PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Mann, Tiffeney
AU  - Minnies, Stephanie
AU  - Gupta, Rishi K
AU  - Reeve, Byron WP
AU  - Nyawo, Georgina
AU  - Palmer, Zaida
AU  - Naidoo, Charissa
AU  - Doubell, Anton
AU  - Pecararo, Alfonso
AU  - John, Thadathilankal-Jess
AU  - Schubert, Pawel
AU  - Calderwood, Claire J
AU  - Chandran, Aneesh
AU  - Theron, Grant
AU  - Noursadeghi, Mahdad
TI  - Blood RNA signatures outperform CRP triage of tuberculosis lymphadenitis and pericarditis
AID  - 10.1101/2024.06.21.24309099
DP  - 2024 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2024.06.21.24309099
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/03/2024.06.21.24309099.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/07/03/2024.06.21.24309099.full
AB  - Background Limited data are available on the diagnostic accuracy of blood RNA biomarker signatures for extrapulmonary TB (EPTB). We addressed this question among people investigated for TB lymphadenitis and TB pericarditis, in Cape Town, South Africa.Methods We enrolled 440 consecutive adults referred to a hospital for invasive sampling for presumptive TB lymphadenitis (n=300) or presumptive TB pericarditis (n=140). Samples from the site of disease underwent culture and/or molecular testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (Mtb). Discrimination of patients with and without TB defined by microbiology or cytology reference standards was evaluated using seven previously reported blood RNA signatures by area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and sensitivity/specificity at predefined thresholds, benchmarked against blood C-reactive protein (CRP) and the World Health Organization (WHO) target product profile (TPP) for a TB triage test. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the best performing blood RNA signature and CRP.Results Data from 374 patients for whom results were available from at least one microbiological test from the site of disease, and blood CRP and RNA measurements, were included. Using microbiological results as the reference standard in the primary analysis (N=204 with TB), performance was similar across lymphadenitis and pericarditis patients. In the pooled analysis of both cohorts, all RNA signatures had comparable discrimination with AUROC point estimates ranging 0.77-0.82, superior to that of CRP (0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.56-0.67). The best performing signature (Roe3) achieved an AUROC of 0.82 (0.77-0.86). At a predefined threshold of 2 standard deviations (Z2) above the mean of a healthy reference control group, this signature achieved 78% (72-83%) sensitivity and 69% (62-75%) specificity. In this setting, DCA revealed that Roe3 offered greater net benefit than other approaches for services aiming to reduce the number needed to investigate with confirmatory testing to <4 to identify each case of TB.Interpretation RNA biomarkers show better accuracy and clinical utility than CRP to trigger confirmatory TB testing in patients with TB lymphadenitis and TB pericarditis, but still fall short of the WHO TPP for TB triage tests.Funding South African MRC, EDCTP2, NIH/NIAID, Wellcome Trust, NIHR, Royal College of Physicians London.Evidence before this study Blood RNA biomarker signatures and CRP measurements have emerged as potential triage tests for TB, but evidence is mostly limited to their performance in pulmonary TB. Microbiological diagnosis of extrapulmonary TB (EPTB) is made challenging by the need for invasive sampling to obtain tissue from the site of disease. This is compounded by lower sensitivity of confirmatory molecular tests for EPTB compared to their performance in pulmonary disease. We performed a systematic review of diagnostic accuracy studies of blood RNA biomarkers or CRP measurements for EPTB, which could mitigate the need for site-of-disease sampling for the diagnosis of TB. We searched PubMed up to 1st August 2023, using the following criteria: “extrapulmonary [title/abstract] AND tuberculosis [title/abstract] AND biomarker [title/abstract]”. Although extrapulmonary TB was included in several studies, none focused specifically on EPTB or included an adequate number of EPTB cases to provide precise estimates of test accuracy.Added value of this study To the best of our knowledge, we report the first diagnostic accuracy study of blood RNA biomarkers and CRP for TB among people with EPTB syndromes. We examined the performance of seven previously identified blood RNA biomarkers as triage tests for TB lymphadenitis and TB pericarditis compared to a microbiology reference standard among people referred to hospital for invasive sampling in a high TB and HIV prevalence setting. Multiple blood RNA biomarkers showed comparable diagnostic accuracy to that previously reported for pulmonary TB in both EPTB disease cohorts, irrespective of HIV status. All seven blood RNA biomarkers showed superior diagnostic accuracy to CRP for both lymphadenitis and pericarditis, but failed to meet the combined >90% sensitivity and >70% specificity recommended for a blood-based diagnostic triage test by WHO. Nonetheless, in decision curve analysis, an approach of using the best performing blood RNA biomarker to trigger confirmatory microbiological testing showed superior clinical utility in clinical services seeking to reduce the number needed to test (using invasive confirmatory testing) to less than 4 for each EPTB case detected. If acceptable to undertake invasive testing in more than 4 people for each true case detected, then a test-all approach will provide greater net benefit in this TB/HIV hyperendemic setting.Implications of all the available evidence Blood RNA biomarkers show some potential as diagnostic triage tests for TB lymphadenitis and TB pericarditis, but do not provide the level of accuracy for blood-based triage tests recommended by WHO for community-based tests. CRP has inferior diagnostic accuracy to blood RNA biomarkers and cannot be recommended for diagnostic triage among people with EPTB syndromes referred for invasive sampling.Competing Interest StatementMN has a patent granted in relation to blood transcriptomic biomarkers of tuberculosis. All other authors declare no competing interests.Funding StatementThis study was supported by funding from South Africa Medical Research Council (MRC-RFA-IFSP-01-2013), European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP)2 (SF1401, OPTIMAL DIAGNOSIS) and NIH/NIAD (U01AI152087). In addition, MN acknowledges support from the Wellcome Trust (207511/Z/17/Z) and NIHR Biomedical Research Funding to UCL and UCLH; RKG acknowledges support from National Institute for Health Research (NIHR302829) and the Royal College of Physicians; CJC acknowledges support from the Wellcome Trust (203905/Z/16/Z). GT reports funding from the EDCTP2 programme supported by the EU (RIA2018D-2509, PreFIT; RIA2018D-2493, SeroSelectTB; RIA2020I-3305, CAGE-TB) and the National Institutes of Health (D43TW010350; U01AI152087; U54EB027049; R01AI136894).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 Stellenbosch University Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (N16/04/050) and the Western Cape Department of Health, South Africa (WC_2016RP15_762).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.Yes