ABSTRACT
Background Reliance on sputum-based testing is a key barrier to increasing access to molecular diagnostics for tuberculosis (TB). Many people with TB are unable to produce and sputum processing increases the complexity and cost of molecular assays. Tongue swabs are emerging as an alternative to sputum, but performance limits are uncertain.
Methods From June 2022 to July 2023, we enrolled 397 consecutive adults with cough >2 weeks at two health centers in Kampala, Uganda. We collected routine demographic and clinical information, sputum for routine TB testing (one Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra® and two liquid cultures), and up to four tongue swabs for same-day qPCR. We evaluated tongue swab qPCR diagnostic accuracy in reference to sputum TB test results, quantified TB targets per swab, assessed the impact of serial swabbing, and compared two swab types (Copan FLOQSWAB® and Steripack® spun polyester swabs).
Results Among 397 participants, 43.1% were female, median age was 33 years, 23.5% were living with HIV (PLHIV) and 32.3% had confirmed TB. Sputum Xpert Ultra and tongue swab qPCR results were concordant for 98.2% [96.2-99.1] of participants. Tongue swab qPCR sensitivity was 91.0% [84.6-94.9] and specificity 98.9% [96.2-99.8] vs. microbiological reference standard (MRS). A single tongue swab recovered a seven-log range of TB copies, with a decreasing recovery trend among four serial swabs. We found no difference between swab types.
Conclusions Tongue swabs show promise as an alternative to sputum for TB diagnosis, with sensitivity approaching sputum-based molecular tests. Our results provide valuable insights for developing successful tongue swab-based TB diagnostics.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Research reported in this publication was supported by funding from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the National Institutes of Health under award number U01AI152087, and from Global Health Labs.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was approved by the Makerere University School of Medicine Research and Ethics Committee (2020-182) and the Ugandan National Council on Science and Technology (HS1482ES). Clinical and laboratory staff were blinded to TB status during collection and processing.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
