Diagnostic accuracy of WHO screening criteria to guide lateral-flow lipoarabinomannan testing among HIV-positive inpatients: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

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. FUNDING: None

Tuberculosis screening among HIV-positive inpatients: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BackgroundSince 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.MethodsWe 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).FindingsOf 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 (2), 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.InterpretationThe 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%.FundingWorld Health Organization

Diagnostic yield of urine lipoarabinomannan and sputum tuberculosis tests in people living with HIV: a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data

BACKGROUND: Sputum is the most widely used sample to diagnose active tuberculosis, but many people living with HIV are unable to produce sputum. Urine, in contrast, is readily available. We hypothesised that sample availability influences the diagnostic yield of various tuberculosis tests. METHODS: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data, we compared the diagnostic yield of point-of-care urine-based lipoarabinomannan tests with that of sputum-based nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) and sputum smear microscopy (SSM). We used microbiologically confirmed tuberculosis based on positive culture or NAAT from any body site as the denominator and accounted for sample provision. We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, African Journals Online, and clinicaltrials.gov from database inception to Feb 24, 2022 for randomised controlled trials, cross-sectional studies, and cohort studies that assessed urine lipoarabinomannan point-of-care tests and sputum NAATs for active tuberculosis detection in participants irrespective of tuberculosis symptoms, HIV status, CD4 cell count, or study setting. We excluded studies in which recruitment was not consecutive, systematic, or random; provision of sputum or urine was an inclusion criterion; less than 30 participants were diagnosed with tuberculosis; early research assays without clearly defined cutoffs were tested; and humans were not studied. We extracted study-level data, and authors of eligible studies were invited to contribute deidentified individual participant data. The main outcomes were the tuberculosis diagnostic yields of urine lipoarabinomannan tests, sputum NAATs, and SSM. Diagnostic yields were predicted using Bayesian random-effects and mixed-effects meta-analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021230337. FINDINGS: We identified 844 records, from which 20 datasets and 10 202 participants (4561 [45%] male participants and 5641 [55%] female participants) were included in the meta-analysis. All studies assessed sputum Xpert (MTB/RIF or Ultra, Cepheid, Sunnyvale, CA, USA) and urine Alere Determine TB LAM (AlereLAM, Abbott, Chicago, IL, USA) in people living with HIV aged 15 years or older. Nearly all (9957 [98%] of 10 202) participants provided urine, and 82% (8360 of 10 202) provided sputum within 2 days. In studies that enrolled unselected inpatients irrespective of tuberculosis symptoms, only 54% (1084 of 1993) of participants provided sputum, whereas 99% (1966 of 1993) provided urine. Diagnostic yield was 41% (95% credible interval [CrI] 15-66) for AlereLAM, 61% (95% Crl 25-88) for Xpert, and 32% (95% Crl 10-55) for SSM. Heterogeneity existed across studies in the diagnostic yield, influenced by CD4 cell count, tuberculosis symptoms, and clinical setting. In predefined subgroup analyses, all tests had higher yields in symptomatic participants, and AlereLAM yield was higher in those with low CD4 counts and inpatients. AlereLAM and Xpert yields were similar among inpatients in studies enrolling unselected participants who were not assessed for tuberculosis symptoms (51% vs 47%). AlereLAM and Xpert together had a yield of 71% in unselected inpatients, supporting the implementation of combined testing strategies. INTERPRETATION: AlereLAM, with its rapid turnaround time and simplicity, should be prioritised to inform tuberculosis therapy among inpatients who are HIV-positive, regardless of symptoms or CD4 cell count. The yield of sputum-based tuberculosis tests is undermined by people living with HIV who cannot produce sputum, whereas nearly all participants are able to provide urine. The strengths of this meta-analysis are its large size, the carefully harmonised denominator, and the use of Bayesian random-effects and mixed-effects models to predict yields; however, data were geographically restricted, clinically diagnosed tuberculosis was not considered in the denominator, and little information exists on strategies for obtaining sputum samples. FUNDING: FIND, the Global Alliance for Diagnostics

Tuberculosis screening among ambulatory people living with HIV: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BackgroundThe WHO-recommended tuberculosis screening and diagnostic algorithm in ambulatory people living with HIV is a four-symptom screen (known as the WHO-recommended four symptom screen [W4SS]) followed by a WHO-recommended molecular rapid diagnostic test (eg Xpert MTB/RIF [hereafter referred to as Xpert]) if W4SS is positive. To inform updated WHO guidelines, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of alternative screening tests and strategies for tuberculosis in this population.MethodsIn this systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis, we updated a search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and conference abstracts for publications from Jan 1, 2011, to March 12, 2018, done in a previous systematic review to include the period up to Aug 2, 2019. We screened the reference lists of identified pieces and contacted experts in the field. We included prospective cross-sectional, observational studies and randomised trials among adult and adolescent (age ≥10 years) ambulatory people living with HIV, irrespective of signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. We extracted study-level data using a standardised data extraction form, and we requested individual participant data from study authors. We aimed to compare the W4SS with alternative screening tests and strategies and the WHO-recommended algorithm (ie, W4SS followed by Xpert) with Xpert for all in terms of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), overall and in key subgroups (eg, by antiretroviral therapy [ART] status). The reference standard was culture. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020155895.FindingsWe identified 25 studies, and obtained data from 22 studies (including 15 666 participants; 4347 [27·7%] of 15 663 participants with data were on ART). W4SS sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 72-89) and specificity was 42% (29-57). C-reactive protein (≥10 mg/L) had similar sensitivity to (77% [61-88]), but higher specificity (74% [61-83]; n=3571) than, W4SS. Cough (lasting ≥2 weeks), haemoglobin (2), and lymphadenopathy had high specificities (80-90%) but low sensitivities (29-43%). The WHO-recommended algorithm had a sensitivity of 58% (50-66) and a specificity of 99% (98-100); Xpert for all had a sensitivity of 68% (57-76) and a specificity of 99% (98-99). In the one study that assessed both, the sensitivity of sputum Xpert Ultra was higher than sputum Xpert (73% [62-81] vs 57% [47-67]) and specificities were similar (98% [96-98] vs 99% [98-100]). Among outpatients on ART (4309 [99·1%] of 4347 people on ART), W4SS sensitivity was 53% (35-71) and specificity was 71% (51-85). In this population, a parallel strategy (two tests done at the same time) of W4SS with any chest x-ray abnormality had higher sensitivity (89% [70-97]) and lower specificity (33% [17-54]; n=2670) than W4SS alone; at a tuberculosis prevalence of 5%, this strategy would require 379 more rapid diagnostic tests per 1000 people living with HIV than W4SS but detect 18 more tuberculosis cases. Among outpatients not on ART (11 160 [71·8%] of 15 541 outpatients), W4SS sensitivity was 85% (76-91) and specificity was 37% (25-51). C-reactive protein (≥10 mg/L) alone had a similar sensitivity to (83% [79-86]), but higher specificity (67% [60-73]; n=3187) than, W4SS and a sequential strategy (both test positive) of W4SS then C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L) had a similar sensitivity to (84% [75-90]), but higher specificity than (64% [57-71]; n=3187), W4SS alone; at 10% tuberculosis prevalence, these strategies would require 272 and 244 fewer rapid diagnostic tests per 1000 people living with HIV than W4SS but miss two and one more tuberculosis cases, respectively.InterpretationC-reactive protein reduces the need for further rapid diagnostic tests without compromising sensitivity and has been included in the updated WHO tuberculosis screening guidelines. However, C-reactive protein data were scarce for outpatients on ART, necessitating future research regarding the utility of C-reactive protein in this group. Chest x-ray can be useful in outpatients on ART when combined with W4SS. The WHO-recommended algorithm has suboptimal sensitivity; Xpert for all offers slight sensitivity gains and would have major resource implications.FundingWorld Health Organization

The clinical utility of the urine-based lateral flow lipoarabinomannan assay in HIV-infected adults in Myanmar: an observational study

Abstract Background The use of the point-of-care lateral flow lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) test may expedite tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis in HIV-positive patients. However, the test’s clinical utility is poorly defined outside sub-Saharan Africa. Methods The study enrolled consecutive HIV-positive adults at a tertiary referral hospital in Yangon, Myanmar. On enrolment, patients had a LF-LAM test performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Clinicians managing the patients were unaware of the LF-LAM result, which was correlated with the patient’s clinical course over the ensuing 6 months. Results The study enrolled 54 inpatients and 463 outpatients between July 1 and December 31, 2015. On enrolment, the patients’ median (interquartile range) CD4 T-cell count was 270 (128–443) cells/mm3. The baseline LF-LAM test was positive in 201/517 (39%). TB was confirmed microbiologically during follow-up in 54/517 (10%), with rifampicin resistance present in 8/54 (15%). In the study’s resource-limited setting, extrapulmonary testing for TB was not possible, but after 6 months, 97/201 (48%) with a positive LF-LAM test on enrolment had neither died, required hospitalisation, received a TB diagnosis or received empirical anti-TB therapy, suggesting a high rate of false-positive results. Of the 97 false-positive tests, 89 (92%) were grade 1 positive, suggesting poor test specificity using this cut-off. Only 21/517 (4%) patients were inpatients with TB symptoms and a CD4 T-cell count of < 100 cells/mm3. Five (24%) of these 21 died, three of whom had a positive LF-LAM test on enrolment. However, all three received anti-TB therapy before death — two after diagnosis with Xpert MTB/RIF testing, while the other received empirical treatment. It is unlikely that knowledge of the baseline LF-LAM result would have averted any of the study’s other 11 deaths; eight had a negative test, and of the three patients with a positive test, two received anti-TB therapy before death, while one died from laboratory-confirmed cryptococcal meningitis. The test was no better than a simple, clinical history excluding TB during follow-up (negative predictive value (95% confidence interval): 94% (91–97) vs. 94% (91–96)). Conclusions The LF-LAM test had limited clinical utility in the management of HIV-positive patients in this Asian referral hospital setting

Epidemiological characteristics and real‐world treatment outcomes of hepatitis C among HIV/HCV co‐infected patients in Myanmar: A prospective cohort study

Abstract Background and Aims In Myanmar, public sector treatment programs for hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection were nonexistent until June 2017. WHO highlights the importance of simplification of HCV service delivery through task‐shifting among health workers and decentralization to the primary health care level. Between November 2016 and November 2017, a study was conducted to describe the epidemiological data and real‐world outcomes of treating HIV/HCV coinfected patients with generic direct acting antiviral (DAA) based regimens in the three HIV clinics run by nonspecialist medical doctors in Myanmar. Methods HCV co‐infection among people living with HIV (PLHIV) from two clinics in Yangon city and one clinic in Dawei city was screened by rapid diagnostic tests and confirmed by testing for viral RNA. Nonspecialist medical doctors prescribed sofosbuvir and daclatasvir based regimens (with or without ribavirin) for 12 or 24 weeks based on the HCV genotype and liver fibrosis status. Sustained virologic response at 12 weeks after treatment (SVR12) was assessed to determine cure. Results About 6.5% (1417/21,777) of PLHIV were co‐infected with HCV. Of 864 patients enrolled in the study, 50.8% reported history of substance use, 27% history of invasive medical procedures and 25.6% history of incarceration. Data on treatment outcomes were collected from 267 patients of which 257 (96.3%) achieved SVR12, 7 (2.6%) failed treatment, 2 (0.7%) died and 1 (0.4%) became loss to follow‐up. Conclusion The study results support the integration of hepatitis C diagnosis and treatment with DAA‐based regimens into existing HIV clinics run by nonspecialist medical doctors in a resource‐limited setting. Epidemiological data on HIV/HCV co‐infection call for comprehensive HCV care services among key populations like drug users and prisoners in Yangon and Dawei

Tuberculosis screening among ambulatory people living with HIV: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

BackgroundThe WHO-recommended tuberculosis screening and diagnostic algorithm in ambulatory people living with HIV is a four-symptom screen (known as the WHO-recommended four symptom screen [W4SS]) followed by a WHO-recommended molecular rapid diagnostic test (eg Xpert MTB/RIF [hereafter referred to as Xpert]) if W4SS is positive. To inform updated WHO guidelines, we aimed to assess the diagnostic accuracy of alternative screening tests and strategies for tuberculosis in this population.MethodsIn this systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis, we updated a search of PubMed (MEDLINE), Embase, the Cochrane Library, and conference abstracts for publications from Jan 1, 2011, to March 12, 2018, done in a previous systematic review to include the period up to Aug 2, 2019. We screened the reference lists of identified pieces and contacted experts in the field. We included prospective cross-sectional, observational studies and randomised trials among adult and adolescent (age ≥10 years) ambulatory people living with HIV, irrespective of signs and symptoms of tuberculosis. We extracted study-level data using a standardised data extraction form, and we requested individual participant data from study authors. We aimed to compare the W4SS with alternative screening tests and strategies and the WHO-recommended algorithm (ie, W4SS followed by Xpert) with Xpert for all in terms of diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity), overall and in key subgroups (eg, by antiretroviral therapy [ART] status). The reference standard was culture. This study is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020155895.FindingsWe identified 25 studies, and obtained data from 22 studies (including 15 666 participants; 4347 [27·7%] of 15 663 participants with data were on ART). W4SS sensitivity was 82% (95% CI 72-89) and specificity was 42% (29-57). C-reactive protein (≥10 mg/L) had similar sensitivity to (77% [61-88]), but higher specificity (74% [61-83]; n=3571) than, W4SS. Cough (lasting ≥2 weeks), haemoglobin (&lt;10 g/dL), body-mass index (&lt;18·5 kg/m2), and lymphadenopathy had high specificities (80-90%) but low sensitivities (29-43%). The WHO-recommended algorithm had a sensitivity of 58% (50-66) and a specificity of 99% (98-100); Xpert for all had a sensitivity of 68% (57-76) and a specificity of 99% (98-99). In the one study that assessed both, the sensitivity of sputum Xpert Ultra was higher than sputum Xpert (73% [62-81] vs 57% [47-67]) and specificities were similar (98% [96-98] vs 99% [98-100]). Among outpatients on ART (4309 [99·1%] of 4347 people on ART), W4SS sensitivity was 53% (35-71) and specificity was 71% (51-85). In this population, a parallel strategy (two tests done at the same time) of W4SS with any chest x-ray abnormality had higher sensitivity (89% [70-97]) and lower specificity (33% [17-54]; n=2670) than W4SS alone; at a tuberculosis prevalence of 5%, this strategy would require 379 more rapid diagnostic tests per 1000 people living with HIV than W4SS but detect 18 more tuberculosis cases. Among outpatients not on ART (11 160 [71·8%] of 15 541 outpatients), W4SS sensitivity was 85% (76-91) and specificity was 37% (25-51). C-reactive protein (≥10 mg/L) alone had a similar sensitivity to (83% [79-86]), but higher specificity (67% [60-73]; n=3187) than, W4SS and a sequential strategy (both test positive) of W4SS then C-reactive protein (≥5 mg/L) had a similar sensitivity to (84% [75-90]), but higher specificity than (64% [57-71]; n=3187), W4SS alone; at 10% tuberculosis prevalence, these strategies would require 272 and 244 fewer rapid diagnostic tests per 1000 people living with HIV than W4SS but miss two and one more tuberculosis cases, respectively.InterpretationC-reactive protein reduces the need for further rapid diagnostic tests without compromising sensitivity and has been included in the updated WHO tuberculosis screening guidelines. However, C-reactive protein data were scarce for outpatients on ART, necessitating future research regarding the utility of C-reactive protein in this group. Chest x-ray can be useful in outpatients on ART when combined with W4SS. The WHO-recommended algorithm has suboptimal sensitivity; Xpert for all offers slight sensitivity gains and would have major resource implications.FundingWorld Health Organization