Dataset Information

Host-response-based gene signatures for tuberculosis diagnosis: A systematic comparison of 16 signatures.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The World Health Organization (WHO) and Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) have published target product profiles (TPPs) calling for non-sputum-based diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis (ATB) disease and for predicting the progression from latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) to ATB. A large number of host-derived blood-based gene-expression biomarkers for diagnosis of patients with ATB have been proposed to date, but none have been implemented in clinical settings. The focus of this study is to directly compare published gene signatures for diagnosis of patients with ATB across a large, diverse list of publicly available gene expression datasets, and evaluate their performance against the WHO/FIND TPPs. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We searched PubMed, Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO), and ArrayExpress in June 2018. We included all studies irrespective of study design and enrollment criteria. We found 16 gene signatures for the diagnosis of ATB compared to other clinical conditions in PubMed. For each signature, we implemented a classification model as described in the corresponding original publication of the signature. We identified 24 datasets containing 3,083 transcriptome profiles from whole blood or peripheral blood mononuclear cell samples of healthy controls or patients with ATB, LTBI, or other diseases from 14 countries in GEO. Using these datasets, we calculated weighted mean area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), specificity at 90% sensitivity, and negative predictive value (NPV) for each gene signature across all datasets. We also compared the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), heterogeneity in DOR, and false positive rate (FPR) for each signature using bivariate meta-analysis. Across 9 datasets of patients with culture-confirmed diagnosis of ATB, 11 signatures had weighted mean AUROC > 0.8, and 2 signatures had weighted mean AUROC ? 0.6. All but 2 signatures had high NPV (>98% at 2% prevalence). Two gene signatures achieved the minimal WHO TPP for a non-sputum-based triage test. When including datasets with clinical diagnosis of ATB, there was minimal reduction in the weighted mean AUROC and specificity of all but 3 signatures compared to when using only culture-confirmed ATB data. Only 4 signatures had homogeneous DOR and lower FPR when datasets with clinical diagnosis of ATB were included; other signatures either had heterogeneous DOR or higher FPR or both. Finally, 7 of 16 gene signatures predicted progression from LTBI to ATB 6 months prior to sputum conversion with positive predictive value > 6% at 2% prevalence. Our analyses may have under- or overestimated the performance of certain ATB diagnostic signatures because our implementation may be different from the published models for those signatures. We re-implemented published models because the exact models were not publicly available. CONCLUSIONS:We found that host-response-based diagnostics could accurately identify patients with ATB and predict individuals with high risk of progression from LTBI to ATB prior to sputum conversion. We found that a higher number of genes in a signature did not increase the accuracy of the signature. Overall, the Sweeney3 signature performed robustly across all comparisons. Our results provide strong evidence for the potential of host-response-based diagnostics in achieving the WHO goal of ending tuberculosis by 2035, and host-response-based diagnostics should be pursued for clinical implementation.

SUBMITTER: Warsinske H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6478271 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Host-response-based gene signatures for tuberculosis diagnosis: A systematic comparison of 16 signatures.

Warsinske Hayley H Vashisht Rohit R Khatri Purvesh P

PLoS medicine 20190423 4

<h4>Background</h4>The World Health Organization (WHO) and Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics (FIND) have published target product profiles (TPPs) calling for non-sputum-based diagnostic tests for the diagnosis of active tuberculosis (ATB) disease and for predicting the progression from latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) to ATB. A large number of host-derived blood-based gene-expression biomarkers for diagnosis of patients with ATB have been proposed to date, but none have been implemen ...[more]

PMID: 31013272

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMeasuring host gene expression is a promising diagnostic strategy to discriminate bacterial and viral infections. Multiple signatures of varying size, complexity, and target populations have been described. However, there is little information to indicate how the performance of various published signatures compare to one another.MethodsThis systematic comparison of host gene expression signatures evaluated the performance of 28 signatures, validating them in 4589 subjects from 51 publicly available datasets. Thirteen COVID-specific datasets with 1416 subjects were included in a separate analysis. Individual signature performance was evaluated using the area under the receiving operating characteristic curve (AUC) value. Overall signature performance was evaluated using median AUCs and accuracies.ResultsSignature performance varied widely, with median AUCs ranging from 0.55 to 0.96 for bacterial classification and 0.69-0.97 for viral classification. Signature size varied (1-398 genes), with smaller signatures generally performing more poorly (P < 0.04). Viral infection was easier to diagnose than bacterial infection (84% vs. 79% overall accuracy, respectively; P < .001). Host gene expression classifiers performed more poorly in some pediatric populations (3 months-1 year and 2-11 years) compared to the adult population for both bacterial infection (73% and 70% vs. 82%, respectively; P < .001) and viral infection (80% and 79% vs. 88%, respectively; P < .001). We did not observe classification differences based on illness severity as defined by ICU admission for bacterial or viral infections. The median AUC across all signatures for COVID-19 classification was 0.80 compared to 0.83 for viral classification in the same datasets.ConclusionsIn this systematic comparison of 28 host gene expression signatures, we observed differences based on a signature's size and characteristics of the validation population, including age and infection type. However, populations used for signature discovery did not impact performance, underscoring the redundancy among many of these signatures. Furthermore, differential performance in specific populations may only be observable through this type of large-scale validation.

Project description:Background HIV-associated tuberculosis (TB) has high mortality; however, current triage and prognostic tools offer poor sensitivity and specificity, respectively. We conducted a systematic review of diagnostic and prognostic host-blood transcriptomic signatures of TB in people living with HIV (PLHIV). Methods We systematically searched online databases for studies published in English between 1990-2020. Eligible studies included PLHIV of any age in test or validation cohorts, and used microbiological or composite reference standards for TB diagnosis. Inclusion was not restricted by setting or participant age. Study selection, quality appraisal using the QUADAS-2 tool, and data extraction were conducted independently by two reviewers. Thereafter, narrative synthesis of included studies, and comparison of signatures performance, was performed. Results We screened 1,580 records and included 12 studies evaluating 31 host-blood transcriptomic signatures in 10 test or validation cohorts of PLHIV that differentiated individuals with TB from those with HIV alone, latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection, or other diseases (OD). Two (2/10; 20%) cohorts were prospective (29 TB cases; 51 OD) and 8 (80%) case-control (353 TB cases; 606 controls) design. All cohorts (10/10) were recruited in Sub-Saharan Africa and 9/10 (90%) had a high risk of bias. Ten signatures (10/31; 32%) met minimum WHO Target Product Profile (TPP) criteria for TB triage tests. Only one study (1/12; 8%) evaluated prognostic performance of a transcriptomic signature for progression to TB in PLHIV, which did not meet the minimum WHO prognostic TPP. Conclusions Generalisability of reported findings is limited by few studies enrolling PLHIV, limited geographical diversity, and predominantly case-control design, which also introduces spectrum bias. New prospective cohort studies are needed that include PLHIV and are conducted in diverse settings. Further research exploring the effect of HIV clinical, virological, and immunological factors on diagnostic performance is necessary for development and implementation of TB transcriptomic signatures in PLHIV.

Project description:BackgroundStructural approach disparities were minimally addressed in past systematic reviews of model-based cost-effectiveness analyses addressing Tuberculosis management strategies. This review aimed to identify the structural approach disparities in model-based cost-effectiveness analysis studies addressing Tuberculosis diagnosis and describe potential hazards caused by those disparities.MethodsA systematic search to identify studies published before October 2015 was performed in five electronic databases. After removal of duplication, studies' titles and abstracts were screened based on predetermined criteria. The full texts of potentially relevant studies were subsequently screened and excluded when they did not address active pulmonary Tuberculosis diagnosis. Quality of the studies was assessed using the "Philips' checklist." Various data regarding general information, cost-effectiveness results, and disease modeling were extracted using standardized data extraction forms. Data pertaining to models' structural approaches were compared and analyzed qualitatively for their applicability in various study settings, as well as their potential influence on main outcomes and cost-effectiveness conclusion.ResultsA total of 27 studies were included in the review. Most studies utilized a static model, which could underestimate the cost-effectiveness of the diagnostic tools strategies, due to the omission of indirect diagnosis effects, i.e. transmission reduction. A few structural assumption disparities were found in the dynamic models. Extensive disparities were found in the static models, consisting of varying structural assumptions regarding treatment outcomes, clinical diagnosis and empirical treatment, inpatient discharge decision, and re-diagnosis of false negative patients.ConclusionIn cost-effectiveness analysis studies addressing active pulmonary Tuberculosis diagnosis, models showed numerous disparities in their structural approaches. Several structural approaches could be inapplicable in certain settings. Furthermore, they could contribute to under- or overestimation of the cost-effectiveness of the diagnosis tools or strategies. They could thus lead to ambiguities and difficulties when interpreting a study result. A set of recommendations is proposed to manage issues related to these structural disparities.

Dataset Information

Host-response-based gene signatures for tuberculosis diagnosis: A systematic comparison of 16 signatures.

Publications

Host-response-based gene signatures for tuberculosis diagnosis: A systematic comparison of 16 signatures.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets