Abstract
Background Pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) due to Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) can be challenging to diagnose because of difficulty obtaining samples, and suboptimal sensitivity of existing tests. We investigated the performance characteristics and diagnostic accuracy of upper respiratory tract tests for diagnosing PTB and hypothesised they would have sufficient accuracy and utility to improve PTB diagnosis.
Methods A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted by searching MEDLINE, Cinahl, Web of Science, Global Health, and Global Health Archive databases up to 31/01/2021, a second search was conducted for the period 1/1/2021 - 27/5/2022 (subsequently extended to 6/12/2022) to identify studies that reported on the accuracy of upper respiratory tract sampling for TB diagnosis compared to microbiological reference standards. We used a random-effects meta-analysis with a bivariate hierarchical model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity, stratified by sampling method. Bias was assessed using QUADAS- 2 criteria. Study registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021262392).
Findings 10,159 titles were screened for inclusion, 274 studies were assessed for full text review, and 71, comprising 119 test comparisons published between 1933 and 2022 were included in the systematic review (53 in meta-analysis). For laryngeal swabs, pooled sensitivity was 57.8% (95% CI 50.5-65.0%), specificity was 93.8% (95% CI 88.4-96.8%) and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) was 20.7 (95% CI 11.1-38.8). Nasopharyngeal aspirate sensitivity was 65.2% (95% CI 52.0-76.4%), specificity was 97.9% (95% CI 96.0-99.0%) and DOR was 91.0 (95% CI 37.8-218.8). Oral swabs sensitivity was 56.7% (95% CI 44.3-68.2%), specificity was 91.3% (95% CI 81.0-96.3%), and DOR was 13.8 (95% CI 5.6-34.0).
Interpretation Upper respiratory tract sampling holds promise to expand access to TB diagnosis, including for people who can’t produce sputum. Exploring historical methods using modern microbiological techniques may further increase the options for alternative sample types.
Prospective studies are needed to optimise accuracy and utility of sampling methods in clinical practice.
Funding HRS is funded by the MRC through the MRC DTP programme at LSTM [Grant number MR/N013514/1].
Evidence before this study Globally in 2021, an estimated 4.2 million of 10.6 million people with incident tuberculosis (TB) disease went undiagnosed, emphasising the urgent need for new diagnostic methodologies. Most TB diagnostics are performed on sputum samples, but people who need TB tests are often unable to produce sputum. Upper respiratory tract sampling for TB diagnosis was widely used historically and holds promise to expand non-sputum-based diagnosis.
Added value of this study We systematically reviewed and synthesised through meta-analysis diagnostic accuracy evaluations of upper respiratory tract sampling for TB. Historically, upper respiratory tract sampling for TB diagnosis was commonly used, with 39/71 studies conducted before 1970, although in recent years there has been a resurgence of interest in oral sampling. We show that upper respiratory tract samples have acceptable sensitivity and specificity compared to sputum culture, and, if testing is optimised using newer molecular and culture-based methods, may be capable of meeting WHO target produce profiles.
Implications of all the available evidence Upper respiratory tract sampling methodologies for TB (oral sampling, and sampling from the larynx and nasopharynx) may hold promise to expand access to TB diagnosis, including for people who can’t produce sputum. These sampling strategies can be optimised using modern microbiological techniques to increase access to diagnostics for TB.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=262392
Funding Statement
HRS is funded by the MRC through the MRC DTP programme at LSTM [Grant number MR/N013514/1]. This research was funded in whole, or in part by the Wellcome Trust [Grant number 200901/Z/16/Z]. This work was supported by UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Leaving no-one behind: transforming gendered pathways to health for TB) and partially funded by UK aid from the UK government (to MS, BR, LEC, and PM); however the views expressed do not necessarily reflect the UK government's official policies. RMB and HMR are supported by Wellcome PhD Fellowships (203905/Z/16/Z and 225482/Z/22/Z). For the purpose of open access, the author has applied a CC BY public copyright licence to any Author Accepted Manuscript version arising from this submission. The funder of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis data interpretation, or writing of the report.
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 used (or will use) ONLY openly available human data that were originally located from articles in press. Full data set available at: https://osf.io/9nuvq/?view_only=a00f5d373c27461c8b19517673c383aa
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 and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
↵* Deceased
A further search was carried out up to 6/12/2022 and papers added into the systematic review and meta-analysis. All files and figures have been updated to reflect this.
Data Availability
Data and code to reproduce analysis are available at: https://osf.io/9nuvq/
