Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 November 1; Volume 19 (Issue 11); 1300-1304.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.15.0015
Cox V, De Azevedo V, Stinson K, Wilkinson LS, Rangaka MX, et al.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 November 1; Volume 19 (Issue 11); 1300-1304.; DOI:10.5588/ijtld.15.0015
BACKGROUND
The World Health Organization recommends tuberculin skin tests (TSTs) where feasible to identify individuals most likely to benefit from isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT). The requirement for TST reading after 48–72 h by a trained nurse is a barrier to implementation and increases loss to follow-up.
METHODS
Patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were recruited from a primary care clinic in South Africa and trained by a lay counsellor to interpret their own TST. The TST was placed by a nurse, and the patient was asked to return 2 days later with their self-reading result, followed by blinded reading by a trained nurse (reference).
RESULTS
Of 227 patients, 210 returned for TST reading; 78% interpreted their test correctly: those interpreting it as negative were more likely to be correct (negative predictive value 93%) than those interpreting it as positive (positive predictive value 42%); 10/36 (28%) positive TST results were read as negative by the patient.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with HIV in low-resource settings can be trained to interpret their own TST. Those interpreting it as positive should return to the clinic within 48–72 h for confirmatory reading and IPT initiation; those with a negative interpretation can return at their next scheduled visit and initiate IPT at that time if appropriate.
The World Health Organization recommends tuberculin skin tests (TSTs) where feasible to identify individuals most likely to benefit from isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT). The requirement for TST reading after 48–72 h by a trained nurse is a barrier to implementation and increases loss to follow-up.
METHODS
Patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection were recruited from a primary care clinic in South Africa and trained by a lay counsellor to interpret their own TST. The TST was placed by a nurse, and the patient was asked to return 2 days later with their self-reading result, followed by blinded reading by a trained nurse (reference).
RESULTS
Of 227 patients, 210 returned for TST reading; 78% interpreted their test correctly: those interpreting it as negative were more likely to be correct (negative predictive value 93%) than those interpreting it as positive (positive predictive value 42%); 10/36 (28%) positive TST results were read as negative by the patient.
CONCLUSIONS
Patients with HIV in low-resource settings can be trained to interpret their own TST. Those interpreting it as positive should return to the clinic within 48–72 h for confirmatory reading and IPT initiation; those with a negative interpretation can return at their next scheduled visit and initiate IPT at that time if appropriate.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007 December 7; Volume 175 (Issue 5); DOI:10.1164/rccm.200610-1439OC
Rangaka MX, Wilkinson KA, Seldon R, van Cutsem G, Meintjes GA, et al.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2007 December 7; Volume 175 (Issue 5); DOI:10.1164/rccm.200610-1439OC
RATIONALE: Two forms of the IFN-gamma release assay (IFNGRA) to detect tuberculosis infection are available, but neither has been evaluated in comparable HIV-infected and uninfected persons in a high tuberculosis incidence environment. OBJECTIVE: To compare the ability of the T-SPOT.TB (Oxford Immunotec, Abingdon, UK), QuantiFERON-TB Gold (Cellestis, Melbourne, Australia), and Mantoux tests to identify latent tuberculosis in HIV-infected and uninfected persons. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of 160 healthy adults without active tuberculosis attending a voluntary counseling and testing center for HIV infection in Khayelitsha, a deprived urban South African community with an HIV antenatal seroprevalence of 33% and a tuberculosis incidence of 1,612 per 100,000. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and sixty (74 HIV(+) and 86 HIV(-)) persons were enrolled. A lower proportion of Mantoux results was positive in HIV-infected subjects compared with HIV-uninfected subjects (p < 0.01). By contrast, the proportion of positive IFNGRAs was not significantly different in HIV-infected persons for the T-SPOT.TB test (52 vs. 59%; p = 0.41) or the QuantiFERON-TB Gold test (43 and 46%; p = 0.89). Fair agreement between the Mantoux test (5- and 10-mm cutoffs) and the IFNGRA was seen in HIV-infected people (kappa = 0.52-0.6). By contrast, poor agreement between the Mantoux and QuantiFERON-TB Gold tests was observed in the HIV-uninfected group (kappa = 0.07-0.30, depending on the Mantoux cutoff). The pattern was similar for T-SPOT.TB (kappa = 0.18-0.24). Interpretation: IFNGRA sensitivity appears relatively unimpaired by moderately advanced HIV infection. However, agreement between the tests and with the Mantoux test varied from poor to fair. This highlights the need for prospective studies to determine which test may predict the subsequent risk of tuberculosis.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Lancet. 2014 May 14 (Issue 9944); DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60162-8
Rangaka MX, Wilkinson RJ, Boulle AM, Glynn JR, Fielding K, et al.
Lancet. 2014 May 14 (Issue 9944); DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60162-8
Antiretroviral therapy reduces the risk of tuberculosis, but tuberculosis is more common in people with HIV than in people without HIV. We aimed to assess the effect of isoniazid preventive therapy on the risk of tuberculosis in people infected with HIV-1 concurrently receiving antiretroviral therapy.
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
E Clinical Medicine. 2023 February 1; Volume 56; 101815.; DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101815
Hamada Y, Gupta RS, Quartagno M, Izzard A, Acuna-Villaorduna C, et al.
E Clinical Medicine. 2023 February 1; Volume 56; 101815.; DOI:10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101815
BACKGROUND
Evidence on the comparative performance of purified protein derivative tuberculin skin tests (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) for predicting incident active tuberculosis (TB) remains conflicting. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to directly compare the predictive performance for incident TB disease between TST and IGRA to inform policy.
METHODS
We searched Medline and Embase from 1 January 2002 to 4 September 2020, and studies that were included in previous systematic reviews. We included prospective longitudinal studies in which participants received both TST and IGRA and estimated performance as hazard ratios (HR) for the development of all diagnoses of TB in participants with dichotomised positive test results compared to negative results, using different thresholds of positivity for TST. Secondary analyses included an evaluation of the impact of background TB incidence. We also estimated the sensitivity and specificity for predicting TB. We explored heterogeneity through pre-defined sub-group analyses (e.g. country-level TB incidence). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. This review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020205667.
FINDINGS
We obtained data from 13 studies out of 40 that were considered eligible (N = 32,034 participants: 36% from countries with TB incidence rate ≥100 per 100,000 population). All reported data on TST and QuantiFERON Gold in-Tube (QFT-GIT). The point estimate for the TST was highest with higher cut-offs for positivity and particularly when stratified by bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine (BCG) status (15 mm if BCG vaccinated and 5 mm if not [TST5/15 mm]) at 2.88 (95% CI 1.69–4.90). The pooled HR for QFT-GIT was higher than for TST at 4.15 (95% CI 1.97–8.75). The difference was large in countries with TB incidence rate <100 per 100,000 population (HR 10.38, 95% CI 4.17–25.87 for QFT-GIT VS. HR 5.36, 95% CI 3.82–7.51 for TST5/15 mm) but much of this difference was driven by a single study (HR 5.13, 95% CI 3.58–7.35 for TST5/15 mm VS. 7.18, 95% CI 4.48–11.51 for QFT-GIT, when excluding the study, in which all 19 TB cases had positive QFT-GIT results). The comparative performance was similar in the higher burden countries (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23–2.10 for QFT-GIT VS. HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.98–3.01 for TST5/15 mm). The predictive performance of both tests was higher in countries with TB incidence rate <100 per 100,000 population. In the lower TB incidence countries, the specificity of TST (76% for TST5/15 mm) and QFT-GIT (74%) for predicting active TB approached the minimum World Health Organization target (≥75%), but the sensitivity was below the target of ≥75% (63% for TST5/15 mm and 65% for QFT-GIT). The absolute differences in positive and negative predictive values between TST15 mm and QFT-GIT were small (positive predictive values 2.74% VS. 2.46%; negative predictive values 99.42% VS. 99.52% in low-incidence countries). Egger's test did not show evidence of publication bias (0.74 for TST15 mm and p = 0.68 for QFT-GIT).
INTERPRETATION
IGRA appears to have higher predictive performance than the TST in low TB incidence countries, but the difference was driven by a single study. Any advantage in clinical performance may be small, given the numerically similar positive and negative predictive values. Both IGRA and TST had lower performance in countries with high TB incidence. Test choice should be contextual and made considering operational and likely clinical impact of test results.
Evidence on the comparative performance of purified protein derivative tuberculin skin tests (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) for predicting incident active tuberculosis (TB) remains conflicting. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to directly compare the predictive performance for incident TB disease between TST and IGRA to inform policy.
METHODS
We searched Medline and Embase from 1 January 2002 to 4 September 2020, and studies that were included in previous systematic reviews. We included prospective longitudinal studies in which participants received both TST and IGRA and estimated performance as hazard ratios (HR) for the development of all diagnoses of TB in participants with dichotomised positive test results compared to negative results, using different thresholds of positivity for TST. Secondary analyses included an evaluation of the impact of background TB incidence. We also estimated the sensitivity and specificity for predicting TB. We explored heterogeneity through pre-defined sub-group analyses (e.g. country-level TB incidence). Publication bias was assessed using funnel plots and Egger's test. This review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020205667.
FINDINGS
We obtained data from 13 studies out of 40 that were considered eligible (N = 32,034 participants: 36% from countries with TB incidence rate ≥100 per 100,000 population). All reported data on TST and QuantiFERON Gold in-Tube (QFT-GIT). The point estimate for the TST was highest with higher cut-offs for positivity and particularly when stratified by bacillus Calmette–Guérin vaccine (BCG) status (15 mm if BCG vaccinated and 5 mm if not [TST5/15 mm]) at 2.88 (95% CI 1.69–4.90). The pooled HR for QFT-GIT was higher than for TST at 4.15 (95% CI 1.97–8.75). The difference was large in countries with TB incidence rate <100 per 100,000 population (HR 10.38, 95% CI 4.17–25.87 for QFT-GIT VS. HR 5.36, 95% CI 3.82–7.51 for TST5/15 mm) but much of this difference was driven by a single study (HR 5.13, 95% CI 3.58–7.35 for TST5/15 mm VS. 7.18, 95% CI 4.48–11.51 for QFT-GIT, when excluding the study, in which all 19 TB cases had positive QFT-GIT results). The comparative performance was similar in the higher burden countries (HR 1.61, 95% CI 1.23–2.10 for QFT-GIT VS. HR 1.72, 95% CI 0.98–3.01 for TST5/15 mm). The predictive performance of both tests was higher in countries with TB incidence rate <100 per 100,000 population. In the lower TB incidence countries, the specificity of TST (76% for TST5/15 mm) and QFT-GIT (74%) for predicting active TB approached the minimum World Health Organization target (≥75%), but the sensitivity was below the target of ≥75% (63% for TST5/15 mm and 65% for QFT-GIT). The absolute differences in positive and negative predictive values between TST15 mm and QFT-GIT were small (positive predictive values 2.74% VS. 2.46%; negative predictive values 99.42% VS. 99.52% in low-incidence countries). Egger's test did not show evidence of publication bias (0.74 for TST15 mm and p = 0.68 for QFT-GIT).
INTERPRETATION
IGRA appears to have higher predictive performance than the TST in low TB incidence countries, but the difference was driven by a single study. Any advantage in clinical performance may be small, given the numerically similar positive and negative predictive values. Both IGRA and TST had lower performance in countries with high TB incidence. Test choice should be contextual and made considering operational and likely clinical impact of test results.
Journal Article > ResearchFull Text
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 September 5; Volume 55 (Issue 12); DOI:10.1093/cid/cis775
Rangaka MX, Wilkinson RJ, Glynn JR, Boulle AM, van Cutsem G, et al.
Clin Infect Dis. 2012 September 5; Volume 55 (Issue 12); DOI:10.1093/cid/cis775
Current symptom screening algorithms for intensified tuberculosis case finding or prior to isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) were derived from antiretroviral-naive cohorts. There is a need to validate screening algorithms in patients on antiretroviral therapy (ART).
Journal Article > Meta-AnalysisFull Text
Lancet HIV. 2022 April 1; Volume S2352-3018 (Issue 22); 00002-9.; DOI:10.1016/S2352-3018(22)00002-9
Dhana A, Hamada Y, Kengne AP, Kerkhoff AD, Rangaka MX, et al.
Lancet HIV. 2022 April 1; Volume S2352-3018 (Issue 22); 00002-9.; DOI:10.1016/S2352-3018(22)00002-9
BACKGROUND
Since 2011, WHO has recommended that HIV-positive inpatients be routinely screened for tuberculosis with the WHO four-symptom screen (W4SS) and, if screened positive, receive a molecular WHO-recommended rapid diagnostic test (eg, Xpert MTB/RIF [Xpert] assay). To inform updated WHO tuberculosis screening guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis to assess the performance of W4SS and alternative screening tests to guide Xpert testing and compare the diagnostic accuracy of the WHO Xpert algorithm (ie, W4SS followed by Xpert) with Xpert for all HIV-positive inpatients.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from Jan 1, 2011, to March 1, 2020, for studies of adult and adolescent HIV-positive inpatients enrolled regardless of tuberculosis signs and symptoms. The separate reference standards were culture and Xpert. Xpert was selected since it is most likely to be the confirmatory test used in practice. We assessed the proportion of inpatients eligible for Xpert testing using the WHO algorithm; assessed the accuracy of W4SS and alternative screening tests or strategies to guide diagnostic testing; and compared the accuracy of the WHO Xpert algorithm (W4SS followed by Xpert) with Xpert for all. We obtained pooled proportion estimates with a random-effects model, assessed diagnostic accuracy by fitting random-effects bivariate models, and assessed diagnostic yield descriptively. This systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020155895).
FINDINGS
Of 6162 potentially eligible publications, six were eligible and we obtained data for all of the six publications (n=3660 participants). The pooled proportion of inpatients eligible for an Xpert was 90% (95% CI 89-91; n=3658). Among screening tests to guide diagnostic testing, W4SS and C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L) had highest sensitivities (≥96%) but low specificities (≤12%); cough (≥2 weeks), haemoglobin concentration (<8 g/dL), body-mass index (<18·5 kg/m2), and lymphadenopathy had higher specificities (61-90%) but suboptimal sensitivities (12-57%). The WHO Xpert algorithm (W4SS followed by Xpert) had a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 67-84) and specificity of 93% (88-96; n=637). Xpert for all had similar accuracy to the WHO Xpert algorithm: sensitivity was 78% (95% CI 69-85) and specificity was 93% (87-96; n=639). In two cohorts that had sputum and non-sputum samples collected for culture or Xpert, diagnostic yield of sputum Xpert was 41-70% and 61-64% for urine Xpert.
INTERPRETATION
The W4SS and other potential screening tests to guide Xpert testing have suboptimal accuracy in HIV-positive inpatients. On the basis of these findings, WHO now strongly recommends molecular rapid diagnostic testing in all medical HIV-positive inpatients in settings where tuberculosis prevalence is higher than 10%.
Since 2011, WHO has recommended that HIV-positive inpatients be routinely screened for tuberculosis with the WHO four-symptom screen (W4SS) and, if screened positive, receive a molecular WHO-recommended rapid diagnostic test (eg, Xpert MTB/RIF [Xpert] assay). To inform updated WHO tuberculosis screening guidelines, we conducted a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis to assess the performance of W4SS and alternative screening tests to guide Xpert testing and compare the diagnostic accuracy of the WHO Xpert algorithm (ie, W4SS followed by Xpert) with Xpert for all HIV-positive inpatients.
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from Jan 1, 2011, to March 1, 2020, for studies of adult and adolescent HIV-positive inpatients enrolled regardless of tuberculosis signs and symptoms. The separate reference standards were culture and Xpert. Xpert was selected since it is most likely to be the confirmatory test used in practice. We assessed the proportion of inpatients eligible for Xpert testing using the WHO algorithm; assessed the accuracy of W4SS and alternative screening tests or strategies to guide diagnostic testing; and compared the accuracy of the WHO Xpert algorithm (W4SS followed by Xpert) with Xpert for all. We obtained pooled proportion estimates with a random-effects model, assessed diagnostic accuracy by fitting random-effects bivariate models, and assessed diagnostic yield descriptively. This systematic review has been registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020155895).
FINDINGS
Of 6162 potentially eligible publications, six were eligible and we obtained data for all of the six publications (n=3660 participants). The pooled proportion of inpatients eligible for an Xpert was 90% (95% CI 89-91; n=3658). Among screening tests to guide diagnostic testing, W4SS and C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L) had highest sensitivities (≥96%) but low specificities (≤12%); cough (≥2 weeks), haemoglobin concentration (<8 g/dL), body-mass index (<18·5 kg/m2), and lymphadenopathy had higher specificities (61-90%) but suboptimal sensitivities (12-57%). The WHO Xpert algorithm (W4SS followed by Xpert) had a sensitivity of 76% (95% CI 67-84) and specificity of 93% (88-96; n=637). Xpert for all had similar accuracy to the WHO Xpert algorithm: sensitivity was 78% (95% CI 69-85) and specificity was 93% (87-96; n=639). In two cohorts that had sputum and non-sputum samples collected for culture or Xpert, diagnostic yield of sputum Xpert was 41-70% and 61-64% for urine Xpert.
INTERPRETATION
The W4SS and other potential screening tests to guide Xpert testing have suboptimal accuracy in HIV-positive inpatients. On the basis of these findings, WHO now strongly recommends molecular rapid diagnostic testing in all medical HIV-positive inpatients in settings where tuberculosis prevalence is higher than 10%.
Journal Article > ResearchAbstract Only
J. Infect.. 2022 May 16; Volume S0163-4453 (Issue 22); 00292-4.; DOI:10.1016/j.jinf.2022.05.010
Dhana A, Hamada Y, Kengne AP, Kerkhoff AD, Broger T, et al.
J. Infect.. 2022 May 16; Volume S0163-4453 (Issue 22); 00292-4.; DOI:10.1016/j.jinf.2022.05.010
BACKGROUND
WHO recommends urine lateral-flow lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) testing with AlereLAM in HIV-positive inpatients only if screening criteria are met. We assessed the performance of WHO screening criteria and alternative screening tests/strategies to guide LF-LAM testing and compared diagnostic accuracy of the WHO AlereLAM algorithm (WHO screening criteria → AlereLAM) with AlereLAM and FujiLAM (a novel LF-LAM test).
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from Jan 1, 2011 to March 1, 2020 for studies among adult/adolescent HIV-positive inpatients regardless of tuberculosis signs and symptoms. The reference standards were 1) AlereLAM or FujiLAM for screening tests/strategies and 2) culture or Xpert for AlereLAM/FujiLAM. We determined proportion of inpatients eligible for AlereLAM using WHO screening criteria; assessed accuracy of WHO criteria and alternative screening tests/strategies to guide LF-LAM testing; compared accuracy of WHO AlereLAM algorithm with AlereLAM/FujiLAM in all; and determined diagnostic yield of AlereLAM, FujiLAM, and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert). We estimated pooled proportions with a random-effects model, assessed diagnostic accuracy using random-effects bivariate models, and assessed diagnostic yield descriptively.
FINDINGS
We obtained data from all 5 identified studies (n=3,504). The pooled proportion of inpatients eligible for AlereLAM using WHO criteria was 93% (95%CI 91, 95). Among screening tests/strategies to guide LF-LAM testing, WHO criteria, C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L), and CD4 count (<200 cells/μL) had high sensitivities but low specificities; cough (≥2 weeks), haemoglobin (<8 g/dL), body mass index (<18.5 kg/m2), lymphadenopathy, and WHO-defined danger signs had higher specificities but suboptimal sensitivities. AlereLAM in all had the same sensitivity (62%) and specificity (88%) as WHO AlereLAM algorithm. Sensitivity of FujiLAM and AlereLAM was 69% and 48%, while specificity was 48% and 96%, respectively. Diagnostic yield of sputum Xpert was 29-41%, AlereLAM was 39-76%, and urine Xpert was 35-62%. In one study, FujiLAM diagnosed 80% of tuberculosis cases (vs 39% for AlereLAM), and sputum Xpert combined with AlereLAM, urine Xpert, or FujiLAM diagnosed 69%, 81%, and 92% of all cases, respectively.
INTERPRETATION
WHO criteria and alternative screening tests/strategies have limited utility in guiding LF-LAM testing, suggesting that AlereLAM testing in all HIV-positive medical inpatients be implemented. Routine FujiLAM may improve tuberculosis diagnosis.
WHO recommends urine lateral-flow lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) testing with AlereLAM in HIV-positive inpatients only if screening criteria are met. We assessed the performance of WHO screening criteria and alternative screening tests/strategies to guide LF-LAM testing and compared diagnostic accuracy of the WHO AlereLAM algorithm (WHO screening criteria → AlereLAM) with AlereLAM and FujiLAM (a novel LF-LAM test).
METHODS
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library from Jan 1, 2011 to March 1, 2020 for studies among adult/adolescent HIV-positive inpatients regardless of tuberculosis signs and symptoms. The reference standards were 1) AlereLAM or FujiLAM for screening tests/strategies and 2) culture or Xpert for AlereLAM/FujiLAM. We determined proportion of inpatients eligible for AlereLAM using WHO screening criteria; assessed accuracy of WHO criteria and alternative screening tests/strategies to guide LF-LAM testing; compared accuracy of WHO AlereLAM algorithm with AlereLAM/FujiLAM in all; and determined diagnostic yield of AlereLAM, FujiLAM, and Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert). We estimated pooled proportions with a random-effects model, assessed diagnostic accuracy using random-effects bivariate models, and assessed diagnostic yield descriptively.
FINDINGS
We obtained data from all 5 identified studies (n=3,504). The pooled proportion of inpatients eligible for AlereLAM using WHO criteria was 93% (95%CI 91, 95). Among screening tests/strategies to guide LF-LAM testing, WHO criteria, C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L), and CD4 count (<200 cells/μL) had high sensitivities but low specificities; cough (≥2 weeks), haemoglobin (<8 g/dL), body mass index (<18.5 kg/m2), lymphadenopathy, and WHO-defined danger signs had higher specificities but suboptimal sensitivities. AlereLAM in all had the same sensitivity (62%) and specificity (88%) as WHO AlereLAM algorithm. Sensitivity of FujiLAM and AlereLAM was 69% and 48%, while specificity was 48% and 96%, respectively. Diagnostic yield of sputum Xpert was 29-41%, AlereLAM was 39-76%, and urine Xpert was 35-62%. In one study, FujiLAM diagnosed 80% of tuberculosis cases (vs 39% for AlereLAM), and sputum Xpert combined with AlereLAM, urine Xpert, or FujiLAM diagnosed 69%, 81%, and 92% of all cases, respectively.
INTERPRETATION
WHO criteria and alternative screening tests/strategies have limited utility in guiding LF-LAM testing, suggesting that AlereLAM testing in all HIV-positive medical inpatients be implemented. Routine FujiLAM may improve tuberculosis diagnosis.