RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Accuracy of lung and abdominal ultrasound for tuberculosis diagnosis: a prospective cohort study from India
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2024.06.07.24308357
DO 10.1101/2024.06.07.24308357
A1 Weber, Stefan Fabian
A1 Wolf, Rebecca
A1 Manten, Katharina
A1 Thangakunam, Balamugesh
A1 Isaac, Barney
A1 Shankar, Deepa
A1 Mangal, Divya
A1 Dutta, Amit Kumar
A1 Vimala, Leena Robinson
A1 Irodi, Aparna
A1 Tobian, Frank
A1 Köppel, Lisa
A1 Beck, Julia Selena
A1 Wolf, Peter
A1 Bélard, Sabine
A1 Denkinger, Claudia Maria
A1 Christopher, Devasahayam Jesudas
A1 ,
A1 Gaeddert, Mary
A1 Ruby, Lisa
A1 Karthikeyan, Bharath
A1 Natania, Arin
A1 Vijaysree, Sai
A1 Veluchamy Rathakrishnan, Sangeeth Priyadarshan
YR 2024
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2024/06/12/2024.06.07.24308357.abstract
AB Background Point-of care ultrasound is considered to hold promise in tuberculosis (TB) screening. However, most available abdominal ultrasound data focuses on HIV-infected cohorts and for lung ultrasound (LUS) data is very sparse. We aimed to determine accuracy of lung and abdominal ultrasound in a cohort of presumed TB in a tertiary care hospital in India.Methods Adult patients with presumed TB were enrolled prospectively and underwent a comprehensive ultrasound evaluation. Accuracy of individual and a predetermined combination of findings was determined against a TB reference standard (mycobacterial culture and PCR). Diagnostic potential of a multi-variable model combining clinical and ultrasound findings was explored using generalized mixed methods and random forest approach. (German trial registry DRKS00026636)Findings We included 541 participants of whom 102 (19%) had TB and 1% had HIV. “Focused assessment with sonography for HIV-associated tuberculosis” (FASH) showed moderate sensitivity (51%, 95%-CI 41-60) and specificity (70%, 95%-CI 66-74). Small consolidations on LUS showed high sensitivity (98%, 95%-CI 93-99), but were unspecific (14%, 95%-CI 11-18). Exploratory LUS variations showed higher specificity (e.g., large apical consolidations: sensitivity 22%, specificity 86%). Predictive modelling for ultrasound and clinical variables revealed an Area Under the Curve of 0.79 in the receiving operator curve.Interpretation Accuracy of ultrasound does not meet requirements of a stand-alone diagnostic or screening test. However, accuracy for some ultrasound findings is comparable with CXR. Additionally, ultrasound may aid disease severity assessment and microbiological sampling strategies. Research into alternative analyses (e.g., artificial intelligence) may enable wider applications.Funding Grant TTU 02.911, German Center for Infection Research (Deutsches Zentrum für Infektionsforschung).Research in context Before undertaking the study, LUS for TB had been assessed in a small number of studies limited with uncertain ultrasound characterization of TB-related findings with lack of adequate terminology and unclear specificity for TB. FASH-studies in HIV+ and few studies in HIV- have shown moderate sensitivity and specificity, but the study design and reference standards were not robust enough for generalizability.Our ultrasound study of LUS and FASH has a prospective cohort from a TB-endemic setting (India), we recruited 541 participants, the largest such cohort. This study brings to the body of evidence novel findings, backed by a robust study design and using a comprehensive reference standard. We were able to describe accuracy in a predominantly HIV-negative cohort of patients with presumed TB disease and compared our index testing protocol with the CXR, the most commonly used imaging modality. The implications from our study were that no single finding or combination of findings on LUS reached target product profiles (TPP) proposed by WHO, suggesting LUS as triage or diagnostic tool is too non-specific. The FASH accuracy in our study was in line with previous data, this study provides for it a solid foundation. The accuracy of submodules of LUS and FASH reaches that of CXR. Roles for ultrasound in TB care may lie in aiding diagnosis, assessment of disease severity, guiding of microbiological sampling or therapy monitoring. Further studies should focus on the accuracy of LUS in people living with HIV and children, evaluating ultrasound as a part of a diagnostic algorithm and the use of artificial intelligence to improve the yield of TB-POCUS.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialDRKS00026636Funding StatementThis work was supported by DZIF (German Center for Infectious Disease Research; Flexfund ID TTU 02.911). Research reported in this publication was supported by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases of the US National Institutes of Health under award number U01AI152087. Ultrasound equipment was loaned at no cost by FujiFilm Sonosite. REPORT Neither party had any role in the study design, in data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, report writing or the decision to submit a manuscript for publication. No payment was received by any pharmaceutical company or other agency for the writing of this manuscript.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:The study was approved by CMC Vellore and University Heidelberg institutional review boards (CMC IRB ID 14342; Heidelberg ID S-314/2021).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.YesDeidentified data will be made available upon reasonable request and provided in accordance to corresponding regulatory requirements.