Rapid molecular testing or chest X-ray or tuberculin skin testing for household contact assessment of tuberculosis infection: A cluster-randomized trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends evaluation of all household contacts (HHC) of index tuberculosis (TB) patients for TB disease (TBD) and TB infection (TBI). Tests to identify TBI and TBD are preferred but can be skipped in persons living with HIV and children <5 years. There is equipoise on the need for these tests in other HHC. METHODS: We conducted a superiority, open label cluster-randomized trial in Benin and Brazil to compare three strategies to evaluate HHC aged 5-50 of persons newly diagnosed with drug susceptible pulmonary TBD: Standard: tuberculin skin testing (TST) for TBI and if positive, chest X-ray (CXR) to rule out TBD; rapid molecular test (RMT): same as Standard, except CXR replaced by an RMT; and No-TST: CXR for all but no TST. Randomization was computer-generated and stratified by country, in blocks of variable length. The primary outcome was TB preventive therapy (TPT) initiation among HHC considered eligible (positive TST, if done, and no evidence of TBD on CXR or RMT). Secondary outcomes were: completion of investigations to detect TBI and TBD, detection of TBD, TPT completion, severe adverse events, and societal costs. RESULTS: Among 1,589 participating HHC enrolled from 29 January 2020, to 30 November 2022, 474 were randomized to the standard, 583 to the RMT, and 532 to the no-TST strategies; all were included in the analyses. Of 848 HHC considered eligible for TPT, 802 (94.6%) initiated TPT, with no difference between strategies (95%, 94%, and 95% for the standard, RMT, and no-TST strategies, respectively). Of the secondary outcomes, protocol-mandated investigations to detect TBI and exclude possible TBD were completed for 93.4% overall, with slight differences between arms (93%, 95%, and 93% for the standard, RMT, and no-TST strategies, respectively). Adverse events resulting in discontinuation of TPT occurred in 3 (0.4%) participants in total (with 1, 0, and 2 events among participants in the Standard, RMT, and no-TST arms, respectively). The proportion completing TPT was similar with Standard and RMT strategies but was 13% lower (95% confidence interval: 3% to 23% lower) with the No-TST strategy. Societal costs per HHC completing investigations were $61 ($56-$65) with the standard strategy, compared to $52 ($49-$55) with the RMT strategy and $74 ($72-$77) with the no-TST strategy. CONCLUSION: This randomized trial provides high-quality evidence that TST followed by selected use of CXR or an RMT to exclude disease can achieve high rates of TPT initiation at reasonable costs. A limitation of the trial is the potential study effect, which may have affected adherence by providers and HHCs. RMT could replace CXR in the management of HHC in resource limited settings. REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04528823.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".