Point-of-care C-reactive protein and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for tuberculosis screening and diagnosis in unselected antiretroviral therapy initiators: a prospective, cross-sectional, diagnostic accuracy study.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis, a major cause of death in people living with HIV, remains challenging to diagnose. Diagnostic accuracy data are scarce for promising triage and confirmatory tests such as C-reactive protein (CRP), sputum and urine Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra), and urine Determine TB LAM Ag (a lateral flow lipoarabinomannan [LF-LAM] test), without symptom selection. We evaluated novel triage and confirmatory tests in ambulatory people with HIV initiating antiretroviral therapy (ART). METHODS: 897 ART-initiators were recruited irrespective of symptoms and sputum induction offered. For triage (n=800), we evaluated point-of-care blood-based CRP testing, compared with the WHO-recommended four-symptom screen (W4SS). For sputum-based confirmatory testing (n=787), we evaluated Xpert Ultra versus Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert). For urine-based confirmatory testing (n=732), we evaluated Xpert Ultra and LF-LAM. We used a sputum culture reference standard. FINDINGS: 463 (52%) of 897 participants were female. The areas under the receiver operator characteristic curves for CRP was 0·78 (95% CI 0·73-0·83) and for number of W4SS symptoms was 0·70 (0·64-0·75). CRP (≥10 mg/L) had similar sensitivity to W4SS (77% [95% CI 68-85; 80/104] vs 77% [68-85; 80/104]; p>0·99] but higher specificity (64% [61-68; 445/696] vs 48% [45-52; 334/696]; p<0·0001]; reducing unnecessary confirmatory testing by 138 (95% CI 117-160) per 1000 people and number-needed-to-test from 6·91 (95% CI 6·25-7·81) to 4·87 (4·41-5·51). Sputum samples with Xpert Ultra, which required induction in 49 (31%) of 158 of people (95% CI 24-39), had higher sensitivity than Xpert (71% [95% CI 61-80; 74/104] vs 56% [46-66; 58/104]; p<0·0001). Of the people with one or more confirmatory sputum or urine test results that were positive, the proportion detected by Xpert Ultra increased from 45% (26-64) to 66% (46-82) with induction. Programmatically done haemoglobin, triage test combinations, and urine tests showed comparatively worse results. INTERPRETATION: CRP is a more specific triage test than W4SS in those initiating ART. Sputum induction improves diagnostic yield. Sputum samples with Xpert Ultra is a more accurate confirmatory test than with Xpert. FUNDING: South African Medical Research Council, EDCTP2, US National Institutes of Health-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Point-of-care C-reactive protein and Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra for tuberculosis screening and diagnosis in unselected antiretroviral therapy initiators: a prospective diagnostic accuracy study.

Background: Tuberculosis (TB), a major cause of death in people living with HIV (PLHIV), remains challenging to diagnose. Diagnostic accuracy data are lacking for promising triage tests, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), and confirmatory tests, such as sputum and urine Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), and urine LAM, without prior symptom selection. Methods: 897 PLHIV initiating antiretroviral therapy were consecutively recruited in settings with high TB incidence, irrespective of symptoms. Participants were offered sputum induction, with a liquid culture reference standard. First, we evaluated point-of-care CRP testing on blood, compared to the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended four-symptom screen (W4SS) for triage (n=800). Second, we evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) versus Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) for sputum-based confirmatory testing (n=787), with or without sputum induction. Third, we evaluated Ultra and Determine LF-LAM for urine-based confirmatory testing (n=732). Findings: CRP and number of W4SS symptoms had areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.73, 0.83) and 0.70 (0.64, 0.75), respectively. For triage, CRP (≥10 mg/l) has similar sensitivity to W4SS [77% (68, 85) vs. 77% (68, 85); p>0.999] but higher specificity [64% (61, 68) vs. 48% (45, 52); p<0.001]; reducing unnecessary confirmatory testing by 138 per 1000 people and the number-needed-to-test from 6.91 (6.25, 7.81) to 4.87 (4.41, 5.51). Using sputum, which required induction in 31% (24, 39) of people, Ultra had higher sensitivity than Xpert [71% (61, 80) vs. 56% (46, 66); p<0.001] but lower specificity [98% (96, 100) vs. 99% (98, 100); p<0.001]. The proportion of people with ≥1 positive confirmatory result detected by Ultra increased from 45% (26, 64) to 66% (46, 82) when induction was done. Programmatically-done haemoglobin, triage test combinations, and urine tests showed comparatively worse performance. Interpretation: Among ART-initiators in a high burden setting, CRP is a more specific triage test than W4SS. Sputum induction improves yield. Sputum Ultra is a more accurate confirmatory test than Xpert. Funding: SAMRC (MRC-RFA-IFSP-01-2013), EDCTP2 (SF1401, OPTIMAL DIAGNOSIS), NIH/NIAD (U01AI152087). Research in context: Evidence before this study: Novel triage and confirmatory tests are urgently needed for TB, especially in key risk groups like PLHIV. Many TB cases do not meet World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended four-symptom screen (W4SS) criteria despite accounting for significant transmission and morbidity. W4SS also lacks specificity, which makes onward referral of triage-positive people for expensive confirmatory testing inefficient and hampers diagnostic scale-up. Alternative triage approaches like CRP have promise, but have comparatively little data in ART-initiators, especially when done without syndromic preselection and using point-of-care (POC) tools. After triage, confirmatory testing can be challenging due to sputum scarcity and paucibacillary early-stage disease. Next generation WHO-endorsed rapid molecular tests (including Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra; Ultra) are a standard-of-care for confirmatory testing. However, there are no supporting data in ART-initiators, among whom Ultra may offer large sensitivity gains over predecessors like Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert). The added value of sputum induction to augment diagnostic sampling for confirmatory testing is also unclear. Lastly, the performance of urine tests (Ultra, Determine LF-LAM) in this population requires more data.Added value of this study: We evaluated repurposed and new tests for triage and confirmatory testing using a rigorous microbiological reference standard in a highly vulnerable high-priority patient population (ART-initiators) regardless of symptoms and ability to naturally expectorate sputum. We showed POC CRP triage is feasible, performs better than W4SS, and that combinations of different triage approaches offer no advantages over CRP alone. Sputum Ultra has superior sensitivity to Xpert; often detecting W4SS-negative TB. Furthermore, without induction, confirmatory sputum-based testing would not be possible in a third of people. Urine tests had poor performance. This study contributed unpublished data to systematic reviews and meta-analyses used by the WHO to inform global policy supporting use of CRP triage and Ultra in PLHIV.Implication of all the available evidence: POC CRP triage testing is feasible and superior to W4SS and, together with sputum induction in people who triage CRP-positive should, after appropriate cost and implementation research, be considered for roll-out in ART-initiators in high burden settings. Such people should be offered Ultra, which outperforms Xpert.

Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra Is Highly Sensitive for the Diagnosis of Tuberculosis Lymphadenitis in a High-HIV Setting.

Tuberculosis lymphadenitis (TBL) is the most common extrapulmonary tuberculosis (EPTB) manifestation. Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) is a World Health Organization-endorsed diagnostic test, but performance data for TBL, including on noninvasive specimens, are limited. Fine-needle aspiration biopsy specimens (FNABs) from outpatients (≥18 years) with presumptive TBL (n = 135) underwent (i) routine Xpert MTB/RIF testing (later with Ultra once programmatically available), (ii) MGIT 960 culture (if Xpert or Ultra negative or rifampicin resistant), and (iii) study Ultra testing. Concentrated paired urine specimens underwent Ultra testing. Primary analyses used a microbiological reference standard (MRS). In a head-to-head comparison (n = 92) of an FNAB study Ultra and Xpert, Ultra had increased sensitivity (91% [95% confidence interval: 79, 98] versus 72% [57, 84]; P = 0.016) and decreased specificity (76% [61, 87] versus 93% [82, 99]; P = 0.020) and diagnosed patients not on treatment. Neither HIV nor alternative reference standards affected sensitivity and specificity. In patients with both routine and study Ultra tests, the latter detected more cases (+20% [0, 42]; P = 0.034), and false-negative study Ultra results were more inhibited than true-positive results. Study Ultra false positives had less mycobacterial DNA than true positives (trace-positive proportions, 59% [13/22] versus 12% [5/51]; P < 0.001). "Trace" exclusion or recategorization removed potential benefits offered over Xpert. Urine Ultra tests had low sensitivity (18% [7, 35]). Ultra testing on FNABs is highly sensitive and detects more TBL than Xpert (Ultra still missed some cases due in part to inhibition). Patients with FNAB Ultra-positive "trace" results, most of whom will be culture negative, may require additional clinical investigation. Urine Ultra testing could reduce the number of patients needing invasive sampling.