Dataset Information

Optimal Testing Choice and Diagnostic Strategies for Latent Tuberculosis Infection Among US-Born People Living with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Increased risk of progression from latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) to tuberculosis (TB) disease among people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; PLWH) prioritizes them for LTBI testing and treatment. Studies comparing the performance of interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs) and the tuberculin skin test (TST) among PLWH are lacking.

Methods

We used Bayesian latent class analysis to estimate the prevalence of LTBI and diagnostic characteristics of the TST, QuantiFERON Gold In-Tube (QFT), and T.SPOT-TB (TSPOT) among a prospective, multicenter cohort of US-born PLWH ≥5 years old with valid results for all 3 LTBI tests using standard US cutoffs (≥5 mm TST, ≥0.35 IU/mL QFT, ≥8 spots TSPOT). We also explored the performance of varying LTBI test cutoffs.

Results

Among 1510 PLWH (median CD4+ count 532 cells/mm3), estimated LTBI prevalence was 4.7%. TSPOT was significantly more specific (99.7%) and had a significantly higher positive predictive value (90.0%, PPV) than QFT (96.5% specificity, 50.7% PPV) and TST (96.8% specificity, 45.4% PPV). QFT was significantly more sensitive (72.2%) than TST (54.2%) and TSPOT (51.9%); negative predictive value of all tests was high (TST 97.7%, QFT 98.6%, TSPOT 97.6%). Even at the highest cutoffs evaluated (15 mm TST, ≥1.00 IU/mL QFT, ≥8 spots TSPOT), TST and QFT specificity was significantly lower than TSPOT.

Conclusions

LTBI prevalence among this cohort of US-born PLWH was low compared to non-US born persons. TSPOT's higher PPV may make it preferable for testing US-born PLWH at low risk for TB exposure and with high CD4+ counts.

SUBMITTER: Pettit AC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8678585 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:As economic woes of the COVID-19 pandemic deepen, strategies are being formulated to avoid the need for prolonged stay-at-home orders, while implementing risk-based quarantine, testing, contact tracing and surveillance protocols. Given limited resources and the significant economic, public health, and operational challenges of the current 14-day quarantine recommendation, it is vital to understand if shorter but equally effective quarantine and testing strategies can be deployed. To quantify the probability of post-quarantine transmission upon isolation of a positive test, we developed a mathematical model in which we varied quarantine duration and the timing of molecular tests for three scenarios of entry into quarantine. Specifically, we consider travel quarantine, quarantine of traced contacts with an unknown time if infection, and quarantine of cases with a known time of exposure. With a one-day delay between test and result, we found that testing on exit (or entry and exit) can reduce the duration of a 14-day quarantine by 50%, while testing on entry shortened quarantine by at most one day. Testing on exit more effectively reduces post-quarantine transmission than testing upon entry. Furthermore, we identified the optimal testing date within quarantines of varying duration, finding that testing on exit was most effective for quarantines lasting up to seven days. As a real-world validation of these principles, we analyzed the results of 4,040 SARS CoV-2 RT-PCR tests administered to offshore oil rig employees. Among the 47 positives obtained with a testing on entry and exit strategy, 16 cases that previously tested negative at entry were identified, with no further cases detected among employees following quarantine exit. Moreover, this strategy successfully prevented an expected nine offshore transmission events stemming from cases who had tested negative on the entry test, each one a serious concern for initiating rapid spread and a disabling outbreak in the close quarters of an offshore rig. This successful outcome highlights that appropriately timed testing can make shorter quarantines more effective, thereby minimizing economic impacts, disruptions to operational integrity, and COVID-related public health risks.

Project description:BackgroundThe availability of a diagnostic test to detect subclinical leprosy cases is crucial to interrupt the transmission of M. leprae. In this study we assessed the minimum sensitivity level of such a (hypothetical) diagnostic test and the optimal testing strategy in order to effectively reduce the new case detection rate (NCDR) of leprosy.Methods and findingsWe used the individual-based model SIMCOLEP, and based it on previous quantification using COLEP data, a cohort study of leprosy cases in Bangladesh. The baseline consisted of treatment with Multidrug therapy of clinically diagnosed leprosy cases, passive case detection and household contact tracing. We examined the use of a leprosy diagnostic test for subclinical leprosy in four strategies: testing in 1) household contacts, 2) household contacts with a 3-year follow-up, 3) a population survey with coverage 50%, and 4) a population survey (100%). For each strategy, we varied the test sensitivity between 50% and 100%. All analyses were conducted for a high, medium, and low (i.e. 25, 5 and 1 per 100,000) endemic setting over a period of 50 years. In all strategies, the use of a diagnostic test further reduces the NCDR of leprosy compared to the no test strategy. A substantial reduction could already be achieved at a test sensitivity as low as 50%. In a high endemic setting, a NCDR of 10 per 100,000 could be reached within 8-10 years in household contact testing, and 2-6 years in a population testing. Testing in a population survey could also yield the highest number of prevented new cases, but requires a large number needed to test and treat. In contrast, household contact testing has a smaller impact on the NCDR but requires a substantially lower number needed to test and treat.ConclusionsA diagnostic test for subclinical leprosy with a sensitivity of at least 50% could substantially reduce M. leprae transmission. To effectively reduce NCDR in the short run, a population survey is preferred over household contact tracing. However, this is only favorable in high endemic settings.