Host-Based Biomarkers in Saliva for the Diagnosis of Pulmonary Tuberculosis in Children: A Mini-Review

The diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) in children remains a significant challenge due to its paucibacillary nature, non-specificity of symptoms and suboptimal sensitivity of available diagnostic methods. In young children particularly, it is difficult to obtain high-quality sputum specimens for testing, with this group the least likely to be diagnosed, while most at risk of severe disease. The World Health Organization (WHO) has prioritized research into rapid biomarker-based tests for TB using easily obtainable non-sputum samples, such as saliva. However, the role of biomarkers in saliva for diagnosing TB in children has not been fully explored. In this mini-review, we discuss the value of saliva as a diagnostic specimen in children given its ready availability and non-invasive nature of collection, and review the literature on the use of host-based biomarkers in saliva for diagnosing active pulmonary TB in adults and children. Based on available data from adult studies, we highlight that combinations of cytokines and other proteins show promise in reaching WHO-endorsed target product profiles for new TB triage tests. Given the lack of pediatric research on host biomarkers in saliva and the differing immune response to TB infection between children and adults, we recommend that pediatric studies are now performed to discover and validate salivary host biosignatures for diagnosing pulmonary TB in children. Future directions for pediatric saliva studies are discussed, with suggestions for technologies that can be applied for salivary biomarker discovery and point-of-care test development

Uncertainty in tuberculosis clinical decision-making: An umbrella review with systematic methods and thematic analysis

Tuberculosis is a major infectious disease worldwide, but currently available diagnostics have suboptimal accuracy, particularly in patients unable to expectorate, and are often unavailable at the point-of-care in resource-limited settings. Test/treatment decision are, therefore, often made on clinical grounds. We hypothesized that contextual factors beyond disease probability may influence clinical decisions about when to test and when to treat for tuberculosis. This umbrella review aimed to identify such factors, and to develop a framework for uncertainty in tuberculosis clinical decision-making. Systematic reviews were searched in seven databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL Complete, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane, PROSPERO, Epistemonikos) using predetermined search criteria. Findings were classified as barriers and facilitators for testing or treatment decisions, and thematically analysed based on a multi-level model of uncertainty in health care. We included 27 reviews. Study designs and primary aims were heterogeneous, with seven meta-analyses and three qualitative evidence syntheses. Facilitators for decisions to test included providers’ advanced professional qualification and confidence in tests results, availability of automated diagnostics with quick turnaround times. Common barriers for requesting a diagnostic test included: poor provider tuberculosis knowledge, fear of acquiring tuberculosis through respiratory sampling, scarcity of healthcare resources, and complexity of specimen collection. Facilitators for empiric treatment included patients’ young age, severe sickness, and test inaccessibility. Main barriers to treatment included communication obstacles, providers’ high confidence in negative test results (irrespective of negative predictive value). Multiple sources of uncertainty were identified at the patient, provider, diagnostic test, and healthcare system levels. Complex determinants of uncertainty influenced decision-making. This could result in delayed or missed diagnosis and treatment opportunities. It is important to understand the variability associated with patient-provider clinical encounters and healthcare settings, clinicians’ attitudes, and experiences, as well as diagnostic test characteristics, to improve clinical practices, and allow an impactful introduction of novel diagnostics

FujiLAM for the diagnosis of childhood tuberculosis: a systematic review

Background: Childhood tuberculosis (TB) remains underdiagnosed. The novel lateral flow FujiLAM assay detects lipoarabinomannan (LAM) in urine, but data on performance in children remain limited. Methods: We conducted a systematic review assessing the diagnostic performance of FujiLAM for diagnosing paediatric TB. The last search was conducted in November 2021. Results: We included three studies with data from 698 children for FujiLAM. For FujiLAM, sensitivity using a microbiological reference standard were 60% (95% CI 15 to 95), 42% (95% CI 31 to 53) and 63% (95% CI 50 to 75), respectively. Specificity was 93% (95% CI 85 to 98), 92% (95% CI 85 to 96) and 84% (95% CI 80 to 88). Using a composite reference standard, sensitivity was 11% (95% CI 4 to 22), 27% (95% CI 20 to 34) and 33% (95% CI 26 to 40), and specificity was 92% (95% CI 73 to 99), 97% (95% CI 87 to 100) and 85% (95% CI 79 to 89). Subgroup analyses for sensitivity of FujiLAM in children living with HIV (CLHIV) compared with those who were negative for HIV infection were inconsistent across studies. Among CLHIV, sensitivity appeared higher in those with greater immunosuppression, although wide CIs limit the interpretation of observed differences. Meta-analysis was not performed due to considerable study heterogeneity. Conclusion: The high specificity of FujiLAM demonstrates its potential as a point-of-care (POC) rule-in test for diagnosing paediatric TB. As an instrument-free POC test that uses an easy-to-obtain specimen, FujiLAM could significantly improve TB diagnosis in children in low-resource settings, however the small number of studies available highlight that further data are needed. Key priorities to be addressed in forthcoming paediatric evaluations include prospective head-to-head comparisons with AlereLAM using fresh specimens, specific subgroup analysis in CLHIV and extrapulmonary disease and studies in different geographical locations

Safety and immunogenicity of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine against SARS-CoV-2: a preliminary report of a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) might be curtailed by vaccination. We assessed the safety, reactogenicity, and immunogenicity of a viral vectored coronavirus vaccine that expresses the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2. METHODS: We did a phase 1/2, single-blind, randomised controlled trial in five trial sites in the UK of a chimpanzee adenovirus-vectored vaccine (ChAdOx1 nCoV-19) expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein compared with a meningococcal conjugate vaccine (MenACWY) as control. Healthy adults aged 18-55 years with no history of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection or of COVID-19-like symptoms were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 at a dose of 5 × 1010 viral particles or MenACWY as a single intramuscular injection. A protocol amendment in two of the five sites allowed prophylactic paracetamol to be administered before vaccination. Ten participants assigned to a non-randomised, unblinded ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group received a two-dose schedule, with the booster vaccine administered 28 days after the first dose. Humoral responses at baseline and following vaccination were assessed using a standardised total IgG ELISA against trimeric SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, a muliplexed immunoassay, three live SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assays (a 50% plaque reduction neutralisation assay [PRNT50]; a microneutralisation assay [MNA50, MNA80, and MNA90]; and Marburg VN), and a pseudovirus neutralisation assay. Cellular responses were assessed using an ex-vivo interferon-γ enzyme-linked immunospot assay. The co-primary outcomes are to assess efficacy, as measured by cases of symptomatic virologically confirmed COVID-19, and safety, as measured by the occurrence of serious adverse events. Analyses were done by group allocation in participants who received the vaccine. Safety was assessed over 28 days after vaccination. Here, we report the preliminary findings on safety, reactogenicity, and cellular and humoral immune responses. The study is ongoing, and was registered at ISRCTN, 15281137, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and May 21, 2020, 1077 participants were enrolled and assigned to receive either ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (n=543) or MenACWY (n=534), ten of whom were enrolled in the non-randomised ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 prime-boost group. Local and systemic reactions were more common in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and many were reduced by use of prophylactic paracetamol, including pain, feeling feverish, chills, muscle ache, headache, and malaise (all p<0·05). There were no serious adverse events related to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19. In the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, spike-specific T-cell responses peaked on day 14 (median 856 spot-forming cells per million peripheral blood mononuclear cells, IQR 493-1802; n=43). Anti-spike IgG responses rose by day 28 (median 157 ELISA units [EU], 96-317; n=127), and were boosted following a second dose (639 EU, 360-792; n=10). Neutralising antibody responses against SARS-CoV-2 were detected in 32 (91%) of 35 participants after a single dose when measured in MNA80 and in 35 (100%) participants when measured in PRNT50. After a booster dose, all participants had neutralising activity (nine of nine in MNA80 at day 42 and ten of ten in Marburg VN on day 56). Neutralising antibody responses correlated strongly with antibody levels measured by ELISA (R2=0·67 by Marburg VN; p<0·001). INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 showed an acceptable safety profile, and homologous boosting increased antibody responses. These results, together with the induction of both humoral and cellular immune responses, support large-scale evaluation of this candidate vaccine in an ongoing phase 3 programme. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and the German Center for Infection Research (DZIF), Partner site Gießen-Marburg-Langen