RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 USING SPUTUM AND TONGUE SWAB SPECIMENS FOR IN-HOME POINT-OF-CARE TARGETED UNIVERSAL TESTING FOR TB OF HOUSEHOLD CONTACTS: AN ACCEPTABILITY AND FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.11.01.24316570
DO 10.1101/2024.11.01.24316570
A1 Bezuidenhout, Charl
A1 Long, Lawrence
A1 Nichols, Brooke
A1 Meyer-Rath, Gesine
A1 Fox, Matthew P
A1 Olifant, Sharon
A1 Theron, Grant
A1 Fiphaza, Kuhle
A1 Ruhwald, Morten
A1 Penn-Nicholson, Adam
A1 Fourie, Bernard
A1 Medina-Marino, Andrew
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/11/02/2024.11.01.24316570.abstract
AB Introduction Effective strategies are needed to facilitate early detection and diagnosis of tuberculosis (TB). The over-reliance on passive case detection, symptom screening, and collection of sputum, results in delayed or undiagnosed TB, which directly contributes to on-going TB transmission. We assessed the acceptability and feasibility of in-home, Targeted Universal TB Testing (TUTT) of household contacts using GeneXpert MTB/RIF Ultra at point-of-care (POC) during household contact investigations (HCIs) and compared the feasibility of using sputum vs. tongue swab specimens.Methods Household contacts (HHCs) receiving in-home POC TUTT as part of the TB Home Study were asked to complete a post-test acceptability survey. The survey explored HHC’s level of comfort, confidence in the test results, and the perceived appropriateness of in-home POC TUTT. We used the Metrics to Assess the Feasibility of Rapid Point-of-Care Technologies framework to assess the feasibility of using sputum and tongue swab specimens for in-home POC TUTT. Descriptive statistics were used to report participant responses and feasibility metrics.Results Of 313 eligible HHCs, 267/313 (85.3%) consented to in-home POC TUTT. Of those, 267/267 (100%) provided a tongue swab and 46/267 (17.2%) could expectorate sputum. All specimens were successfully prepared for immediate, in-home testing with Xpert Ultra on GeneXpert Edge. Of 164 tongue swab tests conducted, 160/164 (97.6%) generated a valid test result compared to 44/46 (95.7%) sputum-based tests. An immediate test result was available for 262/267 (98.1%) individuals based on in-home swab testing, and 44/46 (95.7%) based on in-home sputum testing. The mean in-home POC TUTT acceptability score (5=highly acceptable) was 4.5/5 (SD= 0.2).Conclusion In-home, POC TUTT using either sputum or tongue swab specimens was highly acceptable and feasible. Tongue swab specimens greatly increase the proportion of HHCs tested compared to sputum. In-home POC TUTT using a combination of sputum and tongue swabs can mitigate shortcomings to case detection.What is already known on this topicTB transmission among household contacts of people with TB is a public health concern.The delivery of community-based diagnostic testing for TB is challenging and the reliance on sputum continue to hamper universal testing and result in diagnostic delay.What this study addsThis is the first study to assess the acceptability of universal in-home point-of-care TB testing of household contacts during household contact investigations.This study assesses the feasibility of different specimen types for immediate in-home point-of-care TB testing including tongue swabs and sputum.How this study might affect research, practice or policyHousehold contacts perceived in-home targeted universal TB testing to be highly acceptable, prompting the need for further investigation into the cost-effectiveness of such strategies to improve early case detection.The use of tongue swabs as an additional or alternative sample type to sputum could increase testing and improve early case detection.Competing Interest StatementLL was supported by the National Institute of Mental Health of the National Institutes of Health under grant number K01MH119923. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of HealthClinical TrialNCT04973371Funding StatementFunding was provided by the United States National Institutes of Health (Grant # R01AI150485 and R21EB023679) and FIND.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:This study was conducted according to the ethical principles set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki, ICH-GCP, European Directive 2001/20/EC, US Code of Federal Regulations Title 21, South African Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, and other local regulatory requirements. The study protocol was approved by the University of Pretoria Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC 391/2021) and by Boston University Institutional Review Board (H-44118).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