Pooling Sputum Samples for Efficient Mass Tuberculosis Screening in Prisons.
mass screening
prison
sputum pooling
tuberculosis
Journal
Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
ISSN: 1537-6591
Titre abrégé: Clin Infect Dis
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 9203213
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 07 2022
06 07 2022
Historique:
received:
05
07
2021
pubmed:
1
11
2021
medline:
9
7
2022
entrez:
31
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Although systematic tuberculosis screening in high-risk groups is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), implementation in prisons has been limited due to resource constraints. Whether Xpert Ultra sputum pooling could be a sensitive and efficient approach to mass screening in prisons is unknown. In total, 1280 sputum samples were collected from incarcerated individuals in Brazil during mass screening and tested using Xpert G4. We selected samples for mixing in pools of 4, 8, 12, and 16, which were then tested using Ultra. In each pool, a single positive sample of differing Xpert mycobacterial loads was used. Additionally, 10 pools of 16 negative samples each were analyzed as controls. We then simulated tuberculosis screening at prevalences of 0.5-5% and calculated the cost per tuberculosis case detected at different sputum pooling sizes. The sensitivity and specificity of sputum pooling were high (sensitivity: 94%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 88-98; specificity: 100%, 95% CI: 84-100). Sensitivity was greater in pools in which the positive sample had a high mycobacterial load compared to those that were very low (100% vs 88%). In settings with a higher tuberculosis prevalence, pools of 4 and 8 were more efficient than larger pool sizes. Larger pools decreased the costs by 87% at low prevalences, whereas smaller pools led to greater cost savings at higher prevalence at higher prevalences (57%). Sputum pooling using Ultra was a sensitive strategy for tuberculosis screening. This approach was more efficient than individual testing across a broad range of simulated tuberculosis prevalence settings and could enable active case finding to be scaled while containing costs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Although systematic tuberculosis screening in high-risk groups is recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO), implementation in prisons has been limited due to resource constraints. Whether Xpert Ultra sputum pooling could be a sensitive and efficient approach to mass screening in prisons is unknown.
METHODS
In total, 1280 sputum samples were collected from incarcerated individuals in Brazil during mass screening and tested using Xpert G4. We selected samples for mixing in pools of 4, 8, 12, and 16, which were then tested using Ultra. In each pool, a single positive sample of differing Xpert mycobacterial loads was used. Additionally, 10 pools of 16 negative samples each were analyzed as controls. We then simulated tuberculosis screening at prevalences of 0.5-5% and calculated the cost per tuberculosis case detected at different sputum pooling sizes.
RESULTS
The sensitivity and specificity of sputum pooling were high (sensitivity: 94%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 88-98; specificity: 100%, 95% CI: 84-100). Sensitivity was greater in pools in which the positive sample had a high mycobacterial load compared to those that were very low (100% vs 88%). In settings with a higher tuberculosis prevalence, pools of 4 and 8 were more efficient than larger pool sizes. Larger pools decreased the costs by 87% at low prevalences, whereas smaller pools led to greater cost savings at higher prevalence at higher prevalences (57%).
CONCLUSIONS
Sputum pooling using Ultra was a sensitive strategy for tuberculosis screening. This approach was more efficient than individual testing across a broad range of simulated tuberculosis prevalence settings and could enable active case finding to be scaled while containing costs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34718459
pii: 6413467
doi: 10.1093/cid/ciab847
pmc: PMC9258923
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2115-2121Subventions
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K01 AI156022
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : R01 AI130058
Pays : United States
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
Références
J Virol Methods. 2011 Jun;174(1-2):94-8
pubmed: 21513744
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2005 Jun;9(6):633-9
pubmed: 15971390
J Clin Microbiol. 2018 Nov 27;56(12):
pubmed: 30305387
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2019 Nov;25(11):1370-1376
pubmed: 30928564
Lancet. 2021 Apr 24;397(10284):1591-1596
pubmed: 33838724
PLoS One. 2016 Feb 25;11(2):e0149453
pubmed: 26914770
Appl Health Econ Health Policy. 2015 Aug;13(4):325-40
pubmed: 26129810
Trop Med Infect Dis. 2020 Feb 15;5(1):
pubmed: 32075250
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jan;18(1):76-84
pubmed: 29198911
Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz. 2012 Nov;107(7):909-15
pubmed: 23147148
Clin Infect Dis. 2020 Nov 19;71(16):2073-2078
pubmed: 32358960
Clin Infect Dis. 2021 Mar 1;72(5):771-777
pubmed: 32064514
Lancet Infect Dis. 2013 Apr;13(4):349-61
pubmed: 23531388
Int J Infect Dis. 2015 Mar;32:111-7
pubmed: 25809766
J Clin Pathol. 1988 May;41(5):582-5
pubmed: 3164325
Eur Respir J. 2013 Sep;42(3):708-20
pubmed: 23258774
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2017 May 1;21(5):503-508
pubmed: 28399964
BMC Infect Dis. 2019 Apr 27;19(1):347
pubmed: 31029099
BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 20;13:983
pubmed: 24139204
Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Jan;18(1):8-10
pubmed: 29198910
Lancet Infect Dis. 2010 Feb;10(2):93-102
pubmed: 20113978
Lancet Public Health. 2021 May;6(5):e300-e308
pubmed: 33765455
Bull World Health Organ. 2017 Jan 01;95(1):27-35
pubmed: 28053362
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015 Jan;19(1):87-90
pubmed: 25519796
PLoS Med. 2015 Mar 24;12(3):e1001805
pubmed: 25803483
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2013 Apr;17(4):432-46
pubmed: 23485377
Glob Public Health. 2022 Feb;17(2):194-209
pubmed: 33427099
J Clin Microbiol. 2015 Aug;53(8):2502-8
pubmed: 26019204
J Clin Virol. 2014 Aug;60(4):387-91
pubmed: 24929754
Lancet. 2020 Mar 21;395(10228):973-984
pubmed: 32199484
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2018 Oct 1;22(10):1166-1171
pubmed: 30236184
J Clin Microbiol. 2019 Jan 30;57(2):
pubmed: 30541937
J Clin Tuberc Other Mycobact Dis. 2019 Mar 12;15:100094
pubmed: 31720421
Sci Rep. 2020 Dec 4;10(1):21247
pubmed: 33277515
BMC Infect Dis. 2016 Oct 3;16(1):533
pubmed: 27716170
Int J Infect Dis. 2020 Jan;90:35-45
pubmed: 31546008