1. Clinical utility of WHO-recommended screening tools and development and validation of novel clinical prediction models for pulmonary tuberculosis screening among outpatients living with HIV: an individual participant data meta-analysis
- Author
-
Dhana, Ashar, Gupta, Rishi K, Hamada, Yohhei, Kengne, Andre P, Kerkhoff, Andrew D, Yoon, Christina, Cattamanchi, Adithya, Reeve, Byron WP, Theron, Grant, Ndlangalavu, Gcobisa, Wood, Robin, Drain, Paul K, Calderwood, Claire J, Noursadeghi, Mahdad, Boyles, Tom, Meintjes, Graeme, Maartens, Gary, and Barr, David A
- Subjects
Tuberculosis ,HIV/AIDS ,Clinical Research ,Rare Diseases ,Infectious Diseases ,Infection ,Good Health and Well Being ,Adult ,Humans ,Outpatients ,Models ,Statistical ,Sensitivity and Specificity ,HIV Infections ,Prognosis ,Tuberculosis ,Pulmonary ,C-Reactive Protein ,Medical Physiology ,Respiratory System - Abstract
BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that outpatient people living with HIV (PLHIV) undergo tuberculosis screening with the WHO four-symptom screen (W4SS) or C-reactive protein (CRP) (5 mg·L-1 cut-off) followed by confirmatory testing if screen positive. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to determine the performance of WHO-recommended screening tools and two newly developed clinical prediction models (CPMs).MethodsFollowing a systematic review, we identified studies that recruited adult outpatient PLHIV irrespective of tuberculosis signs and symptoms or with a positive W4SS, evaluated CRP and collected sputum for culture. We used logistic regression to develop an extended CPM (which included CRP and other predictors) and a CRP-only CPM. We used internal-external cross-validation to evaluate performance.ResultsWe pooled data from eight cohorts (n=4315 participants). The extended CPM had excellent discrimination (C-statistic 0.81); the CRP-only CPM had similar discrimination. The C-statistics for WHO-recommended tools were lower. Both CPMs had equivalent or higher net benefit compared with the WHO-recommended tools. Compared with both CPMs, CRP (5 mg·L-1 cut-off) had equivalent net benefit across a clinically useful range of threshold probabilities, while the W4SS had a lower net benefit. The W4SS would capture 91% of tuberculosis cases and require confirmatory testing for 78% of participants. CRP (5 mg·L-1 cut-off), the extended CPM (4.2% threshold) and the CRP-only CPM (3.6% threshold) would capture similar percentages of cases but reduce confirmatory tests required by 24, 27 and 36%, respectively.ConclusionsCRP sets the standard for tuberculosis screening among outpatient PLHIV. The choice between using CRP at 5 mg·L-1 cut-off or in a CPM depends on available resources.
- Published
- 2023