IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmed00/1003739.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Derivation and external validation of a risk score for predicting HIV-associated tuberculosis to support case finding and preventive therapy scale-up: A cohort study

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew F Auld
  • Andrew D Kerkhoff
  • Yasmeen Hanifa
  • Robin Wood
  • Salome Charalambous
  • Yuliang Liu
  • Tefera Agizew
  • Anikie Mathoma
  • Rosanna Boyd
  • Anand Date
  • Ray W Shiraishi
  • George Bicego
  • Unami Mathebula-Modongo
  • Heather Alexander
  • Christopher Serumola
  • Goabaone Rankgoane-Pono
  • Pontsho Pono
  • Alyssa Finlay
  • James C Shepherd
  • Tedd V Ellerbrock
  • Alison D Grant
  • Katherine Fielding

Abstract

Background: Among people living with HIV (PLHIV), more flexible and sensitive tuberculosis (TB) screening tools capable of detecting both symptomatic and subclinical active TB are needed to (1) reduce morbidity and mortality from undiagnosed TB; (2) facilitate scale-up of tuberculosis preventive therapy (TPT) while reducing inappropriate prescription of TPT to PLHIV with subclinical active TB; and (3) allow for differentiated HIV–TB care. Methods and findings: We used Botswana XPRES trial data for adult HIV clinic enrollees collected during 2012 to 2015 to develop a parsimonious multivariable prognostic model for active prevalent TB using both logistic regression and random forest machine learning approaches. A clinical score was derived by rescaling final model coefficients. The clinical score was developed using southern Botswana XPRES data and its accuracy validated internally, using northern Botswana data, and externally using 3 diverse cohorts of antiretroviral therapy (ART)-naive and ART-experienced PLHIV enrolled in XPHACTOR, TB Fast Track (TBFT), and Gugulethu studies from South Africa (SA). Predictive accuracy of the clinical score was compared with the World Health Organization (WHO) 4-symptom TB screen. Among 5,418 XPRES enrollees, 2,771 were included in the derivation dataset; 67% were female, median age was 34 years, median CD4 was 240 cells/μL, 189 (7%) had undiagnosed prevalent TB, and characteristics were similar between internal derivation and validation datasets. Among XPHACTOR, TBFT, and Gugulethu cohorts, median CD4 was 400, 73, and 167 cells/μL, and prevalence of TB was 5%, 10%, and 18%, respectively. Factors predictive of TB in the derivation dataset and selected for the clinical score included male sex (1 point), ≥1 WHO TB symptom (7 points), smoking history (1 point), temperature >37.5°C (6 points), body mass index (BMI) 10) yielded TB prevalence of 1%, 1%, 2%, and 6% in the lowest risk group and 33%, 22%, 26%, and 32% in the highest risk group for XPRES, XPHACTOR, TBFT, and Gugulethu cohorts, respectively. At clinical score ≥2, the number needed to screen (NNS) ranged from 5.0 in Gugulethu to 11.0 in XPHACTOR. Limitations include that the risk score has not been validated in resource-rich settings and needs further evaluation and validation in contemporary cohorts in Africa and other resource-constrained settings. Conclusions: The simple and feasible clinical score allowed for prioritization of sensitivity and NPV, which could facilitate reductions in mortality from undiagnosed TB and safer administration of TPT during proposed global scale-up efforts. Differentiation of risk by clinical score cutoff allows flexibility in designing differentiated HIV–TB care to maximize impact of available resources. Andrew Auld and colleagues evaluate a clinical score for active tuberculosis in persons with HIV infection.Why was this study done?: What did the researchers do and find?: What do these findings mean?:

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew F Auld & Andrew D Kerkhoff & Yasmeen Hanifa & Robin Wood & Salome Charalambous & Yuliang Liu & Tefera Agizew & Anikie Mathoma & Rosanna Boyd & Anand Date & Ray W Shiraishi & George Bicego & Una, 2021. "Derivation and external validation of a risk score for predicting HIV-associated tuberculosis to support case finding and preventive therapy scale-up: A cohort study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(9), pages 1-27, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003739
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003739
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003739
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1003739&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmed.1003739?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmed00:1003739. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosmedicine (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.