RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 New manual qPCR assay validated on tongue swabs collected and processed in Uganda shows sensitivity that rivals sputum-based molecular TB diagnostics
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2023.08.10.23293680
DO 10.1101/2023.08.10.23293680
A1 Steadman, Amy
A1 Andama, Alfred
A1 Ball, Alexey
A1 Mukwatamundu, Job
A1 Khimani, Khushboo
A1 Mochizuki, Tessa
A1 Asege, Lucy
A1 Bukirwa, Alice
A1 Kato, John Baptist
A1 Katumba, David
A1 Kisakye, Esther
A1 Mangeni, Wilson
A1 Mwebe, Sandra
A1 Nakaye, Martha
A1 Nasuna, Irene
A1 Nyawere, Justine
A1 Visente, Deryk
A1 Cook, Catherine
A1 Nalugwa, Talemwa
A1 Bachman, Christine M.
A1 Semitalia, Fred
A1 Weigl, Bernhard H.
A1 Connelly, John
A1 Worodria, William
A1 Cattamanchi, Adithya
YR 2023
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2023/08/15/2023.08.10.23293680.abstract
AB 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 StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementResearch 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 DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe 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.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.YesAll data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors