Screening

The magnitude and balance of desirable and undesirable effects vary according the epidemiological conditions (the prevalence of TB and of risk factors) and the intensity of the screening intervention being implemented (the coverage of the population and the sensitivity of the screening test and algorithm). There is currently no evidence that population-wide screening using less sensitive screening algorithms that begin with symptom screening are effective at reducing the population prevalence or transmission of TB.

Standard monitoring and evaluation procedures may be complemented by operational research aimed at improving the performance of screening in the local setting as well as research aimed at improving the global evidence base for screening. Topics that may be explored include:

Across all populations and tools, more research is needed to evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of complete screening and diagnostic algorithms, including symptom screening, CXR, CRP and mWRDs used in various combinations with diagnostic evaluation. Research into their effectiveness should include measures of the impacts on patient-important outcomes, such as mortality and treatment success.

Contact screening should always be done when a person with TB has any of the following characteristics: bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary TB, proven or presumed multidrug-resistant TB or extensively drug-resistant TB, is a person living with HIV or is a child younger than 5 years. Among contacts of patients with bacteriologically confirmed TB, the weighted pooled prevalence of TB was 3.4% (95% CI: 2.9–3.8). Among contacts of patients with multidrug-resistant or extensively drug-resistant TB the weighted pooled prevalence of TB was 3.7% (95% CI: 2.4–5.3).

For people living with HIV in settings with different TB prevalences, more research is needed to evaluate the accuracy and predictive value of measuring CRP above any cut-off higher than 5 mg/L for TB screening, when it is used either alone or in combination with other screening tests.

Further evidence is needed about the performance of CAD software stratified according to the characteristics of the individual being evaluated (e.g. by smear status, HIV status, age cohort, history of TB, smoking status, sex) to allow for better setting-specific and patient-specific calibration of CAD programmes.

More research on users’ perspectives is needed about CAD technologies in TB screening and triage, including their perceived acceptability to patients, providers and other stakeholders.

The GDG considered data on using mWRDs for screening children and adolescent outpatients accessing health care. They felt that the data, which included 2 studies with 787 participants and had results demonstrating substantial heterogeneity, represented insufficient evidence to establish an accurate and reliable estimate of the diagnostic accuracy of mWRDs, and, thus, the GDG decided not to issue a recommendation for or against their use as a screening tool for children and adolescents.

TB screening tools are designed to distinguish people with a higher probability of having TB disease from those with a low probability and can be assumed to be free of TB disease. They are not intended to provide a definitive diagnosis. In general, they need to be able to be implemented easily and relay results rapidly in order to be informative in a screening context. Screening tests need to be followed by a diagnostic test, offered as part of a comprehensive clinical evaluation, to confirm or rule out TB disease in individuals who screen positive.

Well-designed clinical trials are needed to strengthen the evidence about the accuracy, effectiveness (including the impact on patient-important outcomes such as mortality), feasibility and cost implications of using the W4SS, CRP, CXR and mWRD to screen for TB across all HIV subpopulations in settings with low, medium and high burdens of HIV and TB with and without high ART coverage.