Cargando…

Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?

New tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics are at a crossroads: their development, evaluation, and implementation is severely damaged by resource diversion due to COVID-19. Yet several technologies, especially those with potential for non-invasive non-sputum-based testing, hold promise for efficiently triagi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Abdulgader, Shima M., Okunola, Anna O., Ndlangalavu, Gcobisa, Reeve, Byron W.P., Allwood, Brian W., Koegelenberg, Coenraad F.N., Warren, Rob M., Theron, Grant
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: S. Karger AG 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9533455/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35760050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000525142
_version_ 1784802350265794560
author Abdulgader, Shima M.
Okunola, Anna O.
Ndlangalavu, Gcobisa
Reeve, Byron W.P.
Allwood, Brian W.
Koegelenberg, Coenraad F.N.
Warren, Rob M.
Theron, Grant
author_facet Abdulgader, Shima M.
Okunola, Anna O.
Ndlangalavu, Gcobisa
Reeve, Byron W.P.
Allwood, Brian W.
Koegelenberg, Coenraad F.N.
Warren, Rob M.
Theron, Grant
author_sort Abdulgader, Shima M.
collection PubMed
description New tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics are at a crossroads: their development, evaluation, and implementation is severely damaged by resource diversion due to COVID-19. Yet several technologies, especially those with potential for non-invasive non-sputum-based testing, hold promise for efficiently triaging and rapidly confirming TB near point-of-care. Such tests are, however, progressing through the pipeline slowly and will take years to reach patients and health workers. Compellingly, such tests will create new opportunities for difficult-to-diagnose populations, including primary care attendees (all-comers in high burden settings irrespective of reason for presentation) and community members (with early stage disease or risk factors like HIV), many of whom cannot easily produce sputum. Critically, all upcoming technologies have limitations that implementers and health workers need to be cognizant of to ensure optimal deployment without undermining confidence in a technology that still offers improvements over the status quo. In this state-of-the-art review, we critically appraise such technologies for active pulmonary TB diagnosis. We highlight strengths, limitations, outstanding research questions, and how current and future tests could be used in the presence of these limitations and uncertainties. Among triage tests, CRP (for which commercial near point-of-care devices exist) and computer-aided detection software with digital chest X-ray hold promise, together with late-stage blood-based assays that detect host and/or microbial biomarkers; however, aside from a handful of prototypes, the latter category has a shortage of promising late-stage alternatives. Furthermore, positive results from new triage tests may have utility in people without TB; however, their utility for informing diagnostic pathways for other diseases is under-researched (most sick people tested for TB do not have TB). For confirmatory tests, few true point-of-care options will be available soon; however, combining novel approaches like tongue swabs with established tests like Ultra have short-term promise but first require optimizations to specimen collection and processing procedures. Concerningly, no technologies yet have compelling evidence of meeting the World Health Organization optimal target product profile performance criteria, especially for important operational criteria crucial for field deployment. This is alarming as the target product profile criteria are themselves almost a decade old and require urgent revision, especially to cater for technologies made prominent by the COVID-19 diagnostic response (e.g., at-home testing and connectivity solutions). Throughout the review, we underscore the importance of how target populations and settings affect test performance and how the criteria by which these tests should be judged vary by use case, including in active case finding. Lastly, we advocate for health workers and researchers to themselves be vocal proponents of the uptake of both new tests and those − already available tests that remain suboptimally utilized.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9533455
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher S. Karger AG
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95334552022-10-06 Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do? Abdulgader, Shima M. Okunola, Anna O. Ndlangalavu, Gcobisa Reeve, Byron W.P. Allwood, Brian W. Koegelenberg, Coenraad F.N. Warren, Rob M. Theron, Grant Respiration Thematic Review Series New tuberculosis (TB) diagnostics are at a crossroads: their development, evaluation, and implementation is severely damaged by resource diversion due to COVID-19. Yet several technologies, especially those with potential for non-invasive non-sputum-based testing, hold promise for efficiently triaging and rapidly confirming TB near point-of-care. Such tests are, however, progressing through the pipeline slowly and will take years to reach patients and health workers. Compellingly, such tests will create new opportunities for difficult-to-diagnose populations, including primary care attendees (all-comers in high burden settings irrespective of reason for presentation) and community members (with early stage disease or risk factors like HIV), many of whom cannot easily produce sputum. Critically, all upcoming technologies have limitations that implementers and health workers need to be cognizant of to ensure optimal deployment without undermining confidence in a technology that still offers improvements over the status quo. In this state-of-the-art review, we critically appraise such technologies for active pulmonary TB diagnosis. We highlight strengths, limitations, outstanding research questions, and how current and future tests could be used in the presence of these limitations and uncertainties. Among triage tests, CRP (for which commercial near point-of-care devices exist) and computer-aided detection software with digital chest X-ray hold promise, together with late-stage blood-based assays that detect host and/or microbial biomarkers; however, aside from a handful of prototypes, the latter category has a shortage of promising late-stage alternatives. Furthermore, positive results from new triage tests may have utility in people without TB; however, their utility for informing diagnostic pathways for other diseases is under-researched (most sick people tested for TB do not have TB). For confirmatory tests, few true point-of-care options will be available soon; however, combining novel approaches like tongue swabs with established tests like Ultra have short-term promise but first require optimizations to specimen collection and processing procedures. Concerningly, no technologies yet have compelling evidence of meeting the World Health Organization optimal target product profile performance criteria, especially for important operational criteria crucial for field deployment. This is alarming as the target product profile criteria are themselves almost a decade old and require urgent revision, especially to cater for technologies made prominent by the COVID-19 diagnostic response (e.g., at-home testing and connectivity solutions). Throughout the review, we underscore the importance of how target populations and settings affect test performance and how the criteria by which these tests should be judged vary by use case, including in active case finding. Lastly, we advocate for health workers and researchers to themselves be vocal proponents of the uptake of both new tests and those − already available tests that remain suboptimally utilized. S. Karger AG 2022-09 2022-06-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9533455/ /pubmed/35760050 http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000525142 Text en Copyright © 2022 by The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY). Usage, derivative works and distribution are permitted provided that proper credit is given to the author and the original publisher.
spellingShingle Thematic Review Series
Abdulgader, Shima M.
Okunola, Anna O.
Ndlangalavu, Gcobisa
Reeve, Byron W.P.
Allwood, Brian W.
Koegelenberg, Coenraad F.N.
Warren, Rob M.
Theron, Grant
Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?
title Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?
title_full Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?
title_fullStr Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?
title_full_unstemmed Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?
title_short Diagnosing Tuberculosis: What Do New Technologies Allow Us to (Not) Do?
title_sort diagnosing tuberculosis: what do new technologies allow us to (not) do?
topic Thematic Review Series
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9533455/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35760050
http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000525142
work_keys_str_mv AT abdulgadershimam diagnosingtuberculosiswhatdonewtechnologiesallowustonotdo
AT okunolaannao diagnosingtuberculosiswhatdonewtechnologiesallowustonotdo
AT ndlangalavugcobisa diagnosingtuberculosiswhatdonewtechnologiesallowustonotdo
AT reevebyronwp diagnosingtuberculosiswhatdonewtechnologiesallowustonotdo
AT allwoodbrianw diagnosingtuberculosiswhatdonewtechnologiesallowustonotdo
AT koegelenbergcoenraadfn diagnosingtuberculosiswhatdonewtechnologiesallowustonotdo
AT warrenrobm diagnosingtuberculosiswhatdonewtechnologiesallowustonotdo
AT therongrant diagnosingtuberculosiswhatdonewtechnologiesallowustonotdo