This is a prospective, multicenter cohort study in which the accuracy and the diagnostic yield of the Stool Processing Kit (SPK) in combination with Xpert Ultra MTB/RIF (Ultra) on stool samples will be assessed using a microbiological reference standard and a composite reference standard among children with signs and symptoms of pulmonary tuberculosis.
FIND and partners have developed a simple Stool Processing Kit (SPK) that will enable processing of large numbers of stool samples, removal of PCR (polymerase chain reaction) inhibitors which can be used at level 1 health facilities in low and middle income countries. The SPK is not a diagnostic kit as such but rather a sample processing method. This study aims to determine the sensitivity and specificity of Xpert Ultra MTB/RIF (Ultra) combined with SPK for TB detection using microbiological confirmation on respiratory specimens (defined as sputum, naso-pharyngeal aspirate, and/or gastric aspirate) as the reference standard. The investigators will further evaluate operational characteristics, including implementation considerations that will be needed for the potential rollout of the SPK. Additionally, a comparison of the performance of the SPK with up to two other centrifuge-free stool processing methods will be done on the same stool samples. The first is a method developed by researchers at the KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation (Single One Step Stool) which does not require any additional reagents other than the Ultra Sample Reagent. The second is a method developed by the Pediatric Asian African Network for Tuberculosis and HIV Research (PANTHER) group, the Optimized Sucrose Flotation method. Another diagnostic candidate, the urine Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM (FujiLAM) test will be assessed during the study. Therefore, if the sensitivity of any of these tests is shown to be promising this may support further research and provide other alternatives to respiratory samples.
Study Type
OBSERVATIONAL
Enrollment
600
The Stool Processing Kit is a centrifuge-free stool processing solution that allows preparation of stool samples for testing with the Xpert Ultra MTB/RIF assay
All India Institute of Medical Sciences
New Delhi, India
KEM Hospital Research Centre
Pune, India
University of Cape Town Lung Institute
Cape Town, South Africa
Mulago Hospital
Kampala, Uganda
Sensitivity and specificity of a single Ultra/SPK using microbiological confirmation on respiratory specimens as reference standard
Point estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, using microbiological confirmation including two cultures and two Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra in respiratory samples
Time frame: 2 months
Diagnostic accuracy of a single Ultra/SPK using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus definition as reference standard
Point estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, using the Revised Classification NIH classification for diagnostic evaluation studies in children (Graham et al., CID 2015)
Time frame: 2 months
Diagnostic accuracy of a single Ultra/SPK for Rifampin resistance detection
Point estimates of sensitivity and specificity with 95% confidence intervals, with the Mycobacteria Growth Indicator Tube (MGIT) Drug Susceptibility Testing (DST) on respiratory specimens as reference standard
Time frame: 2 months
Additional yield (increase in sensitivity) of a 2nd Ultra/SPK
Sensitivity of a 2nd sampling on the same stool with Ultra/SPK for TB and RIF resistance detection using the different reference standards (Outcome 1 \& 2)
Time frame: 2 months
Diagnostic accuracy of a single Ultra/SPK for TB detection per subgroup
Sensitivity and specificity of Ultra/SPK by sample, by site, by smear status, by HIV status, by TB history, by stool consistency, and by age using the different reference standards (Outcome 1 \& 2)
Time frame: 2 months
Diagnostic accuracy of additional interventions: Simple One Step (SOS), Optimized Sucrose Flotation (OSF) and Fujifilm SILVAMP TB LAM
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Sensitivity and specificity, by intervention using the different reference standards (Outcome 1 \& 2) and by subgroup (Outcome 5)
Time frame: 2 months
Feasibility and user appraisal of the different stool processing methods
Assessment of user appraisal on ease of use and potential implementation of stool processing methods using a standardized questionnaire
Time frame: 6 months