ABSTRACT
Background Accessible, accurate screening tests are necessary to advance tuberculosis (TB) case finding and early detection in high-burden countries. We compared the diagnostic accuracy of available TB triage tests.
Methods We prospectively screened consecutive adults with ≥2 weeks of cough presenting to primary health centers in the Philippines, Vietnam, South Africa, Uganda, and India. All participants received the index tests: chest-X-ray (CXR), venous or capillary Cepheid Xpert TB Host Response (HR) testing, and point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) testing (Boditech iChroma II). CXR images were processed using computer-aided detection (CAD) algorithms. We assessed diagnostic accuracy against a microbiologic reference standard (sputum Xpert Ultra, culture). Optimal cut-points were chosen to achieve sensitivity ≥90% and maximize specificity. Two-test screening algorithms were considered, using two approaches: 1) sequential negative serial screening in which the second screening test is conducted only if the first is negative and positive is defined as positive on either test and 2) sequential positive serial screening, in which the second screening test is conducted only if the first is positive and positive is defined as positive on both tests.
Results Between July 2021 and August 2022, 1,392 participants with presumptive TB had valid results on index tests and the reference standard, and 303 (22%) had confirmed TB. In head-to-head comparisons, CAD4TB v7 showed the highest specificity when using a cut-point that achieves 90% sensitivity (70.3% vs. 65.1% for Xpert HR, difference 95% CI 1.6 to 8.9; 49.7% for CRP, difference 95% CI 17.0 to 24.3). Among the possible two-test screening algorithms, three met WHO target product profile (TPP) minimum accuracy thresholds and had higher accuracy than any test alone. At 90% sensitivity, the specificity was 79.6% for Xpert HR-CAD4TB [sequential negative], 75.9% for CRP-CAD4TB [sequential negative], and 73.7% for Xpert HR-CAD4TB [sequential positive].
Conclusions CAD4TB achieves TPP targets and outperforms Xpert HR and CRP. Combining screening tests further increased accuracy. Cost and feasibility of two-test screening algorithms should be explored.
Registration NCT04923958
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the United States National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [U01AI152087]. POC CRP test kits and ichroma II machines were donated by Boditech Med Inc, and Xpert HR test kits were donated by Cepheid. CAD was performed by FIND at no cost to the study. The installation and use of the CAD4TB software evaluated in this manuscript was provided free of charge by Delft Imaging to FIND. Study funders and product developers had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing.
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:
This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04923958). Study procedures were approved by the institutional review board (IRB) of the University of California San Francisco, the University of Heidelberg, and by local IRBs at each enrollment site.
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
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, CD, upon reasonable request.
