampling and self-testing with symptomatic adults using a WHO-listed SARS-CoV-2 Ag-RDT. Procedures were observed without intervention. For comparison, Ag-RDTs with nasopharyngeal sampling were professionally performed. Estimates of agreement, sensitivity, and specificity relative to RT-PCR on a combined oro-/nasopharyngeal sample were calculated. Feasibility was evaluated by observer and participant questionnaires., Results: Among 146 symptomatic adults, 40 (27.4%) were RT-PCR-positive for SARS-CoV-2. Sensitivity with self-testing was 82.5% (33/40; 95% CI 68.1-91.3), and 85.0% (34/40; 95% CI 70.9-92.9) with professional testing. At high viral load (≥7.0 log 10 SARS-CoV-2 RNA copies/ml), sensitivity was 96.6% (28/29; 95% CI 82.8-99.8) for both self- and professional testing. Deviations in sampling and testing were observed in 25 out of the 40 PCR-positives. Most participants (80.9%) considered the Ag-RDT as easy to perform., Conclusion: Laypersons suspected for SARS-CoV-2 infection were able to reliably perform the Ag-RDT and test themselves. Procedural errors might be reduced by refinement of the instructions for use or the product design/procedures. Self-testing allows more wide-spread and frequent testing. Paired with the appropriate information of the public about the benefits and risks, self-testing may have significant impact on the pandemic., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: The vast majority of COVID-19 patients experience a mild disease. However, a minority suffers from critical disease with substantial morbidity and mortality., Objectives: To identify individuals at risk of critical COVID-19, the relevance of a seroreactivity against seasonal human coronaviruses was analyzed., Methods: We conducted a multi-center non-interventional study comprising 296 patients with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections from four tertiary care referral centers in Germany and France. The ICU group comprised more males, whereas the outpatient group contained a higher percentage of females. For each patient, the serum or plasma sample obtained closest after symptom onset was examined by immunoblot regarding IgG antibodies against the nucleocapsid protein (NP) of HCoV 229E, NL63, OC43 and HKU1., Results: Median age was 60 years (range 18-96). Patients with critical disease (n=106) had significantly lower levels of anti-HCoV OC43 nucleocapsid protein (NP)-specific antibodies compared to other COVID-19 inpatients (p=0.007). In multivariate analysis (adjusted for age, sex and BMI), OC43 negative inpatients had an increased risk of critical disease (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 2.68 [95% CI 1.09 - 7.05]), higher than the risk by increased age or BMI, and lower than the risk by male sex. A risk stratification based on sex and OC43 serostatus was derived from this analysis., Conclusions: Our results suggest that prior infections with seasonal human coronaviruses can protect against a severe course of COVID-19. Therefore, anti-OC43 antibodies should be measured for COVID-19 inpatients and considered as part of the risk assessment for each patient. Hence, we expect individuals tested negative for anti-OC43 antibodies to particularly benefit from vaccination against SARS-CoV-2, especially with other risk factors prevailing., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: A sensitive and specific non-sputum-based test would be groundbreaking for the diagnosis of childhood tuberculosis. We assessed side by side the diagnostic accuracy of the urine-based lipoarabinomannan assays Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) and Alere Determine TB LAM Ag (AlereLAM) for detection of childhood tuberculosis., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, we tested urine samples from children younger than 15 years with presumed pulmonary tuberculosis. Children were consecutively recruited from four dedicated outpatient childhood tuberculosis clinics in The Gambia, Mali, Nigeria, and Tanzania. Biobanked urine samples were thawed and tested using FujiLAM and AlereLAM assays. We measured diagnostic performance against a microbiological reference standard (confirmed tuberculosis) and a composite reference standard (confirmed and unconfirmed tuberculosis). Sensitivity and specificity were estimated with bivariate random-effects meta-analyses., Findings: Between July 1, 2017, and Dec 1, 2018, we obtained and stored urine samples from 415 children. 63 (15%) children had confirmed tuberculosis, 113 (27%) had unconfirmed tuberculosis, and 239 (58%) were unlikely to have tuberculosis. 61 children were HIV-positive (prevalence 15%). Using the microbiological reference standard, the sensitivity of FujiLAM was 64·9% (95% CI 43·7-85·2; positive in 40 of 63 confirmed samples) and the sensitivity of AlereLAM was 30·7% (8·6-61·6; 19 of 63). The specificity of FujiLAM was 83·8% (95% CI 76·5-89·4; negative in 297 of 352 unconfirmed and unlikely samples) and the specificity of AlereLAM was 87·8% (79·0-93·7; 312 of 352). Against the composite reference standard, both assays had decreased sensitivity; the sensitivity of FujiLAM was 32·9% (95% CI 24·6-41·9; positive in 58 of 176 confirmed and unconfirmed samples) and the sensitivity of AlereLAM was 20·2% (12·3-29·4; 36 of 176). The specificity of FujiLAM was 83·3% (95% CI 71·8-91·7; negative in 202 of 239 unlikely samples) and the specificity of AlereLAM was 90·0% (81·6-95·6; 216 of 239)., Interpretation: By comparison with AlereLAM, FujiLAM showed higher sensitivity and similar specificity. FujiLAM could potentially add value to the rapid diagnosis of tuberculosis in children., Funding: German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, the Global Health Innovative Technology Fund, the UK Research and Innovation Global Challenges Research Fund, and the UK Medical Research Council., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Most tuberculosis-related deaths in people with HIV could be prevented with earlier diagnosis and treatment. The only commercially available tuberculosis point-of-care test (Alere Determine TB LAM Ag [AlereLAM]) has suboptimal sensitivity, which restricts its use in clinical practice. The novel Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) assay has been developed to improve the sensitivity of AlereLAM. We assessed the diagnostic accuracy of the FujiLAM assay for the detection of tuberculosis in hospital inpatients with HIV compared with the AlereLAM assay., Methods: For this diagnostic accuracy study, we assessed biobanked urine samples obtained from the FIND Specimen Bank and the University of Cape Town Biobank, which had been collected from hospital inpatients (aged ≥18 years) with HIV during three independent prospective cohort studies done at two South African hospitals. Urine samples were tested using FujiLAM and AlereLAM assays. The conduct and reporting of each test was done blind to other test results. The primary objective was to assess the diagnostic accuracy of FujiLAM compared with AlereLAM, against microbiological and composite reference standards (including clinical diagnoses)., Findings: Between April 18, 2018, and May 3, 2018, urine samples from 968 hospital inpatients with HIV were evaluated. The prevalence of microbiologically-confirmed tuberculosis was 62% and the median CD4 count was 86 cells per μL. Using the microbiological reference standard, the estimated sensitivity of FujiLAM was 70·4% (95% CI 53·0 to 83·1) compared with 42·3% (31·7 to 51·8) for AlereLAM (difference 28·1%) and the estimated specificity of FujiLAM was 90·8% (86·0 to 94·4) and 95·0% (87·7-98·8) for AlereLAM (difference -4·2%). Against the composite reference standard, the specificity of both assays was higher (95·7% [92·0 to 98·0] for FujiLAM vs 98·2% [95·7 to 99·6] for AlereLAM; difference -2·5%), but the sensitivity of both assays was lower (64·9% [50·1 to 76·7] for FujiLAM vs 38·2% [28·1 to 47·3] for AlereLAM; difference 26·7%)., Interpretation: In comparison to AlereLAM, FujiLAM offers superior diagnostic sensitivity, while maintaining specificity, and could transform rapid point-of-care tuberculosis diagnosis for hospital inpatients with HIV. The applicability of FujiLAM for settings of intended use requires prospective assessment., Funding: Global Health Innovative Technology Fund, UK Department for International Development, Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Wellcome Trust, Department of Science and Technology and National Research Foundation of South Africa, and South African Medical Research Council., (Copyright © 2019 Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: WHO recommends Xpert MTB/RIF as initial diagnostic testing for tuberculous meningitis. However, diagnosis remains difficult, with Xpert sensitivity of about 50-70% and culture sensitivity of about 60%. We evaluated the diagnostic performance of the new Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) for tuberculous meningitis., Methods: We prospectively obtained diagnostic cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) specimens during screening for a trial on the treatment of HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis in Mbarara, Uganda. HIV-infected adults with suspected meningitis (eg, headache, nuchal rigidity, altered mental status) were screened consecutively at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital. We centrifuged CSF, resuspended the pellet in 2 mL of CSF, and tested 0·5 mL with mycobacteria growth indicator tube culture, 1 mL with Xpert, and cryopreserved 0·5 mL, later tested with Xpert Ultra. We assessed diagnostic performance against uniform clinical case definition or a composite reference standard of any positive CSF tuberculous test., Findings: From Feb 27, 2015, to Nov 7, 2016, we prospectively evaluated 129 HIV-infected adults with suspected meningitis for tuberculosis. 23 participants were classified as probable or definite tuberculous meningitis by uniform case definition, excluding Xpert Ultra results. Xpert Ultra sensitivity was 70% (95% CI 47-87; 16 of 23 cases) for probable or definite tuberculous meningitis compared with 43% (23-66; 10/23) for Xpert and 43% (23-66; 10/23) for culture. With composite standard, we detected tuberculous meningitis in 22 (17%) of 129 participants. Xpert Ultra had 95% sensitivity (95% CI 77-99; 21 of 22 cases) for tuberculous meningitis, which was higher than either Xpert (45% [24-68]; 10/22; p=0·0010) or culture (45% [24-68]; 10/22; p=0·0034). Of 21 participants positive by Xpert Ultra, 13 were positive by culture, Xpert, or both, and eight were only positive by Xpert Ultra. Of those eight, three were categorised as probable tuberculous meningitis, three as possible tuberculous meningitis, and two as not tuberculous meningitis. Testing 6 mL or more of CSF was associated with more frequent detection of tuberculosis than with less than 6 mL (26% vs 7%; p=0·014)., Interpretation: Xpert Ultra detected significantly more tuberculous meningitis than did either Xpert or culture. WHO now recommends the use of Xpert Ultra as the initial diagnostic test for suspected tuberculous meningitis., Funding: National Institute of Neurologic Diseases and Stroke, Fogarty International Center, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, UK Medical Research Council/DfID/Wellcome Trust Global Health Trials, Doris Duke Charitable Foundation., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Xpert MTB/RIF assay is an automated molecular test that has improved the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance, but its sensitivity is inadequate in patients with paucibacillary disease or HIV. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) was developed to overcome this limitation. We compared the diagnostic performance of Xpert Ultra with that of Xpert for detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance., Methods: In this prospective, multicentre, diagnostic accuracy study, we recruited adults with pulmonary tuberculosis symptoms presenting at primary health-care centres and hospitals in eight countries (South Africa, Uganda, Kenya, India, China, Georgia, Belarus, and Brazil). Participants were allocated to the case detection group if no drugs had been taken for tuberculosis in the past 6 months or to the multidrug-resistance risk group if drugs for tuberculosis had been taken in the past 6 months, but drug resistance was suspected. Demographic information, medical history, chest imaging results, and HIV test results were recorded at enrolment, and each participant gave at least three sputum specimen on 2 separate days. Xpert and Xpert Ultra diagnostic performance in the same sputum specimen was compared with culture tests and drug susceptibility testing as reference standards. The primary objectives were to estimate and compare the sensitivity of Xpert Ultra test with that of Xpert for detection of smear-negative tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance and to estimate and compare Xpert Ultra and Xpert specificities for detection of rifampicin resistance. Study participants in the case detection group were included in all analyses, whereas participants in the multidrug-resistance risk group were only included in analyses of rifampicin-resistance detection., Findings: Between Feb 18, and Dec 24, 2016, we enrolled 2368 participants for sputum sampling. 248 participants were excluded from the analysis, and 1753 participants were distributed to the case detection group (n=1439) and the multidrug-resistance risk group (n=314). Sensitivities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert were 63% and 46%, respectively, for the 137 participants with smear-negative and culture-positive sputum (difference of 17%, 95% CI 10 to 24); 90% and 77%, respectively, for the 115 HIV-positive participants with culture-positive sputum (13%, 6·4 to 21); and 88% and 83%, respectively, across all 462 participants with culture-positive sputum (5·4%, 3·3 to 8·0). Specificities of Xpert Ultra and Xpert for case detection were 96% and 98% (-2·7%, -3·9 to -1·7) overall, and 93% and 98% for patients with a history of tuberculosis. Xpert Ultra and Xpert performed similarly in detecting rifampicin resistance., Interpretation: For tuberculosis case detection, sensitivity of Xpert Ultra was superior to that of Xpert in patients with paucibacillary disease and in patients with HIV. However, this increase in sensitivity came at the expense of a decrease in specificity., Funding: Government of Netherlands, Government of Australia, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Government of the UK, and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases., (Copyright © 2018 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)