BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis, like COVID-19, is most often a pulmonary disease. The COVID-19 pandemic has severely disrupted tuberculosis services in myriad ways: health facility closures, lockdowns, travel bans, overwhelmed healthcare systems, restricted export of antituberculous drugs, etc. The effects of the shared risk on outcomes of the two diseases is not known, particularly for the first year of the pandemic, during the period before COVID-19 vaccines became widely available. OBJECTIVE: We embarked on a systematic review to elucidate the consequences of tuberculosis on COVID-19 outcomes and of COVID-19 on tuberculosis outcomes during the pre-vaccination period of the pandemic. METHODS: The systematic review protocol is registered in PROSPERO. We conducted an initial search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, WHO coronavirus database, medRxiv, bioRxiv, preprints.org, and Google Scholar using terms relating to COVID-19 and tuberculosis. We selected cohort and case-control studies for extraction and assessed quality with the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: We identified 2108 unique abstracts published between December 2019 and January 2021. We extracted data from 18 studies from 8 countries. A total of 650,317 persons had a diagnosis of COVID-19, and 4179 had a diagnosis of current or prior tuberculosis. We explored links between tuberculosis and COVID-19 incidence, mortality, and other adverse outcomes. Nine studies reported on mortality and 13 on other adverse outcomes; results on the association between tuberculosis and COVID-19 mortality/adverse outcomes were heterogenous. Tuberculosis outcomes were not fully available in any studies, due to short follow-up (maximum of 3 months after COVID-19 diagnosis), so the effects of COVID-19 on tuberculosis outcomes could not be assessed. Much of the rapid influx of literature on tuberculosis and COVID-19 during this period was published on preprint servers, and therefore not peer-reviewed. It offered limited examination of the effect of tuberculosis on COVID-19 outcomes and even less on the effect of COVID-19 on tuberculosis treatment outcomes.

Pooling of samples can increase throughput and reduce costs for large-scale SARS-CoV-2 testing when incidence is low. In a cross-sectional study of serial SARS-CoV-2 sampling of staff and residents at three nursing homes, laboratory labor constraints limited the feasibility of pooling prior to the maximal incidence that favored cost savings. IMPORTANCE This study highlights the pragmatic considerations surrounding SARS-CoV-2 sample pooling beyond accuracy and costs. We performed a cost analysis to determine the percent positivity at which pooling would reduce costs versus single testing. We found that the need for a stable amount of daily work hours staffed by a highly trained workforce was a major limitation in pooling as test positivity increased. For the COVID-19 pandemic and future pandemic threats, laboratories should carefully consider the thresholds at which sample pooling is beneficial, with a particular focus on the impact on laboratory staff.

Widely available and reliable testing for SARS-CoV-2 is essential for the public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic. We estimated the diagnostic performance of reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) performed on saliva and the SD Biosensor STANDARD Q antigen test performed on nasopharyngeal swab compared to the reference standard, nasopharyngeal swab (NP) RT-PCR. We enrolled participants living and/or seeking care in health facilities in North Lima, Peru from November 2020 to January 2021. Consenting participants underwent same-day RT-PCR on both saliva and nasopharyngeal swab specimens, antigen testing on a nasopharyngeal swab specimen, pulse oximetry, and standardized symptom assessment. We calculated sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values for the nasopharyngeal antigen and saliva RT-PCR compared to nasopharyngeal RT-PCR. Of 896 participants analyzed, 567 (63.3%) had acute signs/symptoms of COVID-19. The overall sensitivity and specificity of saliva RT-PCR were 85.8% and 98.1%, respectively. Among participants with and without acute signs/symptoms of COVID-19, saliva sensitivity was 87.3% and 37.5%, respectively. Saliva sensitivity was 97.4% and 56.0% among participants with cycle threshold (CT) values of ≤30 and >30 on nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, respectively. The overall sensitivity and specificity of nasopharyngeal antigen were 73.2% and 99.4%, respectively. The sensitivity of the nasopharyngeal antigen test was 75.1% and 12.5% among participants with and without acute signs/symptoms of COVID-19, and 91.2% and 26.7% among participants with CT values of ≤30 and >30 on nasopharyngeal RT-PCR, respectively. Saliva RT-PCR achieved the WHO-recommended threshold of >80% for sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2, while the SD Biosensor nasopharyngeal antigen test did not. IMPORTANCE In this diagnostic validation study of 896 participants in Peru, saliva reverse transcription PCR (RT-PCR) had >80% sensitivity for the detection of SARS-CoV-2 among all-comers and symptomatic individuals, while the SD Biosensor STANDARD Q antigen test performed on nasopharyngeal swab had <80% sensitivity, except for participants whose same-day nasopharyngeal RT-PCR results showed cycle threshold values of <30, consistent with a high viral load in the nasopharynx. The specificity was high for both tests. Our results demonstrate that saliva sampling could serve as an alternative noninvasive technique for RT-PCR diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. The role of nasopharyngeal antigen testing is more limited; when community transmission is low, it may be used for mass screenings among asymptomatic individuals with high testing frequency. Among symptomatic individuals, the nasopharyngeal antigen test may be relied upon for 4 to 8 days after symptom onset, or in those likely to have high viral load, whereupon it showed >80% sensitivity.

Not all patients produce sputum, yet most available TB tests use sputum. We investigated the utility of a novel RNA-based quantitative test, the tuberculosis molecular bacterial load assay (TB-MBLA), for the detection and quantification of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in stool. Stools from 100 adult individuals were treated with OMNIgene-sputum reagent and tested using Xpert MTB/RIF ultra (Xpert ultra), auramine O smear microscopy (smear), mycobacterial growth indicator tube (MGIT), and Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) cultures. The remaining portions were frozen at -20°C and later tested by TB-MBLA. MGIT sputum culture was used as a TB confirmatory test and reference for stool tests. Sixty-one of 100 participants were already confirmed TB positive by MGIT sputum culture, 20 (33%) of whom were HIV coinfected. TB-MBLA detected M. tuberculosis in 57/100 stool samples, including 49 already confirmed for TB. The mean bacterial load measured by stool TB-MBLA was 5.67 ± 1.7 log₁₀ estimated CFU (eCFU) per mL in HIV-coinfected participants, which was higher than the 4.83 ± 1.59 log₁₀ eCFU per mL among the HIV-negative participants (P = 0.04). The sensitivities (95% confidence intervals [CI]) of stool assays were 80% (68 to 89) and 90% (79 to 98) for TB-MBLA and Xpert ultra, which were both higher than the 44% (32 to 58), 64% (51 to 76), and 62% (45 to 77) for smear, MGIT, and Lowenstein-Jensen (LJ) stool cultures, respectively. The specificity (95% CI) of stool assays was highest for smear, at 97% (87 to 100), followed by Xpert ultra at 91% (76 to 98), TB-MBLA at 79% (63 to 90), LJ at 80% (64 to 91), and MGIT at 62% (45 to 77). Twenty-six percent of MGIT and 21% of LJ stool cultures were indeterminate due to contamination. Detection and quantification of viable M. tuberculosis bacilli in stool raises its utility as an alternative to sputum as a sample type for TB diagnosis. IMPORTANCE This paper highlights the value of stool as a sample type for diagnosis of tuberculosis. While other studies have used DNA-based assays like the Xpert MTB/RIF and culture to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis in stool, this is the first study that has applied TB-MBLA, an RNA-based assay, to quantify TB bacteria in stool. The high microbial density and diversity in stool compromises the specificity and sensitivity of culture-based tests due to overgrowth of non-M. tuberculosis flora. Consequently, TB-MBLA becomes the most sensitive and specific test for the detection and quantification of viable TB bacteria in stool. Most crucially, this study raises the possibility of a nonsputum alternative sample type for diagnosis of TB among people who have difficulty in producing sputum.