New Manual Quantitative Polymerase Chain Reaction Assay Validated on Tongue Swabs Collected and Processed in Uganda Shows Sensitivity That Rivals Sputum-based Molecular Tuberculosis Diagnostics.

Background: Sputum-based testing is a barrier to increasing access to molecular diagnostics for tuberculosis (TB). Many people with TB are unable to produce sputum, and sputum processing increases assay complexity and cost. Tongue swabs are emerging as an alternative to sputum, but performance limits are uncertain.
Methods: From June 2022 to July 2023, we enrolled 397 consecutive adults with cough >2 weeks at 2 health centers in Kampala, Uganda. We collected demographic and clinical information, sputum for TB testing (Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra and 2 liquid cultures), and tongue swabs for same-day quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) testing. We evaluated tongue swab qPCR diagnostic accuracy versus sputum TB test results, quantified TB targets per swab, assessed the impact of serial swabbing, and compared 2 swab types (Copan FLOQSWAB and Steripack spun polyester).
Results: Among 397 participants, 43.1% were female, median age was 33 years, 23.5% were diagnosed with human immunodeficiency virus, and 32.0% had confirmed TB. Sputum Xpert Ultra and tongue swab qPCR results were concordant for 98.2% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 96.2-99.1) of participants. Tongue swab qPCR sensitivity was 92.6% (95% CI: 86.5 to 96.0) and specificity was 99.1% (95% CI: 96.9 to 99.8) versus microbiological reference standard. A single tongue swab recovered a 7-log range of TB copies, with a decreasing recovery trend among 4 serial swabs. Swab types performed equivalently.
Conclusions: Tongue swabs are a promising alternative to sputum for molecular diagnosis of TB, with sensitivity approaching sputum-based molecular tests. Our results provide valuable insights for developing successful tongue swab-based TB diagnostics.
Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. A. C. reports participation on the Medaica Advisory Board and stock or stock options for Medaica. All remaining authors: No reported conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed.
(© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America.)