Redefining typhoid diagnosis: what would an improved test need to look like?

INTRODUCTION

Typhoid fever (typhoid) is an enteric bacterial infection caused by Salmonella enterica serovar Typhi (Salmonella Typhi; S. Typhi). It is one of the most common bacterial causes of acute febrile illness in the developing world,[1] with an estimated 10.9 million new cases worldwide and 116.8 thousand deaths in 2017.[2,3] Paratyphoid fever caused by Salmonella enterica serovars Paratyphi A, B and C (S. Paratyphi) results in a disease that can have an identical clinical syndrome to typhoid fever,[4] but is often less severe.[5] Typhoid fever is most common in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, with children predominantly affected. Like many febrile illnesses, typhoid presents with non-specific symptoms and signs, especially in its early stages. In routine healthcare settings in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), typhoid fever is commonly suspected and treated empirically with antibiotics.[6] This overuse of antibiotics creates a selective pressure for the development of antimicrobial resistance (AMR),[7] that has resulted in the emergence and spread of typhoid strains that are resistant to all first-line antibiotics.[8] Similarly, the low specificity of current rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) can lead to an over diagnosis of typhoid fever that may result in the overuse of antibiotics and delay the proper treatment for underlying conditions. For example, the use of the Widal test during an outbreak of acute febrile illness in Nepal led to misdiagnosis of typhoid which delayed the appropriate treatment of the causative agent (scrub typhus), resulting in dozens of deaths.[9] The potential harms of current typhoid RDTs are compounded by the fact they are widely available, cheap and easy to use.[10]

Various aspects of S. Typhi biology make diagnosis by standard laboratory methods challenging. S. Typhi is able to bypass the gastrointestinal mucosal barrier that restricts other enteric bacteria and can evade the typical innate immune responses with limited activation of inflammatory pathways.[11] S. Typhi infection begins with invasion of the mucosa of the terminal ileum, and the organism is thought to only be transiently present in the blood before dissemination throughout the reticuloendothelial system into the bone marrow, liver and spleen.[12] The bacterial load in peripheral blood peaks in the first week of illness,[13] but is still very low with a median of 0.1-1.0 colony forming units (CFU)/mL in symptomatic patients.[14] This concentration is difficult to detect by blood culture or PCR, resulting in lower sensitivity for these diagnostic tests. S. Typhi is a member of the Enterobacteriaceae family, and antibodies that have been produced in response to prior infections with other Enterobacteriaceae tend to cross-react with S. Typhi,[12] due to significant conservation of surface antigens. This cross-reactivity lowers the specificity of antibody-based diagnostic assays that otherwise are well suited for a simple, rapid and inexpensive test format. Compounding the challenge, the muted immune response that occurs through expression of the Vi capsular polysaccharide[12] may further hinder the utility of serological tests for typhoid diagnosis.

In clinical settings supported by a microbiology laboratory, invasive typhoid infection is confirmed through isolation of S. Typhi from blood cultures, but this is relatively expensive, can take >48 hours, has low sensitivity, and requires laboratory infrastructure and trained staff that are not commonly available in LMIC where typhoid is most prevalent.[15] Bone marrow cultures have high sensitivity for detection of S. Typhi but are not routinely used because of the invasive techniques needed to obtain bone marrow aspirates. PCR testing for typhoid is expensive and has a low diagnostic sensitivity when used on peripheral blood samples.[16] Other available point-of-care (POC) diagnostic tests include the Widal test,[17] TUBEX,[18] Typhidot,[19] Test-it Typhoid,[20] and the Typhoid-Paratyphoid diagnostic assay (TPTest). However, these tests all have significant drawbacks that limit their clinical use.

A Cochrane review of the accuracy of the commercially available antibody-based rapid RDTs showed moderate sensitivity and specificity for the TUBEX colorimetric test that detects anti-O:9 antibody titres (78%, 87%), the Typhidot dot enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) that measures IgG and IgM antibodies against the outer membrane proteins of S. Typhi (84%, 79%) and the Test-it Typhoid immunochromatographic lateral flow assay that detects IgM antibodies against S. Typhi O antigen (69%, 90%).[21] The TPTest is a newer serological test that detects circulating IgA using ELISA with a sensitivity and specificity of >95%.[22] But it takes 24-48 hrs hours to produce a result, and requires blood culture equipment not widely available in resource-limited settings.[14,22] Due to the limited sensitivity of all current typhoid POC tests they cannot be relied upon to guide treatment prescribing.

If developed and implemented effectively, an accurate typhoid RDT could reduce morbidity and mortality through faster diagnosis. Further, it could help to reduce the overuse of antibiotics that contributes to the emergence and spread of multidrug resistant strains of S. Typhi and other bacteria. In recent years, novel approaches have been described to develop typhoid diagnostic tests with improved accuracy in resource-limited settings, including serological, molecular, metabolomic, proteomic, and transcriptomic methods.[7] For example, a recent study has shown that IgA and IgM against S. Typhi lipopolysaccharide (LPS) may be a specific marker of acute typhoid infection and is a promising target for diagnostic test development.[23]

As the need for appropriate fever case management becomes more apparent,[24] the need for improved typhoid diagnostics suitable for use in low-resource environments becomes more pressing. Building on the recent momentum around improved typhoid surveillance[25] and advances in typhoid detection,[1] this report describes the development of a target product profile (TPP) in an attempt to define the diagnostic needs for this important pathogen. The TPP is intended to guide product development and to ensure an optimized solution that meets the needs of endemic countries and results in tangible improvements in patient management. In addition, the TPP aims to re-invigorate the discussion of diagnostics as a crucial part of the global typhoid agenda. This report focuses on the process of TPP development with an emphasis on key test characteristics and discussion points identified by typhoid experts and experienced stakeholders.

METHODS

RESULTS

An Ovid Medline search using the MeSH “Typhoid fever” produced 10,698 results, with 1,558 results for the subheading “Diagnosis”. Limiting search results to English language articles published after January 1^st, 2008, provided 298 articles that were screened for relevance. Additional documents were included as outlined in the Methods and selected articles were thoroughly reviewed to develop a draft typhoid TPP with minimum and optimum criteria for the test characteristics in Table 1.

Feedback on the draft TPP was obtained from key stakeholders through the first round of the Delphi survey, with 40 stakeholders contacted and 19 (19/40, 48%) completed surveys received. Survey respondents had experience working in low resource settings in Africa, the Americas, Europe, the Eastern Mediterranean, South-East Asia and the Western Pacific region. Consensus agreement of ≥75% was achieved for 34/36 (94%) TPP criteria. TPP criteria that generated the most discussion in the Delphi survey were related to the scope of the test including the goal, target population, level of the health care system, diagnostic sensitivity and specificity, as well as cost. Based on feedback from survey respondents, “multiplexing” was removed as a TPP characteristic, and the remaining minimum and optimum TPP criteria were revised. For criteria that had achieved consensus agreement, revisions were made if survey respondents provided compelling suggestions for improvement.

A second draft of the TPP was distributed to the 19 people who responded to the initial Delphi survey, and two additional stakeholders identified after completion of the first round. A total of 12 completed surveys were received from 13 stakeholders, including two who submitted a joint survey, with consensus agreement achieved for 33/35 (94%) TPP characteristics. The two criteria that did not meet the consensus threshold were the target level of the health system and diagnostic sensitivity, both of which received 67% agreement. Survey respondent feedback was used to revise these two criteria, and to make minor changes to four criteria that had ≥75% agreement, before inclusion in the final version of the TPP presented in Tables 2, 3 and 4.

DISCUSSION

Typhoid diagnostic tests currently lack the sensitivity and specificity required for an accurate diagnosis at the point of care, resulting in the overuse of antibiotics through empiric treatment. The WHO has developed a list of characteristics that make a test suitable for the resource-limited settings where typhoid is prevalent: the ASSURED acronym stands for affordable, sensitive, specific, user-friendly, rapid and robust, equipment-free, and delivered to those in need.[44] TPPs build upon these criteria and increasingly are used in the global health community to guide development of diagnostic tests and to inform donors about global health priorities.[26,40,41] This TPP outlines the minimum and optimum desired characteristics for an improved typhoid RDT and is intended to accelerate development of optimized diagnostics that meet the needs of users in endemic regions.

Antibiotic resistance is a growing threat to typhoid treatment, with strains of S. Typhi that are resistant to three first-line agents now prevalent in parts of Asia and Africa.[8] The emergence of multi-drug resistant strains that have acquired additional resistance to fluoroquinolones and third-generation cephalosporins, known as extremely drug resistant S. Typhi, has left azithromycin and the costly intravenous carbapenem drugs as the only antibiotic options for some patients.[8] There have been sporadic case reports of azithromycin-resistant S. Typhi,[8] but if extremely drug resistant strains acquire azithromycin resistance, carbapenems could be left as the only effective treatment. To prevent the further spread of resistant S. Typhi it would be beneficial to conduct drug susceptibility testing for individual patients before commencing antibiotic therapy. Drug susceptibility testing was not included as a TPP requirement because it is not likely to be feasible in non-culture POC tests due to the evolving nature of typhoid resistance[8] and may make interpretation of test results too complex for users at the lowest healthcare level[29]. However, some Delphi survey respondents felt that for an RDT ever to replace blood culture it must include susceptibility testing. An RDT for diagnosis combined with epidemiological knowledge of the antibiotic sensitivity of strains, updated at intervals, could be a compromise solution.

The 2017 Global Burden of Disease study estimated that S. Paratyphi affected 3.4 million people annually, with 19.1 thousand deaths, compared to 10.9 million cases and 116.8 thousand deaths for S. Typhi.[2,3] The higher morbidity and mortality of S. Typhi makes it a greater public health concern, but the increasing prevalence of S. Paratyphi in certain regions makes it prudent for a next-generation test to detect S. Paratyphi as well as S. Typhi.[5,30,45] Delphi survey feedback noted that not being able to detect S. Paratyphi could undermine clinician confidence in a next-generation typhoid POC test as S. Typhi and S. Paratyphi may cause indistinguishable clinical syndromes.[4] As drug-resistant typhoid continues to spread, it may become necessary to differentiate between these two serovars prior to starting therapy due to different antibiotic susceptibility profiles.[46]

The minimum diagnostic requirement for a typhoid RDT in this TPP was ≥90% sensitivity and ≥95% specificity, with an optimum threshold of ≥95% sensitivity and ≥98% specificity. Consensus agreement was achieved in the Delphi survey for specificity but not sensitivity, reflecting the substantial variability seen in the published literature with proposed targets ranging from 80-90% for sensitivity and 90-98% for specificity.[21,36,37] The poor sensitivity of blood culture as a reference standard for typhoid diagnosis makes it difficult to accurately assess the performance of novel diagnostic tests.[47] A composite reference standard that combines multiple tests with high specificity but suboptimal sensitivity has been proposed as a possible way to improve diagnostic accuracy.[7,47] Various test combinations have been used as a composite reference standard for typhoid,[47] but respondents in this Delphi exercise advised that the adoption of a standardized composite is required before it can be included in a TPP. A standardized composite might include tests (bone marrow culture, PCR, transcriptomics etc.) that contribute to a reference standard but are not suitable for use in regular practice.

Typhoid fever is transmitted by the faeco-oral route in water and food contaminated by S. Typhi in human faeces and so is endemic in low-resource environments that lack access to clean water and adequate sanitation. While improvements in the infrastructure for water, sanitation and hygiene could reduce or eliminate typhoid, these are costly long-term endeavors. The newly approved Typbar-TCV vaccine may help to reduce the global burden of enteric fever caused by S. Typhi,[48] but an improved diagnostic test is required to accurately estimate disease incidence and facilitate targeted vaccine deployment. To have a meaningful impact on the overuse of antibiotics that has contributed to the emergence of resistance in S. Typhi and other bacteria, an improved typhoid POC test needs to be used as part of a treatment algorithm in conjunction with diagnostics for malaria and other causes of acute febrile illness. The isolated use of a disease-specific diagnostic test for a febrile patient may help focus treatment if positive, but a negative test may result in alternative empiric antibiotic therapy, as seen for malaria.[24,49] Drug susceptibility testing for S. Typhi, performed at reference laboratories, could inform local treatment algorithms based on regional antibiotic susceptibilities.[50]

This work provides the first comprehensive TPP for a next-generation POC test for typhoid fever. The main limitations of this study were the lack of consensus agreement for all TPP characteristics, and the relatively low response rate in the second round of the Delphi survey. The length of the survey may have been a barrier to completion due to the amount of time required to provide feedback on all 35 TPP characteristics. Further discussion among the typhoid community is needed to settle on the optimal target level of the health care system and the required diagnostic sensitivity. While this TPP is a first step toward improved awareness of the typhoid diagnostic needs, it is crucial to keep the conversation going and to engage global health funders, diagnostics developers, and national policy makers in the discussion on how improved diagnostic tools and related innovations can be used to improve surveillance data as well as support patient management decisions in the context of universal health care.