Dynamics of sputum conversion during effective tuberculosis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Two weeks' isolation is widely recommended for people commencing treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). The evidence that this corresponds to clearance of potentially infectious tuberculous mycobacteria in sputum is not well established. This World Health Organization-commissioned review investigated sputum sterilisation dynamics during TB treatment. METHODS AND
FINDINGS: For the main analysis, 2 systematic literature searches of OvidSP MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus were conducted to identify studies with data on TB infectiousness (all studies to search date, 1 December 2017) and all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for drug-susceptible TB (from 1 January 1990 to search date, 20 February 2018). Included articles reported on patients receiving effective treatment for culture-confirmed drug-susceptible pulmonary TB. The outcome of interest was sputum bacteriological conversion: the proportion of patients having converted by a defined time point or a summary measure of time to conversion, assessed by smear or culture. Any study design with 10 or more particpants was considered. Record sifting and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Random effects meta-analyses were performed. A narrative summary additionally describes the results of a systematic search for data evaluating infectiousness from humans to experimental animals (PubMed, all studies to 27 March 2018). Other evidence on duration of infectiousness-including studies reporting on cough dynamics, human tuberculin skin test conversion, or early bactericidal activity of TB treatments-was outside the scope of this review. The literature search was repeated on 22 November 2020, at the request of the editors, to identify studies published after the previous censor date. Four small studies reporting 3 different outcome measures were identified, which included no data that would alter the findings of the review; they are not included in the meta-analyses. Of 5,290 identified records, 44 were included. Twenty-seven (61%) were RCTs and 17 (39%) were cohort studies. Thirteen studies (30%) reported data from Africa, 12 (27%) from Asia, 6 (14%) from South America, 5 (11%) from North America, and 4 (9%) from Europe. Four studies reported data from multiple continents. Summary estimates suggested smear conversion in 9% of patients at 2 weeks (95% CI 3%-24%, 1 single study [N = 1]), and 82% of patients at 2 months of treatment (95% CI 78%-86%, N = 10). Among baseline smear-positive patients, solid culture conversion occurred by 2 weeks in 5% (95% CI 0%-14%, N = 2), increasing to 88% at 2 months (95% CI 84%-92%, N = 20). At equivalent time points, liquid culture conversion was achieved in 3% (95% CI 1%-16%, N = 1) and 59% (95% CI 47%-70%, N = 8). Significant heterogeneity was observed. Further interrogation of the data to explain this heterogeneity was limited by the lack of disaggregation of results, including by factors such as HIV status, baseline smear status, and the presence or absence of lung cavitation.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review found that most patients remained culture positive at 2 weeks of TB treatment, challenging the view that individuals are not infectious after this interval. Culture positivity is, however, only 1 component of infectiousness, with reduced cough frequency and aerosol generation after TB treatment initiation likely to also be important. Studies that integrate our findings with data on cough dynamics could provide a more complete perspective on potential transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by individuals on treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO 85226.

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of death from an infectious disease [1]. Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), the causative organism, is transmitted via respiratory droplet nuclei generated by individuals with pulmonary TB (PTB). Transmission is affected by environmental factors, characteristics of both the source case and exposed individual, and the nature of their contact. The greatest risk is from individuals with smear-positive PTB and high cough frequency [2-4]. Interruption of transmission requires identification and separation of infectious individuals until they are rendered non-infectious through treatment. Multiple countries’ national guidance documents recommend isolation of hospitalised individuals, with 2 weeks of effective treatment commonly cited as the time frame after which patients are considered non-infectious [5-9]. Implementing respiratory isolation has considerable resource implications, and is often unachievable in overstretched health systems in low- and middle-income countries, where the greatest burden of TB lies [1].

The evidence base for the 2-week ‘rule’ has been repeatedly challenged by data demonstrating that most baseline sputum-culture-positive patients positive remain so for longer than 14 days [10]. These individuals are potentially infectious, although diminished cough frequency may reduce transmission [4,11].

This systematic review was commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) Department of Global TB Programme Guideline Development Group (GDG) to synthesise evidence on the dynamics of potential infectiousness of individuals with PTB receiving effective therapy, informing the 2019 guideline update on TB infection prevention and control (IPC) [12].

Potential infectiousness was defined here as detection of Mtb by sputum smear or culture, irrespective of cough dynamics or contact mixing patterns. Whilst smear microscopy may detect non-viable, and therefore non-infectious, bacilli, it is referenced as a measure of treatment response in published guidelines and in clinical practice. Molecular methods (Mtb DNA detection, e.g., Xpert MTB/RIF [Cepheid]) also detect non-viable bacilli and are not routinely used in assessment of treatment response; such assessments were excluded from this analysis.

Two types of evidence were considered: (1) data on time from treatment initiation to sputum smear and culture conversion and (2) data from measurements of infectiousness from PTB patients to experimental animals. Although cough is clearly important, review of cough dynamics during TB treatment did not form part of this study. Studies evaluating early bactericidal activity and human-to-human transmission were also considered outside the scope of this study.

Methods

This review is reported following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [13]. Our PRISMA checklist is located in S1 PRISMA Checklist. A prospectively registered review protocol is available in PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, study ID 85226 [background question 3]).

Search strategy

A professional librarian developed and executed the literature search, in consultation with the WHO GDG. The population of interest was patients receiving an effective treatment regimen for drug-susceptible PTB (DS-TB); the outcome of interest was bacteriological conversion of sputum. Effective treatment required at least rifampicin (R) and isoniazid (H) throughout, pyrazinamide (Z) for the 2-month intensive phase, and administration at least 5 days per week. Inclusion of ethambutol (E) and streptomycin (S) was permitted but not essential. Regimens including drugs not conventionally regarded as first-line, such as quinolones, were excluded [14]. The outcome was defined as either the proportion of participants achieving bacteriological (smear or culture) conversion from positive to negative by fixed time points during treatment (proportion converted [PC]) or time to conversion (TTC) for the study population. As a descriptive analysis, no intervention or comparator group was defined.

Full search parameters are detailed in S1 Table and S2 Table. The search was constructed in OvidSP MEDLINE, adapted and run in OvidSP Embase; OvidSP Global Health; and EBSCO CINAHL Plus. Searches used subject headings where available, and search terms in the title and abstract. Combinations of terms were used to capture the concepts of infectiousness and TB. Language was limited to English, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. On initial screening of search results, the authors noted the absence of several randomised controlled trials (RCTs) known to include culture conversion data in standard treatment arms. An additional search was therefore constructed identifying all RCTs of DS-TB treatment in humans. The first search was conducted on 1 December 2017 without date restrictions; the second (RCT search) was conducted on 20 February 2018, with date limited to 1990 onwards, to identify RCTs incorporating standard daily rifampicin-based regimens.

To mitigate the risk of overlooking important data reported since our search censor date, during manuscript review we conducted a further literature search of OvidSP MEDLINE and Embase on 22 November 2020. We used the original search terms (S1 Table and S2 Table) combined with terms identified as being common either as keywords or in the titles/abstracts of studies already included in the review. Full details, including additional search terms, are provided in S1 Appendix.

Study selection and data extraction

Two-stage sifting by 2 independent reviewers was employed, applying predetermined eligibility criteria at title and abstract review and, where necessary, full-text screening. References and citations for all included studies were reviewed to identify further relevant articles. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are defined in Table 1.

Table 1

Summary of inclusion and exclusion criteria employed during record sifting.

Component	Inclusion criteria	Exclusion criteria
Participants	• Bacteriologically confirmed (smear- or culture-positive) pulmonary tuberculosis• Confirmed drug susceptibility to, at least, rifampicin and isoniazida• Treated with a regimen including rifampicin and isoniazid with pyrazinamide added during 2-month ‘intensive phase’, administered at least 5 days per weekb	• Any study not reporting data on participants with confirmed, drug-susceptible pulmonary tuberculosis (or disaggregated data for this subgroup)• Any study not in humans• Any study reporting on participants not treated with a conventional first-line regimen [14] (e.g., addition of quinolones), or with treatment given fewer than 5 days per weekb
Outcome measures	Studies reporting data on at least 1 of the outcome measures of interest:• Proportion of participants achieving sputum smear microscopy or culture conversionc, assessed at any time point within the first 4 months of treatment• A summary measure (such as mean or median) of time to conversion, assessed by repeated smear or culturec assessment (at any interval) during treatment	• Any study not reporting on any of the outcomes of interest
Study types	• Any consecutive case series, case–control study, cohort study, randomised controlled study, systematic review, or meta-analysis	• Any systematic review superseded by an updated systematic review• Narrative reviews not adding new data or new analysis of data to existing knowledge• Commentaries and mathematical modelling studies• Studies with fewer than 10 participants per arm• Any study not written in English, Japanese, Chinese, Russian, French, Spanish, or Portuguese• Any study published before 1946

aCriterion only applied at full-text review, as infrequently reported in abstracts.

bWhere studies used an included regimen for an initial period, with an excluded regimen later (e.g., during continuation phase, or insufficient duration of pyrazinamide), the study was included and data extracted only for the period where an included regimen was administered.

cSputum smear and culture assessment could be by any method including Ziehl–Neelsen stain, fluorescence microscopy, liquid or solid culture, or an undefined culture method.

Data were extracted in duplicate into a standardised, pilot-tested Excel database (Microsoft Office 2016) (S1 Form). As our intention was to analyse an ‘on treatment’ population, data from per-protocol analyses were preferentially used. Data were not directly extracted from systematic reviews; instead, source papers were identified and reviewed for inclusion. At each stage of screening and extraction, disagreements were resolved by a third independent reviewer.

Quality assessment was performed by 2 independent reviewers at study level using an adapted National Institutes of Health tool for case series [15].

Analysis

Extracted data were synthesised using a narrative approach, and meta-analyses where appropriate. TTC data were presented as study-specific estimates (mean or median) together with a measure of spread (interquartile range, standard error, standard deviation, or range) where provided.

Random effects meta-analyses were used to calculate pooled conversion proportions across detection method subgroups (smear, solid culture, or liquid culture) at different time points. Where the culture type was not stated, those performed prior to 1990 were assumed to use solid media; others are reported as ‘unspecified’. Study-specific CIs were calculated using the score method. Weighted pooled proportion estimates were calculated for each subgroup using the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation, avoiding potential bias introduced from excluding studies with conversion proportions equalling 0 or 1 [16]. Pooled estimate CIs were calculated using the Wald method. Within-subgroup heterogeneity was assessed with the chi-squared test and described with the I2 statistic. Data cleaning was conducted in Stata (Stata/IC version 13.1), and meta-analyses performed in R (R Core Team, 2020) using the ‘forest.meta’ function from the package ‘meta’ [17].

Animal studies

A review of data on Mtb transmission from humans to animals was explicitly requested by the WHO GDG and was undertaken as a separate search and analysis. The population of interest was patients receiving effective treatment for drug-susceptible or drug-resistant PTB. The outcome of interest was transmission to experimental animals exposed to air exhausted from isolation facilities accommodating TB patients, defined as tuberculin skin test (TST) conversion or new active TB disease in these animals.

The search was run on 27 March 2018; details are provided in S3 Table. Titles and abstracts, then full texts of identified papers were reviewed. References and citations of included papers were also reviewed. The diversity and heterogeneity of methodologies and analyses applied by included studies did not permit standardised data extraction or quality assessment. Relevant data were extracted for narrative synthesis by 1 reviewer and independently checked for accuracy by a second.

Results

In total, 5,290 unique records were identified for title and abstract review (first search: 3,558; RCT search: 1,732). Full-text review of 180 papers identified 22 studies for inclusion in the main analysis. A further 22 articles were added from references and citations (Fig 1), resulting in 44 papers for analysis (Table 2).

Fig 1

Flow diagram showing databases searched and process for article inclusion.

Two searches were developed, conducted by a professional librarian: a primary search and a second search that aimed to identify all RCTs of tuberculosis treatment conducted since 1990, as described in text. DSTB, drug-susceptible tuberculosis; n, number of studies; RCT, randomised controlled trial.

Table 2

Description of included studies.

Study	Year	Location	Study design	N assessed*	Age (years)†	Percent female	Percent HIV+	Treatment‡		Adherence support	Outcome reported (PC or TTC)	Assessment method§	Study dates
								Intensive	Continuation
Smear-positive pulmonary TB
Abal [22]	2005	Kuwait	C (p)	339	—	Smoker−: 42%; Smoker+: 1%	—	2RHZ±E/S	—	—	PC	Smear (ZN)	1998–2000
Chaulet [23]	1995	Algeria	RCT	196	—	26%	—	2RHZ	4RH	IP DOT (≥14 d)/U-INH	PC	Culture (NS)	—
Conde [24]	2009	Brazil	RCT	72	36 (±12)	31%	3%	2RHZE (5 d)	4RH	DOT	Both	Culture (solid)	2004–2007
Conde [25]	2016	Brazil	RCT	45 [59]	30 (24–45)	39%	0%	2RHZE	4RH	DOT	Both	Culture (solid + liquid)	2009–2013
Dawson [26]	2009	South Africa	RCT	30	32 (±11)	37%	7%	2RHZE	4RH¶	DOT	PC	Smear (NS); culture (NS)	2005–2006
Dawson [27] (2015a)	2015	South Africa, Tanzania	RCT	54 [59]	30.4 (±10)	31%	22%	2RHZE	—	—	Both	Culture (solid + liquid)	2012–2013
Dawson [28] (2015b)	2015	South Africa	RCT	36 [48]	30 (25–36)	27%	6%	2RHZE	4RH	DOT||	Both	Culture (solid + liquid)	2010–2013
Desjardin [29]	1999	Brazil	RCT	19	34 (range 19–55)	26%	0%	2RHZE	—	DOT (≥2 wk)/pill count/U-INH	PC	Culture (solid)	—
Dlugovitzky [30]	2006	Argentina	RCT	10	37 (±13)	20%	0%	2RHZE	4RH	DOT	PC	Smear (ZN); culture (solid)	≥2001
Dominguez-Castellano [31]	2003	Spain	C (p)	95 [109]	—	—	39%	2RHZ±E	NS	—	TTC	Smear (ZN)	—
Dorman [32]	2009	Multiple (4 continents)	RCT	164	30 (25–40)	28%	11%	2RHZE (5 d)	—	DOT||	PC	Culture (solid + liquid)	2006–2007
Dorman [33]	2012	Multiple (4 continents)	RCT	183	34 (26–47)	37%	13%	2RHZE (5 d)	—	DOT||	PC	Culture (solid + liquid)	2008–2010
Dorman [34]	2015	Multiple (4 continents)	RCT	64 [85]	33 (19–78)	35%	6%	2RHZE	—	DOT	PC	Culture (solid + liquid)	2011–2012
ECA/BMRC [35]	1983	Multiple (SSA)	RCT	708	—	35%	—	2RHZS	—	IP DOT	PC	Smear (NS)	1978–1980
Grandjean [36]	2015	Peru	C (p)	487	29	61%	4%	2RHZE¶	—	—	PC	Smear (NS)	2010–2013
HKCS/BMRC [37]	1981	Hong Kong	RCT	168 [1,207]	—	28%	—	6RHZE	—	DOT||	PC	Culture (solid)	—
HKCS/BMRC [38]	1978	Hong Kong	RCT	180 [842]	—	29%	—	2RHZS	—	DOT	PC	Culture (solid)	—
Jindani [39]	2014	Multiple (SSA)	RCT	163	—	36%	29%	2RHZE	—	DOT	PC	Culture (solid + liquid)	2008–2011
Jindani [40]	2016	Multiple (SSA, S. Am.)	RCT	92 [100]	29 (range 18–67)	34%	0%	2RHZE	—	DOT	PC	Culture (solid)	2011–2013
Johnson [41]	2000	Uganda	RCT	52 [59]	29 (±8)	22%	0%	2RHZE	4RH	Pill count/U-INH	PC	Culture (solid)	1995–1997
Johnson [42]	2003	Uganda	RCT	47 [55]	27.4 (±7)	25%	0%	2RHZE	—	IP DOT (≥1 mo)/U-INH	PC	Culture (solid)	—
Joloba [43]	2000	Uganda	C (p)	36	HIV−: 31 (±9); HIV+: 27 (±8)	HIV−: 57%; HIV+: 50%	61%	2RHZE	—	DOT (≥2 wk)	PC	Culture (solid + liquid)	1996–1997
Kanda [44]	2015	Japan	C (r)	86	57 (range 40–67)	30%	0%	2RHZ+E/S	≥4RH	IP DOT	Both	Culture (solid)	—
Kennedy [45]	1996	Tanzania	RCT	86	36 (±13)	36%	37%	2RHZE	2RHZ+2RH	IP DOT	TTC	Smear (FM); culture (NS)	1990–1992
Long [46]	2003	Canada	C (p/r)	32	—	38%	0%	2RHZ	—	DOT||	Both	Smear (ZN)	1997–1999
Méchaï [47]	2016	France	C (p)	30	43 (36–52)	23%	0%	2RHZE	4RH	—	TTC	Smear (NS); culture (NS)	2009–2013
Pheiffer [48]	2008	South Africa	C (p)	105	—	—	—	2RHZE	—	—	PC	Smear (ZN)	2000–2004
Rathored [49]	2012	India	C (p)	50 [338]	27 (±10)	28%	0%	2RHZE¶	2RH¶	DOT	TTC	Smear (ZN); culture (solid)	2006–2011
STBS/BMRC [50]	1979	Singapore	RCT	330 [363]	—	35%	—	2RHZS	—	DOT	PC	Culture (solid)	—
STBS/BMRC [51]	1985	Singapore	RCT	319	—	40%	—	1RHZS/2RHZS/2RHZ	—	DOT	PC	Culture (solid)	—
Singla [52]	2003	Saudi Arabia	C (r)	434 [514]	Male: 38 (±33); female: 33 (±15)	37%	0%	2RHZE	—	IP DOT (≥1 mo)	PC	Smear (NS)	1998–1999
Stoffel [53]	2014	Argentina	C (r)	148	—	34%	—	2RHZE	—	DOT	PC	Smear (ZN); culture (solid)	2000–2010
Tanzania/BMRC [54]	1985	Tanzania	RCT	224	—	29%	—	2RHZS	—	IP DOT/U-INH	PC	Culture (solid)	1978–1981
Tanzania/BMRC [55]	1996	Tanzania	RCT	266	—	31%	—	1.5RHZS	—	IP DOT/U-INH	PC	Culture (NS)	1982–1985
Telzak [56]	1997	US	C (r)	77 [100]	—	39%	59%	RHZE¶,**	RH||	DOT	TTC	Smear (ZN); culture (NS)	1993–1996
Any pulmonary TB
BTA [57]	1981	UK	RCT	287 [334]	RHZS: 38; RHZE: 39	RHZS: 33%; RHZE: 38%	—	RHZ+E/S	4RH	U-INH	PC	Culture (solid)	—
Combs [58]	1990	US	RCT	617	41 (±15)	22%	—	2RHZ±E	4RH	—	PC	Culture (solid)	1981–1986
Lee [59]	2014	South Korea	C (r)	162	S+: 58 (43–70); C+ 58 (40–70)	S+: 38%; C+: 42%	<1%	2RHZE¶	—	—	Both	Culture (liquid)	2011–2012
Leung [60]	2017	China (Hong Kong)	C (p)	15,658 [21,414]	54 (±21)	36%	<1%	2RHZ±S/E¶**	NS	—	PC	Smear (NS); culture (NS)	2006–2010
Musteikienė [61]	2017	Lithuania	C (p)	52	—	77%	0%	2RHZE	4RH	IP DOT	PC	Culture (liquid)	2015–2016
Sajid [62]	2011	Pakistan	RCT	50	49 (±18)	38%	0%	2RHZE	—	—	PC	Culture (NS)	2009–2010
Scott [63]††	2017	US	C (r)	30,848	46 (30–60)	34%	6%‡‡	2RHZE¶,**	2RH¶	—	PC	Culture (NS)	2006–2013
TBRC [64]	1983	India	RCT	261 [390]	—	25%	—	2RHZS	—	DOT||	PC	Culture (solid)	—
Volkmann [65]††	2015	US	C (r)	60,034 [207,307]	—	38%	8%	2RHZE¶	2RH¶	DOT (54%§§)	Both	Culture (NS)	1997–2012

BMRC, British Medical Research Council; BTA, British Thoracic Association; C, cohort study (p, prospective; r, retrospective); C+, culture-positive subgroup; DOT, directly observed therapy (values in parentheses indicate duration); E, ethambutol; ECA, East and Central African; FM, fluorescence microscopy; H, isoniazid; HIV−, people living without HIV; HIV+, people living with HIV; HKCS, Hong Kong Chest Service; IP, hospital inpatient; NS, not specified; PC, proportion converted; R, rifampicin; RCT, randomised controlled trial; S, streptomycin; S+, smear-positive subgroup; S. Am., South America; SSA, sub-Saharan Africa; STBS, Singapore Tuberculosis Service; Smoker−, without smoking exposure; Smoker+, with smoking exposure; TB, tuberculosis; TBRC, Tuberculosis Research Centre; TTC, time to conversion; U-INH, urine isoniazid metabolite testing; Z, pyrazinamide; ZN, Ziehl–Neelsen;—, data not available.

*Number assessed for outcome. Where demographics were not given for the population assessed for outcome, number in brackets indicates the number for which demographics were stated (which may include drug-resistant TB, non-RHZ-containing regimens, etc.). Where available, per-protocol or efficacy analyses were extracted.

†Age is given as median (interquartile range) or mean (± standard deviation) unless otherwise stated.

‡In the treatment abbreviations, the number indicates the number of months of treatment, and letters indicate the drugs included. Treatment given 7 days per week unless otherwise stated (5 d = 5 days per week).

§For studies performed before 1990, culture type assumed to be solid unless otherwise stated.

¶Paper stated treatment was in accordance with national or international guidelines; corresponding regimen shown here. In all other papers, drugs used were explicitly stated.

||Individuals not adherent to DOT (as defined by authors) excluded from analysis.

**It is not possible to exclude that some patients were treated with thrice-weekly regimens in these studies.

††These studies used the same dataset and overlapping time frames; however, the estimates presented are different. They therefore contribute to different analyses. Two further papers that included overlapping data were excluded to avoid duplication [66,67].

‡‡Includes a proportion of patients with unknown HIV status.

§§Percentage of study population receiving DOT.

The further literature search conducted in November 2020 identified 4 small studies meeting the inclusion criteria, each with under 150 participants and reporting 3 different outcome measures [18-21]. The results reported in these studies did not address any of the data gaps in important subgroups and had no material impact upon the results or conclusions of this review so were not incorporated into the meta-analyses. Further details of the eligible studies are provided in Table B in S1 Appendix.

Of the included papers, 27 (61%) were RCTs and 17 (39%) were cohort studies (Table 2). Thirteen studies (30%) reported data from Africa, 12 (27%) from Asia, 6 (14%) from South America, 5 (11%) from North America, and 4 (9%) from Europe. Four studies reported data from multiple continents. Intensive phase treatment in most studies comprised RHZE (31 studies), 6 studies used streptomycin instead of ethambutol, and the remainder used other acceptable regimens (RHZ with or without E or S). Seventeen studies included people living with HIV, representing between 0.8% and 61% of the study population. Thirty-three studies only included people with baseline smear-positive PTB.

Eight studies reported both PC and TTC data, 31 studies reported only PC data, and 5 reported only TTC data. For data on the proportion of patients achieving bacteriological conversion, there were a total of 96 estimates: 4, 5, and 6 estimates at 1, 2, and 3 weeks of treatment, respectively, and 20, 46, 7, and 8 estimates at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months, respectively (Table 3).

Table 3

Number of estimates contributing to proportion converted analysis by time point and microbiological assessment method.

Duration of treatment	Smear	Culture			Total
		Solid	Liquid	Not specified
1 week	0	4	0	0	4
2 weeks	1	3	1	0	5
3 weeks	1	3	1	1	6
1 month	4	12	2	2	20
2 months	10	23	9	4	46
3 months	1	3	1	2	7
4 months	1	5	1	1	8
Total	18	53	15	10	96

Thirty-seven studies were ranked as ‘good’ in the quality scoring system (≥7/9), with 7 studies ranked as ‘fair’ (4–6/9), and none as ‘poor’ quality (S4 Table).

Smear conversion

Fifteen studies reporting data on smear conversion were included, providing 18 estimates of the proportion of individuals who had smear converted at defined time points on treatment and 6 summary estimates of the time to smear conversion.

For the 6 studies reporting a summary estimate of time to smear conversion, the median TTC ranged from 20 to 27 days and the mean TTC ranged from 29 to 55 days (Table 4). Shorter times to conversion were seen in studies with more frequent sampling.

Table 4

Studies reporting a summary measure of time to smear conversion*.

Study	Year	Country	N	Sampling frequency	Smear stain	Median TTC, days	Mean TTC, days	TTC spread (measure)
Kennedy [45]	1996	Tanzania	81	Monthly	FM	—	55	30–120 (range)
Dominguez-Castellano [31]	2003	Spain	95	Weekly	ZN	20	—	±2 (SE)
Telzak [56]	1997	US	77	Weekly	ZN	—	33	±6.2 (SE)
Long [46]	2003	Canada	32	Daily to day 14 then 2×/week†	FM	—	46	±27.9 (SD)
Rathored [49]	2012	India	50	Weekly	ZN	—	29	±0.7 (SD)
Méchaï [47]	2016	France	30	2×/week‡	NS	27	—	14–56 (IQR)

FM, fluorescence microscopy; IQR, interquartile range; N, number assessed for outcome; NS, not stated; SD, standard deviation; SE, standard error; TTC, time to conversion; ZN, Ziehl–Neelsen.

*Where authors reported data in months, these have been converted to days to aid comparisons (using 30.4 days per month).

†For 14 prospectively studied patients; for 18 retrospectively studied patients sampling was weekly (mean of 1.6 per week) throughout treatment.

‡On days 7–9 then on 3 days every 2 weeks.

The proportions of treated patients with baseline smear-positive DS-TB achieving positive-to-negative smear conversion are shown in Fig 2. From a total of 18 estimates across 11 studies, the proportions of baseline smear-positive patients achieving smear conversion at the 1-, 2-, 3-, and 4-month time points were 33% (95% CI 25%–42%), 82% (95% CI 78%–86%), 94% (95% CI 94%–95%), and 100% (95% CI 72%–100%), respectively.

Fig 2

Proportion of patients with baseline smear-positive, drug-susceptible tuberculosis achieving smear conversion at specified time points during effective treatment.

BMRC, British Medical Research Council; CI, confidence interval; ECA, East and Central African.

Culture conversion

Thirty-seven studies reported data on culture conversion. Ten studies published after 1990 did not report the culture method and were excluded from the main analysis (TTC and PC data with meta-analysis are reported in S5 Table and S1 Fig, respectively.).

Among studies with data on culture method, 10 used liquid culture, 25 used solid, and 8 used both. Summary statistics for TTC were reported in 11 studies. These are summarised by culture medium in Table 5. All 6 studies reporting solid TTC data included only smear-positive patients at baseline. The median TTC ranged from 35 to 49 days, and the mean TTC ranged from 24 to 46 days.

Table 5

Studies reporting a summary measure of time to solid or liquid culture conversion*.

Study	Year	Country	Smear+	Sampling frequency	Solid culture			Liquid culture
					N	Median TTC, days (IQR)	Mean TTC, days (SD)	N	Median TTC, days (IQR)
Conde [24]	2009	Brazil	100%	Weekly	72	49	—	—	—
Rathored [49]	2012	India	100%	Every 2 weeks	50	—	24 ± 0.7	—	—
Lee [59]	2014	South Korea	100%	Monthly after 2 weeks	—	—	—	61	40 (28–61)
			0%					101	19 (1–41)
Kanda [44]	2015	Japan	100%	Every 2 weeks	86	39 (25–55)	—	—	—
Dawson [27] (2015a)	2015	South Africa, Tanzania	100%	Weekly	54	35	—	56	56
Dawson [28] (2015b)	2015	South Africa	100%	Weekly	36	43 (29–52)	46 ± 27.9	38	59 (36–63)
Conde [25]	2016	Brazil	100%	Weekly	45	41 (35–48)	—	36	52 (41–59)

N, number assessed for outcome; IQR, interquartile range; SD, standard deviation; TTC, time to conversion;—, data not available.

*Where authors reported data in months, these have been converted to days to aid comparisons (using 30.4 days per month).

Four studies reported a summary estimate of liquid TTC. Median TTC ranged from 40 to 59 days among baseline smear-positive patients. One study stratified liquid culture TTC by smear status, with a median TTC of 19 days in baseline smear-negative patients compared to 40 days for smear-positive patients.

The proportions of treated patients with DS-TB achieving positive-to-negative culture conversion at weeks 1, 2, and 3 and months 1, 2, 3, and 4 (77 estimates in total) are shown in Fig 3 and Fig 4 for solid and liquid culture methods, respectively.

Fig 3

Proportion of baseline culture-positive patients receiving effective treatment for drug-susceptible tuberculosis achieving solid culture conversion at specified time points.

BMRC, British Medical Research Council; BTA, British Thoracic Association; CI, confidence interval; HKCS, Hong Kong Chest Service; STBS, Singapore Tuberculosis Service; T, Tanzania; TBRC, Tuberculosis Research Centre.

Fig 4

Proportion of baseline culture-positive patients receiving effective treatment for drug-susceptible tuberculosis achieving liquid culture conversion at specified time points.

CI, confidence interval.

Most PC data are available at the 2-month time point, where treatment steps down from intensive to maintenance phase. Fig 5 illustrates the proportion of patients achieving culture conversion at 2 weeks and 2 months, restricted to only patients with baseline smear-positive samples.

Fig 5

Proportion of baseline smear-positive patients receiving effective treatment for drug-susceptible tuberculosis, achieving solid culture and liquid culture conversion at 2 weeks and 2 months.

BMRC, British Medical Research Council; CI, confidence interval; ECA, East and Central African; HKCS, Hong Kong Chest Service; STBS, Singapore Tuberculosis Service; T, Tanzania.

The proportion of patients treated for DS-TB achieving smear and culture conversion at each time point is summarised in Table 6.

Table 6

Overview of summary estimates derived from random effects meta-analysis for the proportion of patients achieving culture conversion at each time point, by detection method.

Duration of treatment	Smear microscopy			Solid culture			Liquid culture
	Proportion(95% CI)	N	I2	Proportion(95% CI)	N	I2	Proportion(95% CI)	N	I2
1 week	—	0	—	0.01 (0.00–0.03)	4	44%	-	0	—
2 weeks	0.09 (0.03–0.24)	1	—	0.10 (0.01–0.26)	3	—	0.03 (0.01–0.16)	1	—
3 weeks	0.25 (0.13–0.42)	1	—	0.22 (0.19–0.25)	3	—	0.06 (0.02–0.20)	1	—
1 month	0.33 (0.25–0.42)	4	32%	0.46 (0.39–0.54)	12	91%	0.17 (0.09–0.25)	1	—
2 months	0.82 (0.78–0.86)	10	89%	0.86 (0.81–0.91)	23	93%	0.63 (0.50–0.75)	9	92%
3 months	0.94 (0.94–0.95)	1	—	0.94 (0.72–1.00)	3	—	0.56 (0.39–0.71)	1	—
4 months	1.00 (0.72–1.00)	1	—	0.97 (0.82–1.00)	5	97%	0.82 (0.64–0.92)	1	—

CI, confidence interval; N, number of estimates.

The search to identify relevant animal studies returned 646 results, from which 3 were found to be relevant at title and abstract sifting; all met inclusion criteria at full-text sifting. A fourth study (Riley et al. [68]) was added from reference and citation checking of the included articles (Fig 6; Table 7).

Fig 6

Flow diagram showing process of identification of animal studies for review.

n, number of studies.

Table 7

Studies evaluated for data on infectiousness from TB patients to animals during TB treatment.

Study	Year	Drug susceptibility of population	Untreated patients (N or percent)	Treated patients (N or percent)	Treatment duration
Riley [68]	1962	DS	67	40	Not clear
Escombe [69]	2007	Mixed*	17% of patient-days	83% of patient-days	Not clear
Escombe [70]	2008	Mixed*			Not clear
Dharmadhikari [71]	2014	MDR/XDR	Variable (across 5 studies)		Not clear

DS, drug-susceptible; MDR, multi-drug-resistant; N, number assessed; XDR, extensively drug-resistant.

*Included individuals with drug-susceptible TB and those with drug-resistant TB.

These 4 papers all describe experimental data from studies in which groups of guinea pigs, used as air samplers, were exposed to air exhausted from dedicated isolation rooms accommodating PTB patients. Three studies evaluated the infectiousness from patients with DS-TB [68-70] to experimental animals, and 1 study considered patients with multi-drug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) [71]. None of the experiments were designed to evaluate temporal changes in infectiousness during TB treatment; however, Dharmadhikari et al. re-analysed 5 previous experiments with this objective [71]. As such, the available data are opportunistically available and incomplete, and it is not possible to determine the magnitude of incompleteness. Due to considerable methodological and analytical differences between studies, aggregation of findings was not possible. A brief narrative summary of each individual paper is provided in S2 Appendix.

Overall, the 3 papers evaluating infectiousness of air from patients with DS-TB suggested that those on treatment were less infectious to guinea pigs than untreated patients, although a small number of infections did occur during effective treatment. There are no data that describe how infectiousness changed over time after treatment initiation. It was not possible to disaggregate guinea pig infections occurring from patients with drug-resistant TB on or off effective treatment in the paper by Dharmadhikari et al. It is not possible from these data to draw conclusions about the role of effective treatment in reducing infectiveness of TB, nor about the time frame over which any reduction in infectiousness occurs.

Discussion

This systematic review and these meta-analyses show that after 2 weeks of effective treatment, 95% and 97% of baseline smear-positive patients demonstrated persistently positive solid and liquid cultures, respectively. This directly challenges guidance that IPC measures can be relaxed following 2 weeks of effective treatment. Despite an effective drug regimen for DS-TB, approximately 1 in 5 baseline smear-positive patients did not achieve smear conversion by 2 months of treatment, decreasing to 1 in 20 by 3 months. It is important for clinicians and programmes to appreciate this significant tail of individuals who, despite receiving effective therapy, remain smear positive. On completion of the 2-month intensive treatment phase, 12% and 41% of baseline smear-positive patients remained solid and liquid culture positive, respectively.

Identification of people with active TB and initiation of effective treatment are vital components of TB IPC, mediated through what is conventionally perceived as a rapid reduction in the infectiousness of treated patients. As part of the evidence gathering for the 2019 WHO guidelines on TB IPC [12], we undertook this systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the dynamics of sputum sterilisation after initiation of effective treatment.

To our knowledge, this is the first systematic review drawing together the data on the dynamics of sputum sterilisation during effective TB treatment. Strengths of this study include a comprehensive search strategy identifying a large number of studies. We were careful to ensure that all individuals included in the review were receiving an effective drug regimen to avoid confounding by ineffective treatment, and included several outcome assessment methods. A further literature search performed prior to publication did not identify any significant new bodies of work addressing conversion dynamics, or studies that would significantly impact the findings of this review.

The core of this analysis relates to culture conversion as this is an assessment of the presence of viable Mtb in respiratory samples. We included data on smear conversion as the most frequently used microbiological test used for response to therapy; however, smear positivity of treated patients may not reflect presence of viable Mtb. The evaluation of TB transmission from human patients to experimental animals provides an additional perspective.

Whilst presence of Mtb in respiratory secretions is a necessary component of infectiousness, assessment of the capacity to detect Mtb in spontaneously produced sputum does not directly quantify infectiousness. Infectiousness also depends on the environment, a mechanism for propagation (e.g., cough dynamics), and recipient factors. This is a limitation of this review with regard to public health policy. Cough frequency diminishes significantly in the first few weeks of effective TB treatment. This likely plays an important role in reducing transmission risk, but was outside the scope of this review [4,11]. We also excluded studies reporting human TST conversion, which could provide a ‘real world’ assessment of infectiousness. To our knowledge, however, there are no studies reporting TST conversion rates attributable to specific time points or time periods following treatment initiation. We also did not include quantitative evaluations of sputum mycobacterial load after treatment initiation, for example from studies of early bactericidal activity. Declining sputum mycobacterial load after initiation of treatment could provide evidence for declining infectiousness; however, without culture conversion, the time at which an individual becomes non-infectious cannot be determined.

Another limitation for the interpretation of the presented estimates is the high level of observed heterogeneity between studies, resulting in a lack of precision in the presented estimates. This is a consequence of the diverse patient populations sampled across a high number of included studies. There is no ‘typical’ TB cohort. Patients vary widely in terms of sex, age, exposure history, disease duration and severity (including smear status and presence or absence of lung cavitation), Mtb strain lineage, nutritional status, profile of comorbidities such as HIV and diabetes, and tolerance of and adherence to treatment. Many of these covariates are independently associated with time to sputum conversion [31,56]. This leads to important variation in time to culture conversion between individuals, which is magnified by aggregation of patients into study populations. Where possible we conducted subgroup analyses to explore observed heterogeneity; however, few studies disaggregated results by key covariates, and heterogeneity remained high, even within subgroups.

In our analyses, we found that liquid culture remained positive for longer than solid culture and that smears assessed by fluorescence microscopy staining were positive for longer than those assessed by Ziehl–Neelsen staining. This is unsurprising, given liquid culture and fluorescence microscopy staining are considered more sensitive detection methods [72,73]. However, observed differences may also reflect imbalances in confounding covariates across subgroups. Lack of disaggregation by conversion-predicting covariates such as HIV status, baseline smear status, and the presence of cavitating lung disease prevented any meaningful attempt to explore potential confounding. Point estimates of TTC are expected to be influenced by the frequency of sampling; however, this parameter was often not reported. These limitations should be recognised when inferring a relationship between detection method and conversion estimates.

The proportion of estimated new cases successfully treated for MDR-TB globally was 55% at the time of this work [1]. The scope of the review was therefore restricted to patients with proven DS-TB in an effort to ensure all included patients were receiving effective treatment. Our findings are therefore not generalisable to MDR-TB. The restriction of the review to DS-TB also resulted in the exclusion of many articles, including all search results reported only in abstract form, because drug susceptibility testing was not performed or not reported, or because conversion estimates were not disaggregated by drug susceptibility testing results.

Adherence is critical to effective treatment. Many studies reported using directly observed therapy and some included other mechanisms for adherence support, but very few reported adherence data. The possibility of incomplete adherence further limits the interpretation of our findings. Consequently, our analyses should be considered analogous to an intention-to-treat rather than an on-treatment protocol.

Beyond the indirect measure of sputum conversion time alone, we sought to explore when TB treatment renders patients non-infectious by reviewing studies using experimental animals as air samplers. In these studies, air extracted from isolation rooms housing TB patients is exhausted over susceptible guinea pigs, exposing them to infectious droplet nuclei. Modification of patient conditions, including the use of effective treatment, can be exploited to infer the effect of interventions on infectiousness, assessed by serial tuberculin skin testing of exposed animals. These studies suggest that patients receiving effective TB treatment were less infectious than those not receiving such treatment; however, the temporal dynamics of infectiousness could not be elicited from the identified studies, individually or when combined.

This systematic review was performed to inform the WHO Department of Global TB Programme GDG of the evidence available to answer the question ‘How does the infectiousness of TB patients (ability to excrete viable bacteria and sustain transmission) change after having started effective TB treatment?’ Our summary estimates of culture conversion suggest that the majority of patients excrete viable bacilli at 2 weeks of treatment, and many continue to do so for several months. What this means for the 2-week ‘rule’ cannot be determined by these analyses, as we did not evaluate other factors that are also important for TB transmission. These are important gaps to address for evidence-based TB IPC guidance. Integrating the findings of this review with data on cough dynamics, the impact of environmental factors such as air changes per hour, and varying host susceptibility through a modelling approach could provide a more comprehensive assessment of TB transmission during treatment. Studies of TST conversions of experimental animals, with the objective of evaluating transmission dynamics after TB treatment initiation, would also provide new insight.

Viable Mtb persists in sputum for months after initiation of TB treatment. Understanding the implications of this for TB transmission from patients on treatment necessitates a comprehensive evaluation including not only the persistence of Mtb in sputum, but also the contribution of other host and pathogen factors, including cough dynamics.

Table containing the PRISMA 2009 checklist items and referencing their position in the paper.

(DOC)

Click here for additional data file.

Description and outcome of updated literature search, run on 22 November 2020.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Narrative review of animal studies that review the infectiousness of patients with tuberculosis.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Proportion of baseline culture-positive patients receiving effective treatment for drug-susceptible TB achieving culture conversion (culture method unspecified) at 3 weeks and at 1, 2, 3, and 4 months.

(TIF)

Click here for additional data file.

Pilot-tested Microsoft Excel data extraction form.

(XLSX)

Click here for additional data file.

Details of databases searched and terms used for original search, run on 1 December 2017.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Details of databases searched and terms used for secondary search, run on 20 February 2018.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Details of databases searched and terms used for animal studies search, run on 27 March 2018.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Summary of quality scores for included primary research studies, assessed using an adapted National Institutes of Health tool for case series.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Studies reporting a summary measure of time to culture conversion where the culture type was not specified.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

11 Jul 2020

Dear Dr Wilson,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript entitled "Sputum conversion during tuberculosis treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis" for consideration by PLOS Medicine.

Your manuscript has now been evaluated by the PLOS Medicine editorial staff as well as by an academic editor with relevant expertise and I am writing to let you know that we would like to send your submission out for external peer review.

However, before we can send your manuscript to reviewers, we need you to complete your submission by providing the metadata that is required for full assessment. To this end, please login to Editorial Manager where you will find the paper in the 'Submissions Needing Revisions' folder on your homepage. Please click 'Revise Submission' from the Action Links and complete all additional questions in the submission questionnaire.

Please re-submit your manuscript within two working days, i.e. by .

Login to Editorial Manager here: https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine

Once your full submission is complete, your paper will undergo a series of checks in preparation for peer review. Once your manuscript has passed all checks it will be sent out for review.

Feel free to email us at plosmedicine@plos.org if you have any queries relating to your submission.

Kind regards,

Thomas J McBride, PhD,

PLOS Medicine

16 Sep 2020

Dear Dr. Wilson,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Sputum conversion during tuberculosis treatment: systematic review and meta-analysis" (PMEDICINE-D-20-03202R1) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your paper was evaluated by a senior editor and discussed among all the editors here. It was also discussed with an academic editor with relevant expertise, and sent to independent reviewers, including a statistical reviewer. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

In light of these reviews, I am afraid that we will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a revised version that addresses the reviewers' and editors' comments. Obviously we cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we plan to seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript by Oct 07 2020 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Emma Veitch, PhD

PLOS Medicine

On behalf of Tom McBride, PhD

Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

*Please structure your abstract using the PLOS Medicine headings (Background, Methods and Findings, Conclusions).

*We recommend ensuring that the abstract (ideally Methods and Findings section) includes a brief note about any key limitations of the study's methodology.

*At this stage, we ask that you include a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract. Please see our author guidelines for more information: https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript#loc-author-summary

*The methods section of the paper notes that the systematic review was conducted per PRISMA guidelines, in general PRISMA is described (or was conceived) as a tool to assist reporting, not necessarily conduct - it might be an idea to rephrase this as the SR being reported per PRISMA (rather than conducted). We'd also suggest including a completed PRISMA checklist as supporting information alongside the paper.

*The discussion section at the moment does not seem to include much of an explicit acknowledgement of main limitations of the SR methods (or evidence base), some issues relating to generalisability and clinical implications are discussed but not really "signposted" as limitations of the SR per se. We'd recommend adding something to more explicitly describe this.

*One reviewer queries the definition of what data to include in the SR - the editors (including academic editor) acknowledged that it would not be possible to entirely address this issue without totally redoing the SR, so we'd just recommend including a discussion on this point in relation to study limitations (if any).

-----------------------------------------------------------

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: This review looked at culture conversion in smear positive pulmonary tuberculosis patients after several durations of effective anti tuberculosis therapy.

The findings indicate that the majority of patients (97% by liquid culture) are still culture positive after two weeks of effective treatment.

These findings are of great interest to infection control policy makers.

I have several questions for the authors to consider

1. Would it be possible to do a subgroup analysis or HIV infected vs HIV uninfected patients?

2. Was there any difference in culture conversion time between patients receiving and not receiving ethambutol?

3. Was any consideration given to looking at culture conversion times in smear negative culture positive patients?

4. Was it possible to look at the effect of smear grade or initial time to culture on culture conversion at 2 weeks?

-----------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer #2: I confine my remarks to statistical aspects of this paper. These were well done and I recommend publication

peter Flom

-----------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer #3: This is a well-written paper, with a clear research question and appropriate methodology and conclusions. The topic is of significant clinical relevance, and would be a significant addition to the current knowledge. Regarding statistics I do not have relevant experience to assess the accuracy.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer #4: Summary

This is a systematic review commissioned by WHO TB GDG with the aim of summarising how long MTB can be detected in sputum in population of adults initiating treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis, as a proxy for "potential infectiousness". The authors look at 2 summary measure types (time to conversion from positive to negative, and proportion converting to negative at given timepoints) for two method types (microscopy smear and culture). In addition, a narrative review of animal studies is included. Unsurprisingly the authors find that a majority of PTB patients remain smear and culture positive after 2 weeks treatment, but with substantial heterogeneity between studies in all outcomes. The authors found that the literature is not well enough reported (ie disaggregated) to allow any quantitative analysis of this heterogeneity (eg meta-regression). They report that the animal study data does not provide any estimates of infectiousness change over time on treatment and hint at suspected bias from incomplete data (probably there is more detail given in the supplement). The authors conclude that "potential infectiousness" extends well into TB treatment, but are careful to note that "What this means for TB transmission and the two-week 'rule' cannot be determined by these analyses".

Comments

The review is very well written, and meets its objectives using sound analyses which are well presented.

It meets all PRISMA 2009 checklist criteria (assume PRISMA item 8 & 11 are in the supplement), except there is no mention of systematic review registration number or indication if a review protocol exists / if/ where it can be accessed (PRISMA 2 & 5).

The lit search was performed 2.5 years ago.

Any possible major weaknesses stem from the terms of reference for the review (commissioned by WHO) rather than the manuscript itself I think. E.g. the two week rule comes from a review by Rouillon in Tubercle 1976 and was based on the absence of reported cases of TST conversion in household contacts of PTB patients after the index patients were discharged on treatment (which ignores the survivor bias from these contacts likely having already been exposed and not converted). I wondered why the animal data was reviewed but not this type of epidemiological data. I also thought the EBA pharmacodynamics based on serial quantification of bacilli in sputum could have been relevant to the review question (not least because it is much better powered to assess the heterogeneity issue). However as stated above the review is very clear and meets the stated objectives completely so this is just an aside.

Minor comments

Typo in table 1:

Any study in a not reporting data on participants with confirmed, drug susceptible…

Line 167: Thirty-six studies reported data on culture conversion; 9 using liquid culture and 23 using solid (8 studies reported both).

I had to read this a few times to understand why couldn't make 36 from 9, 23, and 8 - it only makes sense when you read the next line. Would be clearer if edited maybe.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Reviewer #5: The authors did a great work in analysing the sputum conversion time after treatment onset. The study design, meta-analyses, and write-up of the study is well done. However, I am quite worried about the conclusion, due to the smaller sample size obtained from the included studies. I am also worried about the inclusion of the animal components when it did not add up anything to the conclusion or to strengthen the study. Other concerns and comments are found in the included/attached PDF.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

Submitted filename: PMEDICINE-D-20-03202_R1_reviewer.pdf

Click here for additional data file.

6 Oct 2020

Submitted filename: Rebuttal letter.docx

Click here for additional data file.

20 Nov 2020

Dear Dr. Wilson,

Thank you very much for submitting your revised manuscript "Dynamics of sputum conversion during effective tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis" (PMEDICINE-D-20-03202R2) for consideration at PLOS Medicine.

Your revision was evaluated by a senior editor and discussed among all the editors here. It was also discussed with the academic editor and sent to two of the original reviewers. The reviews are appended at the bottom of this email and any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below:

[LINK]

I am afraid that we still will not be able to accept the manuscript for publication in the journal in its current form, but we would like to consider a further revised version that addresses the editors' remaining comments. Obviously we cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response, and we may seek re-review by one or more of the reviewers.

In revising the manuscript for further consideration, your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments, the changes you have made in the manuscript, and include either an excerpt of the revised text or the location (eg: page and line number) where each change can be found. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file; a version with changes marked should be uploaded as a marked up manuscript.

In addition, we request that you upload any figures associated with your paper as individual TIF or EPS files with 300dpi resolution at resubmission; please read our figure guidelines for more information on our requirements: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/figures. While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the PACE digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at PLOSMedicine@plos.org.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript by Dec 04 2020 11:59PM. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement, making sure to declare all competing interests. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. If new competing interests are declared later in the revision process, this may also hold up the submission. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT. You can see our competing interests policy here: http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/competing-interests.

Please use the following link to submit the revised manuscript:

https://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/

Your article can be found in the "Submissions Needing Revision" folder.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Sincerely,

Thomas McBride, PhD

Senior Editor

PLOS Medicine

plosmedicine.org

-----------------------------------------------------------

Requests from the editors:

1- Thank you for providing your PRISMA checklist. Please replace the page numbers with paragraph numbers per section (e.g. "Methods, paragraph 1"), since the page numbers of the final published paper may be different from the page numbers in the current manuscript.

2- Data statement: Is it more accurate to say “Data are available from the primary studies, all of which are published.”

3- In the Abstract Methods and Findings, please provide the databases searched, the beginning and end dates of your search, types of study designs included, eligibility criteria, and synthesis/appraisal methods.

4- Please begin the Abstract Conclusions with “This systematic review found that most patients remained…”

5- The last sentence of the Abstract Conclusions should be replaced or modified to suggest what is needed to understand the other components of infectiousness and integrate the findings of this study.

6- Author summary, line 58: instead of “not strong”, perhaps “challenged”?

7- The searches are nearly 3 years old, please update to the present time.

8- Discussion, line 388, please remove “the best”.

9- Please present and organize the Discussion as follows: a short, clear summary of the article's findings; what the study adds to existing research and where and why the results may differ from previous research; strengths and limitations of the study; implications and next steps for research, clinical practice, and/or public policy; one-paragraph conclusion.

10- The contents of S3 Table read “Table E3”

11- S1 Form is empty, can you provide the completed form?

Comments from the reviewers:

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing the questions I raised in the review. These have all been answered.

Reviewer #5: I thank the authors for such a good work. I am convinced this will be a good addition to science, public health and the literature. Congratulations on such a good work!

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

7 Dec 2020

Submitted filename: response to reviewer_new.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Feb 2021

Dear Dr. Wilson,

Thank you very much for re-submitting your manuscript "Dynamics of sputum conversion during effective tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis" (PMEDICINE-D-20-03202R3) for review by PLOS Medicine.

I have discussed the paper with my colleagues and the academic editor and it was also seen again by reviewers 1 and 5. I am pleased to say that provided the remaining editorial and production issues are dealt with we are planning to accept the paper for publication in the journal.

The remaining issues that need to be addressed are listed at the end of this email. Any accompanying reviewer attachments can be seen via the link below. Please take these into account before resubmitting your manuscript:

[LINK]

***Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.***

In revising the manuscript for further consideration here, please ensure you address the specific points made by each reviewer and the editors. In your rebuttal letter you should indicate your response to the reviewers' and editors' comments and the changes you have made in the manuscript. Please submit a clean version of the paper as the main article file. A version with changes marked must also be uploaded as a marked up manuscript file.

Please also check the guidelines for revised papers at http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/revising-your-manuscript for any that apply to your paper. If you haven't already, we ask that you provide a short, non-technical Author Summary of your research to make findings accessible to a wide audience that includes both scientists and non-scientists. The Author Summary should immediately follow the Abstract in your revised manuscript. This text is subject to editorial change and should be distinct from the scientific abstract.

We expect to receive your revised manuscript within 1 week. Please email us (plosmedicine@plos.org) if you have any questions or concerns.

We ask every co-author listed on the manuscript to fill in a contributing author statement. If any of the co-authors have not filled in the statement, we will remind them to do so when the paper is revised. If all statements are not completed in a timely fashion this could hold up the re-review process. Should there be a problem getting one of your co-authors to fill in a statement we will be in contact. YOU MUST NOT ADD OR REMOVE AUTHORS UNLESS YOU HAVE ALERTED THE EDITOR HANDLING THE MANUSCRIPT TO THE CHANGE AND THEY SPECIFICALLY HAVE AGREED TO IT.

Please ensure that the paper adheres to the PLOS Data Availability Policy (see http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/s/data-availability), which requires that all data underlying the study's findings be provided in a repository or as Supporting Information. For data residing with a third party, authors are required to provide instructions with contact information for obtaining the data. PLOS journals do not allow statements supported by "data not shown" or "unpublished results." For such statements, authors must provide supporting data or cite public sources that include it.

Please note, when your manuscript is accepted, an uncorrected proof of your manuscript will be published online ahead of the final version, unless you've already opted out via the online submission form. If, for any reason, you do not want an earlier version of your manuscript published online or are unsure if you have already indicated as such, please let the journal staff know immediately at plosmedicine@plos.org.

If you have any questions in the meantime, please contact me or the journal staff on plosmedicine@plos.org.

We look forward to receiving the revised manuscript by Feb 10 2021 11:59PM.

Sincerely,

Raffaella

Dr Raffaella Bosurgi MSc, PhD

Executive Editor, PLOS Medicine

rbosurgi@plos.org

https://twitter.com/raffi74

Remote based in London, UK

PLOS

Empowering researchers to transform science

------------------------------------------------------------

Requests from Editors:

Comments from Reviewers:

Any attachments provided with reviews can be seen via the following link:

[LINK]

15 Feb 2021

Dear Dr Wilson,

On behalf of my colleagues and the Academic Editor Claudia M Denkinger I am pleased to inform you that we have agreed to publish your manuscript "Dynamics of sputum conversion during effective tuberculosis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis" (PMEDICINE-D-20-03202R4) in PLOS Medicine.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. Please be aware that it may take several days for you to receive this email; during this time no action is required by you. Once you have received these formatting requests, please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes.

In the meantime, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pmedicine/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information to ensure an efficient production process.

PRESS

We frequently collaborate with press offices. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximise its impact. If the press office is planning to promote your findings, we would be grateful if they could coordinate with medicinepress@plos.org. If you have not yet opted out of the early version process, we ask that you notify us immediately of any press plans so that we may do so on your behalf.

We also ask that you take this opportunity to read our Embargo Policy regarding the discussion, promotion and media coverage of work that is yet to be published by PLOS. As your manuscript is not yet published, it is bound by the conditions of our Embargo Policy. Please be aware that this policy is in place both to ensure that any press coverage of your article is fully substantiated and to provide a direct link between such coverage and the published work. For full details of our Embargo Policy, please visit http://www.plos.org/about/media-inquiries/embargo-policy/.

Thank you again for submitting to PLOS Medicine. We look forward to publishing your paper.

Sincerely,

Dr Raffaella Bosurgi

Executive Editor

PLOS Medicine