In this Perspective on the research article by William Rudgard and colleagues, Priya Shete and coauthor discuss the challenges of measuring the impact of social protection programs such as cash transfers.

David Dowdy and colleagues discuss the complexities of costing new TB diagnostic tests, including GeneXpert, and argue that flexible analytic tools are needed for decision-makers to adapt large-sample cost-effectiveness data to local conditions.

Background

The practice of sharing sanitation facilities does not meet the current World Health Organization/UNICEF definition for what is considered improved sanitation. Recommendations have been made to categorize shared sanitation as improved sanitation if security, user access, and other conditions can be assured, yet limited data exist on user preferences with respect to shared facilities.

Objective

This study analyzed user perceptions of shared sanitation facilities in rural households in East Java, Indonesia, and Bangladesh.

Methods

Cross-sectional studies of 2,087 households in East Java and 3,000 households in Bangladesh were conducted using questionnaires and observational methods. Relative risks were calculated to analyze associations between sanitation access and user perceptions of satisfaction, cleanliness, and safety.

Results

In East Java, 82.4% of households with private improved sanitation facilities reported feeling satisfied with their place of defecation compared to 68.3% of households with shared improved facilities [RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.09, 1.31]. In Bangladesh, 87.7% of households with private improved facilities reported feeling satisfied compared to 74.5% of households with shared improved facilities [RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.10, 1.20]. In East Java, 79.5% of households who reported a clean latrine also reported feeling satisfied with their place of defecation; only 38.9% of households who reported a dirty latrine also reported feeling satisfied [RR 1.74, 95% CI 1.45, 2.08].

Conclusion

Simple distinctions between improved and unimproved sanitation facilities tend to misrepresent the variability observed among households sharing sanitation facilities. Our results suggest that private improved sanitation is consistently preferred over any other sanitation option. An increased number of users appeared to negatively affect toilet cleanliness, and lower levels of cleanliness were associated with lower levels of satisfaction. However, when sanitation facilities were clean and shared by a limited number of households, users of shared facilities often reported feeling both satisfied and safe.

Background

People living with HIV (PLHIV) have an increased risk of developing active tuberculosis (TB). To reduce the burden of TB among PLHIV, the World Health Organization (WHO) recommends systematic TB screening followed by (1) confirmatory TB testing for all who screen positive and (2) TB preventive therapy (TPT) for all TPT-eligible PLHIV who screen negative. Symptom-based screening remains the standard of care in most high TB burden settings, including Uganda. Despite having high sensitivity for active TB among antiretroviral-naïve PLHIV, symptom screening has poor specificity; as such, many high-risk PLHIV without active TB are not referred for TPT. C-reactive protein (CRP) is a promising alternative strategy for TB screening that has comparable sensitivity and higher specificity than symptom screening, and was endorsed by WHO in 2021. However, the impact of CRP-based TB screening on TB burden for PLHIV remains unclear.

Methods

TB SCRIPT (TB Screening Improves Preventive Therapy Uptake) is a phase 3, multi-center, single-blinded, individual (1:1) randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of CRP-based TB screening on clinical outcomes of PLHIV. The trial aims to compare the effectiveness of a TB screening strategy based on CRP levels using a point-of-care (POC) assay on 2-year TB incidence and all-cause mortality (composite primary trial endpoint) and prevalent TB case detection and uptake of TPT (intermediate outcomes), relative to symptom-based TB screening (current practice).

Discussion

This study will be critical to improving selection of eligible PLHIV for TPT and helping guide the scale-up and integration of TB screening and TPT activities. This work will enable the field to improve TB screening by removing barriers to TPT initiation among eligible PLHIV, and provide randomized evidence to inform and strengthen WHO guidelines.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04557176. Registered on September 21, 2020.

Identification and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) can substantially reduce the risk of developing active disease. However, there is no diagnostic gold standard for LTBI. Two tests are available for identification of LTBI: the tuberculin skin test (TST) and the gamma interferon (IFN-γ) release assay (IGRA). Evidence suggests that both TST and IGRA are acceptable but imperfect tests. They represent indirect markers of Mycobacterium tuberculosis exposure and indicate a cellular immune response to M. tuberculosis. Neither test can accurately differentiate between LTBI and active TB, distinguish reactivation from reinfection, or resolve the various stages within the spectrum of M. tuberculosis infection. Both TST and IGRA have reduced sensitivity in immunocompromised patients and have low predictive value for progression to active TB. To maximize the positive predictive value of existing tests, LTBI screening should be reserved for those who are at sufficiently high risk of progressing to disease. Such high-risk individuals may be identifiable by using multivariable risk prediction models that incorporate test results with risk factors and using serial testing to resolve underlying phenotypes. In the longer term, basic research is necessary to identify highly predictive biomarkers.

Background

Stark racial/ethnic disparities in health outcomes exist among those living with HIV in the United States. One of 3 primary goals of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy is to reduce HIV-related disparities and health inequities.

Methods

Using data from HIV-infected women participating in the Women's Interagency HIV Study from April 2006 to March 2011, we measured virologic failure (HIV RNA >200 copies/mL) after suppression (HIV RNA < 80 copies/mL) on highly active antiretroviral therapy. We identified predictors of virologic failure using discrete time survival analysis and calculated racial/ethnic-specific population-attributable fractions (PAFs).

Results

Of 887 eligible women, 408 (46%) experienced virologic failure during the study period. Hispanic and white women had significantly lower hazards of virologic failure than African American women [Hispanic hazard ratio, (HR) = 0.8, 95% confidence interval: (0.6 to 0.9); white HR = 0.7 (0.5 to 0.9)]. The PAF of virologic failure associated with low income was higher in Hispanic [adjusted hazard ratios (aHR) = 2.2 (0.7 to 6.5), PAF = 49%] and African American women [aHR = 1.8 (1.1 to 3.2), PAF = 38%] than among white women [aHR = 1.4 (0.6 to 3.4), PAF = 16%]. Lack of health insurance compared with public health insurance was associated with virologic failure only among Hispanic [aHR = 2.0 (0.9 to 4.6), PAF = 22%] and white women [aHR = 1.9 (0.7 to 5.1), PAF = 13%]. By contrast, depressive symptoms were associated with virologic failure only among African-American women [aHR = 1.6 (1.2 to 2.2), PAF = 17%].

Conclusions

In this population of treated HIV-infected women, virologic failure was common, and correlates of virologic failure varied by race/ethnicity. Strategies to reduce disparities in HIV treatment outcomes by race/ethnicity should address racial/ethnic-specific barriers including depression and low income to sustain virologic suppression.

Background

New, sensitive diagnostic tests facilitate identification and investigation of milder forms of tuberculosis (TB) disease. We used community-based TB testing with the Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra assay ("Ultra") to characterize individuals with previously undiagnosed TB and compare them to those from the same community who were diagnosed with TB through routine care.

Methods

We offered community-based sputum Ultra testing to adult residents of a well-defined area (population 34 000 adults) in Kampala, Uganda, via door-to-door screening and venue-based testing, then used detailed interview and laboratory testing to characterize TB-positive individuals. We compared these individuals to residents diagnosed with pulmonary TB at local health facilities and a representative sample of residents without TB (controls).

Results

Of 12 032 residents with interpretable Ultra results, 113 (940 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 780-1130] per 100 000) tested positive, including 71 (63%) positive at the lowest (trace) level. A spectrum of TB disease was observed in terms of chronic cough (93% among health facility-diagnosed cases, 77% among residents with positive community-based Ultra results at levels above trace, 33% among trace-positive community participants, and 18% among TB-negative controls), TB symptom prevalence (99%, 87%, 60%, and 38%, respectively), and C-reactive protein (75th percentile: 101 mg/L, 28 mg/L, 6 mg/L, and 4 mg/L, respectively). Community-diagnosed cases were less likely than health facility-diagnosed cases to have human immunodeficiency virus coinfection or previous TB. The specificity of Ultra was 99.4% (95% CI, 99.2%-99.5%) relative to a single spot sputum culture.

Conclusions

People with undiagnosed prevalent TB in the community have different characteristics than those diagnosed with pulmonary TB in health facilities. Newer diagnostic tests may identify a group of people with early or very mild disease.

Background

Clinical tuberculosis diagnosis and empiric treatment have traditionally been common among patients with negative bacteriologic test results. Increasing availability of rapid molecular diagnostic tests, including Xpert MTB/RIF and the new Xpert Ultra cartridge, may alter the role of empiric treatment.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled outpatients age > = 15 who were evaluated for pulmonary tuberculosis at three health facilities in Kampala, Uganda. Using sputum mycobacterial culture, interviews, and clinical record abstraction, we estimated the accuracy of clinical diagnosis relative to Xpert and sputum culture and assessed the contribution of clinical diagnosis to case detection.

Results

Over a period of 9 months, 99 patients were diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis and subsequently completed sputum culture; they were matched to 196 patients receiving negative tuberculosis evaluations in the same facilities. Xpert was included in the evaluation of 291 (99%) patients. Compared to culture, Xpert had a sensitivity of 92% (95% confidence interval 83-97%) and specificity of 95% (92-98%). Twenty patients with negative Xpert were clinically diagnosed with tuberculosis and subsequently had their culture status determined; two (10%) were culture-positive. Considering all treated patients regardless of Xpert and culture data completeness, and considering treatment initiations before a positive Xpert (N = 4) to be empiric, 26/101 (26%) tuberculosis treatment courses were started empirically. Compared to sputum smear- or Xpert-positive patients with positive cultures, empirically-treated, Xpert-negative patients with negative cultures had higher prevalence of HIV (67% versus 37%), shorter duration of cough (median 4 versus 8 weeks), and lower inflammatory markers (median CRP 7 versus 101 mg/L).

Conclusion

Judged against sputum culture in a routine care setting of high HIV prevalence, the accuracy of Xpert was high. Clinical judgment identified a small number of additional culture-positive cases, but with poor specificity. Although clinicians should continue to prescribe tuberculosis treatment for Xpert-negative patients whose clinical presentations strongly suggest pulmonary tuberculosis, they should also carefully consider alternative diagnoses.