BackgroundAccurate diagnosis and subsequent treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is essential for TB elimination. However, the absence of a gold standard test for diagnosing LTBI makes assessment of the true prevalence of LTBI and the accuracy of diagnostic tests challenging. Bayesian latent class models can be used to make inferences about disease prevalence and the sensitivity and specificity of diagnostic tests using data on the concordance between tests. We performed the largest meta-analysis to date aiming to evaluate the performance of tuberculin skin test (TST) and interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) for LTBI diagnosis in various patient populations using Bayesian latent class modelling.MethodsSystematic search of PubMeb, Embase and African Index Medicus was conducted without date and language restrictions on September 11, 2017 to identify studies that compared the performance of TST and IGRAs for LTBI diagnosis. Two IGRA methods were considered: QuantiFERON-TB Gold In Tube (QFT-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB. Studies were included if they reported 2x2 agreement data between TST and QFT-GIT or T-SPOT.TB. A Bayesian latent class model was developed to estimate the sensitivity and specificity of TST and IGRAs in various populations, including immune-competent adults, immune-compromised adults and children. A TST cut-off value of 10 mm was used for immune-competent subjects and 5 mm for immune-compromised individuals.FindingsA total of 157 studies were included in the analysis. In immune-competent adults, the sensitivity of TST and QFT-GIT were estimated to be 84% (95% credible interval [CrI] 82–85%) and 52% (50–53%), respectively. The specificity of QFT-GIT was 97% (96–97%) in non-BCG-vaccinated and 93% (92–94%) in BCG-vaccinated immune-competent adults. The estimated figures for TST were 100% (99–100%) and 79% (76–82%), respectively. T-SPOT.TB has comparable specificity (97% for both tests) and better sensitivity (68% versus 52%) than QFT-GIT in immune-competent adults. In immune-compromised adults, both TST and QFT-GIT display low sensitivity but high specificity. QFT-GIT and TST are equally specific (98% for both tests) in non-BCG-vaccinated children; however, QFT-GIT is more specific than TST (98% versus 82%) in BCG-vaccinated group. TST is more sensitive than QFT-GIT (82% versus 73%) in children.ConclusionsThis study is the first to assess the utility of TST and IGRAs for LTBI diagnosis in different population groups using all available data with Bayesian latent class modelling. Our results challenge the current beliefs about the performance of LTBI screening tests, and have important implications for LTBI screening policy and practice. We estimated that the performance of IGRAs is not as reliable as previously measured in the general population. However, IGRAs are not or minimally affected by BCG and should be the preferred tests in this setting. Adoption of IGRAs in settings where BCG is widely administered will allow for a more accurate identification and treatment of LTBI.

No abstract

Objectives We report on the key clinical predictors of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and present a clinical decision rule that can risk stratify patients for COVID-19. Design, participants and setting A prospective cohort of patients assessed for COVID-19 at a screening clinic in Melbourne, Australia. The primary outcome was a positive COVID-19 test from nasopharyngeal swab. A backwards stepwise logistic regression was used to derive a model of clinical variables predictive of a positive COVID-19 test. Internal validation of the final model was performed using bootstrapped samples and the model scoring derived from the coefficients, with modelling performed for increasing prevalence. Results Of 4226 patients with suspected COVID-19 who were assessed, 2976 patients underwent SARS-CoV-2 testing (n = 108 SARS-CoV-2 positive) and were used to determine factors associated with a positive COVID-19 test. The 7 features associated with a positive COVID-19 test on multivariable analysis were: COVID-19 patient exposure or international travel, Myalgia/malaise, Anosmia or ageusia, Temperature, Coryza/sore throat, Hypoxia–oxygen saturation < 97%, 65 years or older—summarized in the mnemonic COVID-MATCH65. Internal validation showed an AUC of 0.836. A cut-off of ≥ 1.5 points was associated with a 92.6% sensitivity and 99.5% negative predictive value (NPV) for COVID-19. Conclusions From the largest prospective outpatient cohort of suspected COVID-19 we define the clinical factors predictive of a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. The subsequent clinical decision rule, COVID-MATCH65, has a high sensitivity and NPV for SARS-CoV-2 and can be employed in the pandemic, adjusted for disease prevalence, to aid COVID-19 risk-assessment and vital testing resource allocation.

T, et al. The genetic basis of epidermolysis bullosa simplex with mottled pigmentation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996;93:9079e84.

ImportanceFewer than 5% of patients labeled with a penicillin allergy are truly allergic. The standard of care to remove the penicillin allergy label in adults is specialized testing involving prick and intradermal skin testing followed by an oral challenge with penicillin. Skin testing is resource intensive, limits practice to specialist-trained physicians, and restricts the global population who could undergo penicillin allergy delabeling.ObjectiveTo determine whether a direct oral penicillin challenge is noninferior to the standard of care of penicillin skin testing followed by an oral challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis parallel, 2-arm, noninferiority, open-label, multicenter, international randomized clinical trial occurred in 6 specialized centers, 3 in North America (US and Canada) and 3 in Australia, from June 18, 2021, to December 2, 2022. Eligible adults had a PEN-FAST score lower than 3. PEN-FAST is a prospectively derived and internationally validated clinical decision rule that enables point-of-care risk assessment for adults reporting penicillin allergies.InterventionsPatients were randomly assigned to either direct oral challenge with penicillin (intervention arm) or a standard-of-care arm of penicillin skin testing followed by oral challenge with penicillin (control arm).Main Outcome and MeasureThe primary outcome was a physician-verified positive immune-mediated oral penicillin challenge within 1 hour postintervention in the intention-to-treat population. Noninferiority was achieved if a 1-sided 95% CI of the risk difference (RD) did not exceed 5 percentage points (pp).ResultsA total of 382 adults were randomized, with 377 patients (median [IQR] age, 51 [35-65] years; 247 [65.5%] female) included in the analysis: 187 in the intervention group and 190 in the control group. Most patients had a PEN-FAST score of 0 or 1. The primary outcome occurred in 1 patient (0.5%) in the intervention group and 1 patient (0.5%) in the control group, with an RD of 0.0084 pp (90% CI, −1.22 to 1.24 pp). The 1-sided 95% CI was below the noninferiority margin of 5 pp. In the 5 days following the oral penicillin challenge, 9 immune-mediated adverse events were recorded in the intervention group and 10 in the control group (RD, −0.45 pp; 95% CI, −4.87 to 3.96 pp). No serious adverse events occurred.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this randomized clinical trial, direct oral penicillin challenge in patients with a low-risk penicillin allergy was noninferior compared with standard-of-care skin testing followed by oral challenge. In patients with a low-risk history, direct oral penicillin challenge is a safe procedure to facilitate the removal of a penicillin allergy label.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04454229