Brief Report: Yield and Efficiency of Intensified Tuberculosis Case-Finding Algorithms in 2 High-Risk HIV Subgroups in Uganda

Transaminitis prevalence among HIV-infected adults eligible for tuberculosis preventive therapy

OBJECTIVE

To assess the prevalence of severe transaminitis precluding tuberculosis (TB) preventive therapy (TPT) initiation for people with HIV (PWH) in a high TB/HIV burden setting.

DESIGN/METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of data from a prospective cohort study of PWH with pre-antiretroviral therapy (ART) CD4 + counts 350 cells/μl or less undergoing systematic TB screening from two HIV clinics in Uganda. For this analysis, we excluded patients with culture-confirmed TB and patients without aspartate transaminase (AST) or alanine transaminase (ALT) levels measured within three months of enrollment. We compared the proportion of patients with any transaminitis (AST or ALT greater than one times the upper limit of normal ULN) and severe transaminitis (AST or ALT >3 times ULN) for patients screening negative for TB by symptoms and for those screening negative by C-reactive protein (CRP). We also assessed the proportion of patients with transaminitis by self-reported alcohol consumption.

RESULTS

Among 313 participants [158 (50%) women, median age 34 years (IQR 27-40)], 75 (24%) had any transaminitis and six (2%) had severe transaminitis. Of 32 of 313 (10%) who screened negative for TB by symptoms, none had severe transaminitis. In contrast, six-times more PWH screened negative for TB by CRP (194 of 313; 62%), of whom only four (2.1%) had severe transaminitis. Differences in the proportion with any and severe transaminitis according to alcohol consumption were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Prevalence of severe transaminitis was low among PWH without culture-confirmed TB in this setting, and is therefore, unlikely to be a major barrier to scaling-up TPT.

Screening performance of C-reactive protein for active pulmonary tuberculosis in HIV-positive patients: A systematic review with a meta-analysis

Background

Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading infectious cause of mortality worldwide. In the last years, resistant strains of the etiological agent, Mycobacterium tuberculosis, have emerged, thus demanding more triage tests to identify active pulmonary TB (PTB) patients and to evaluate their disease severity. Therefore, acute-phase reaction serum tests are required for monitoring TB patients, among WHO symptom screening recommendations. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a non-specific inflammatory biomarker that has been recently proposed for TB screening and can be quantitatively analyzed through cost-effective point-of-care assays. A previous meta-analysis found CRP to be highly sensitive and moderately specific for active PTB with confirmed HIV infection.

Methods

We performed a meta-analysis update of diagnostic tests, pooling sensitivities, and specificities in order to assess the accuracy of CRP as a potential test for the screening of HIV-associated PTB in outpatients. We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, and SCOPUS for eligible articles before 19 October 2021.

Results

We identified 13 eligible studies with HIV-positive patients with PTB. At a CRP threshold of 10 mg/L, CRP pooled sensitivity was 87% (76%–93%) and pooled specificity was 67% (49%–81%), with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.858. Using a CRP threshold of 8 mg/L, pooled sensitivity was 82% (72%–89%) and pooled specificity was 82% (67%–92%), with an AUC of 0.879. We found that CRP has a high sensitivity in the screening of PTB in HIV-positive outpatients, consistent with findings reported previously.

Conclusions

Regardless of pooled specificity, better results were found using the CRP threshold of 8 mg/L as a test screening of PTB, meeting the need of further approaching specific TB diagnostic methods and reducing resource consumption.

Tuberculosis screening improves preventive therapy uptake (TB SCRIPT) trial among people living with HIV in Uganda: a study protocol of an individual randomized controlled trial

Background

People living with HIV (PLHIV) have an increased risk of developing active tuberculosis (TB). To reduce the burden of TB among PLHIV, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends systematic TB screening followed by (1) confirmatory TB testing for all who screen positive and (2) TB preventive therapy (TPT) for all TPT-eligible PLHIV who screen negative. Symptom-based screening remains the standard of care in most high TB burden settings, including Uganda. Despite having high sensitivity for active TB among antiretroviral-naïve PLHIV, symptom screening has poor specificity; as such, many high-risk PLHIV without active TB are not referred for TPT. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a promising alternative strategy for TB screening that has comparable sensitivity and higher specificity than symptom screening, and was endorsed by WHO in 2021. However, the impact of CRP-based TB screening on TB burden for PLHIV remains unclear.

Methods

TB SCRIPT (TB Screening Improves Preventive Therapy Uptake) is a phase 3, multi-center, single-blinded, individual (1:1) randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of CRP-based TB screening on clinical outcomes of PLHIV. The trial aims to compare the effectiveness of a TB screening strategy based on CRP levels using a point-of-care (POC) assay on 2-year TB incidence and all-cause mortality (composite primary trial endpoint) and prevalent TB case detection and uptake of TPT (intermediate outcomes), relative to symptom-based TB screening (current practice).

Discussion

This study will be critical to improving selection of eligible PLHIV for TPT and helping guide the scale-up and integration of TB screening and TPT activities. This work will enable the field to improve TB screening by removing barriers to TPT initiation among eligible PLHIV, and provide randomized evidence to inform and strengthen WHO guidelines.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04557176. Registered on September 21, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06371-0.

Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra assays for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms

BACKGROUND

Tuberculosis is a leading cause of infectious disease-related death and is one of the top 10 causes of death worldwide. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends the use of specific rapid molecular tests, including Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra, as initial diagnostic tests for the detection of tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in people with signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. However, the WHO estimates that nearly one-third of all active tuberculosis cases go undiagnosed and unreported. We were interested in whether a single test, Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra, could be useful as a screening test to close this diagnostic gap and improve tuberculosis case detection.

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for screening for pulmonary tuberculosis in adults, irrespective of signs or symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in high-risk groups and in the general population. Screening "irrespective of signs or symptoms" refers to screening of people who have not been assessed for the presence of tuberculosis symptoms (e.g. cough). To estimate the accuracy of Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra for detecting rifampicin resistance in adults screened for tuberculosis, irrespective of signs and symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis in high-risk groups and in the general population.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched 12 databases including the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE and Embase, on 19 March 2020 without language restrictions. We also reviewed reference lists of included articles and related Cochrane Reviews, and contacted researchers in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Cross-sectional and cohort studies in which adults (15 years and older) in high-risk groups (e.g. people living with HIV, household contacts of people with tuberculosis) or in the general population were screened for pulmonary tuberculosis using Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra. For tuberculosis detection, the reference standard was culture. For rifampicin resistance detection, the reference standards were culture-based drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data using a standardized form and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. We used a bivariate random-effects model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs) separately for tuberculosis detection and rifampicin resistance detection. We estimated all models using a Bayesian approach. For tuberculosis detection, we first estimated screening accuracy in distinct high-risk groups, including people living with HIV, household contacts, people residing in prisons, and miners, and then in several high-risk groups combined.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 21 studies: 18 studies (13,114 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test for pulmonary tuberculosis and one study (571 participants) evaluated both Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra. Three studies (159 participants) evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF for rifampicin resistance. Fifteen studies (75%) were conducted in high tuberculosis burden and 16 (80%) in high TB/HIV-burden countries. We judged most studies to have low risk of bias in all four QUADAS-2 domains and low concern for applicability. Xpert MTB/RIF and Xpert Ultra as screening tests for pulmonary tuberculosis In people living with HIV (12 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) were 61.8% (53.6 to 69.9) (602 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 98.8% (98.0 to 99.4) (4173 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 50 have tuberculosis on culture, 40 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive; of these, 9 (22%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 960 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative; of these, 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). In people living with HIV (1 study), Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% CI) were 69% (57 to 80) (68 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 98% (97 to 99) (503 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 50 have tuberculosis on culture, 53 would be Xpert Ultra-positive; of these, 19 (36%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 947 would be Xpert Ultra-negative; of these, 16 (2%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). In non-hospitalized people in high-risk groups (5 studies), Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 69.4% (47.7 to 86.2) (337 participants, low-certainty evidence) and 98.8% (97.2 to 99.5) (8619 participants, moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 10 have tuberculosis on culture, 19 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive; of these, 12 (63%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives); and 981 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative; of these, 3 (0%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). We did not identify any studies using Xpert MTB/RIF or Xpert Ultra for screening in the general population. Xpert MTB/RIF as a screening test for rifampicin resistance Xpert MTB/RIF sensitivity was 81% and 100% (2 studies, 20 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and specificity was 94% to 100%, (3 studies, 139 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Of the high-risks groups evaluated, Xpert MTB/RIF applied as a screening test was accurate for tuberculosis in high tuberculosis burden settings. Sensitivity and specificity were similar in people living with HIV and non-hospitalized people in high-risk groups. In people living with HIV, Xpert Ultra sensitivity was slightly higher than that of Xpert MTB/RIF and specificity similar. As there was only one study of Xpert Ultra in this analysis, results should be interpreted with caution. There were no studies that evaluated the tests in people with diabetes mellitus and other groups considered at high-risk for tuberculosis, or in the general population.