Skip to main content
PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases logoLink to PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases
. 2021 Mar 8;15(3):e0009215. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009215

Diagnostic accuracy of antigen detection in urine and molecular assays testing in different clinical samples for the diagnosis of progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in patients living with HIV/AIDS: A prospective multicenter study in Mexico

Areli Martínez-Gamboa 1,#, María Dolores Niembro-Ortega 1,#, Pedro Torres-González 1, Janeth Santiago-Cruz 1, Nancy Guadalupe Velázquez-Zavala 1, Andrea Rangel-Cordero 1, Brenda Crabtree-Ramírez 1, Armando Gamboa-Domínguez 2, Edgardo Reyes-Gutiérrez 2, Gustavo Reyes-Terán 3, Víctor Hugo Lozano-Fernandez 3, Víctor Hugo Ahumada-Topete 3, Pedro Martínez-Ayala 4, Marisol Manríquez-Reyes 5, Juan Pablo Ramírez-Hinojosa 6, Patricia Rodríguez-Zulueta 6, Christian Hernández-León 7, Jesús Ruíz-Quiñones 8, Norma Eréndira Rivera-Martínez 9, Alberto Chaparro-Sánchez 10, Jaime Andrade-Villanueva 4, Luz Alicia González-Hernández 4, Sofia Cruz-Martínez 9, Oscar Flores-Barrientos 8, Jesús Enrique Gaytán-Martínez 10, Martín Magaña-Aquino 11, Axel Cervantes-Sánchez 1, Antonio Olivas-Martínez 12, Javier Araujo-Meléndez 11, María del Rocío Reyes-Montes 13, Esperanza Duarte-Escalante 13, María Guadalupe Frías-De León 14, José Antonio Ramírez 13, María Lucia Taylor 13, Alfredo Ponce de León-Garduño 1, José Sifuentes-Osornio 12,*
Editor: Angel Gonzalez15
PMCID: PMC7971897  PMID: 33684128

Abstract

Background

The progressive disseminated histoplasmosis (PDH) has been associated with severe disease and high risk of death among people living with HIV (PLWHIV). Therefore, the purpose of this multicenter, prospective, double-blinded study done in ten Mexican hospitals was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of detecting Histoplasma capsulatum antigen in urine using the IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA kit (IAHE), clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay (cHGEI IMMY) and MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA (MVHUALFA); as well as the Hcp100 and 1281-1283220SCAR nested PCRs in blood, bone-marrow, tissue biopsies and urine.

Methodology/Principal findings

We included 415 PLWHIV older than 18 years of age with suspicion of PDH. Using as diagnostic standard recovery of H. capsulatum in blood, bone marrow or tissue cultures, or histopathological exam compatible, detected 108 patients (26%, [95%CI, 21.78–30.22]) with proven-PDH. We analyzed 391 urine samples by the IAHE, cHGEI IMMY and MVHUALFA; the sensitivity/specificity values obtained were 67.3% (95% CI, 57.4–76.2) / 96.2% (95% CI, 93.2–98.0) for IAHE, 91.3% (95% CI, 84.2–96.0) / 90.9% (95% CI, 87.0–94.0) for cHGEI IMMY and 90.4% (95% CI, 83.0–95.3) / 92.3% (95% CI, 88.6–95.1) for MVHUALFA.

The Hcp100 nested PCR was performed on 393, 343, 75 and 297, blood, bone marrow, tissue and urine samples respectively; the sensitivity/specificity values obtained were 62.9% (95%CI, 53.3–72.5)/ 89.5% (95%CI, 86.0–93.0), 65.9% (95%CI, 56.0–75.8)/ 89.0% (95%CI, 85.2–92.9), 62.1% (95%CI, 44.4–79.7)/ 82.6% (95%CI, 71.7–93.6) and 34.9% (95%CI, 24.8–46.2)/ 67.3% (95%CI, 60.6–73.5) respectively; and 1281-1283220SCAR nested PCR was performed on 392, 344, 75 and 291, respectively; the sensitivity/specificity values obtained were 65.3% (95% CI, 55.9–74.7)/ 58.8% (95%CI, 53.2–64.5), 70.8% (95%CI, 61.3–80.2)/ 52.9% (95%CI, 46.8–59.1), 71.4% (95%CI, 54.7–88.2)/ 40.4% (95%CI, 26.4–54.5) and 18.1% (95%CI, 10.5–28.1)/ 90.4% (95%CI, 85.5–94.0), respectively.

Conclusions/Significance

The cHGEI IMMY and MVHUALFA tests showed excellent performance for the diagnosis of PDH in PLWHIV. The integration of these tests in clinical laboratories will certainly impact on early diagnosis and treatment.

Author summary

Histoplasmosis, an infection caused by Histoplasma capsulatum, is prevalent in the Americas, it is a common cause of pulmonary acute disease in cave explorers, speleologists, boy scouts and some other people in circumstantial risk, in most of these people the infection is commonly self-limited. However, in people living with HIV (PLWHIV) this infection might be acquired without specific exposition and it behaves like a severe disease with high fever, consumption, septic shock and death. Thus, there is a need for rapid and accurate methods for diagnosis in this population at risk. We tested five different methods for rapid diagnosis (three based on antigen detection in urine and two molecular assays based on PCR amplification, widely used) of disseminated histoplasmosis and we were able to demonstrate that two urine antigen detection tests (clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay kit and MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA) showed excellent performance to diagnose of disseminated histoplasmosis in PLWHIV. The antigen detection tests have advantages over the PCR tests, their performance is higher, they are commercial standardized tests, easy to perform, and provide results in hours, therefore the integration of these tests in clinical laboratories will certainly impact on early diagnosis/treatment and consequently on the outcome of patients.

Introduction

Histoplasmosis is a fungal infection caused by Histoplasma capsulatum. The existence of this microorganism has been reported in many areas around the world, however, the American Continent has been described as endemic to the disease, and Mexico is not the exception [1,2]. In Mexico, HIV infection is a major health problem, until 2019, a total of 210,931 cases of HIV / AIDS had been reported, and 15,653 new cases were diagnosed and notified that same year.[3] In people living with HIV (PLWHIV) residing in endemics areas, histoplasmosis occurs in 2% to 25%, and might be the first manifestation of AIDS in 50% to 75% of them as progressive disseminated histoplasmosis (PDH).[4] The patients at greatest risk are those with <150 CD4 cells/μL.[5]

Overall, the clinical diagnosis of histoplasmosis represents a challenge, since the signs and symptoms are often non-specific, and may be indistinguishable from those of disseminated tuberculosis [6,7] Histoplasmosis and tuberculosis are among the most common AIDS-defining illnesses, both often seen as disseminated infections, causing rapid and fatal evolution in the absence of treatment [8]. Whereas tuberculosis is a well-known disease present in clinical algorithms and in specific public health programs, disseminated histoplasmosis is relatively neglected in the daily practice. In fact, in the Amazonian context among immunosuppressed patients, the incidence and related deaths to histoplasmosis was higher than that of tuberculosis [9].

The gold standard for the diagnosis of histoplasmosis is culture isolation of the fungus or observation of characteristic intracellular yeasts by histopathology. Unfortunately, the sensitivity of the culture is low, in addition, the fungus requires several weeks to grow in standard media culture, and level 3 security laboratories to handle them. Histopathology also shows low sensitivity, is observer dependent, and Cryptococcus spp., Blastomyces dermatitidis, Candida glabrata, Pneumocystis jirovecii, Coccidiodes spp., Leishmania spp., Toxoplasma gondii and Trypanosoma cruzi, can be confused with Histoplasma yeasts.[10] In addition, invasive procedures are required for sampling. Antibody detection tests frequently show false negative results in PLWHIV.[11] The detection of urine antigen is a very promising approach, since results are achieved in a few hours, with high sensitivity, specificity and a remarkable negative predictive value.[12] Some of these tests are developed locally[13], and others are already commercially available for routine use.[14] Two of the commercially available assays were recently validated, one of them (clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay) showed a sensitivity and specificity of 98% and 97%, respectively when tested in urine samples from HIV patients, [15] while the other [MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA] showed a sensitivity and specificity of 92% and 94%, respectively when serum samples from patients with HIV and suspected PDH were analyzed. [16]

Among the molecular tests for the diagnosis of histoplasmosis, the Hcp100 (H. capsulatum protein 100 kDa) nested PCR has been widely used by different authors and has shown a sensitivity of up to 100% and a specificity of 92·4%.[17] Another recently described PCR directed to the genetic sequence called 1281−1283220 SCAR in H. capsulatum[18], was evaluated together with Hcp100 nested PCR and real-time quantitative PCR (qPCR) for the ITS1 region of the rDNA. The ITS1 marker used in qPCR was the most sensitive in detecting the pathogen, followed by Hcp100 nested PCR and 1281–1283220 simplex PCR.[19] However, these markers have not been analyzed in prospective clinical studies or in PLWHIV.

Therefore, the purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic accuracy of detecting Histoplasma antigen in urine using the IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA kit (IAHE), clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay (cHGEI IMMY) and MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA (MVHUALFA), as well as the Hcp100 and 1281−1283220 SCAR markers that use nested PCRs for diagnosing PDH among PLWHA compared to the definition of proven-PDH by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycosis Study Group Research and Education Consortium (EORTC/MSGREC)[20]

Methods

Ethics statement

The protocol was reviewed and approved by the Human Ethics and Biomedical Research Committees of the coordinator center, Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán (REF: 1626), and by the institutional review board of each center.

The study was conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. Physicians collaborating in the study invited patients with suspected PDH to participate and, after explaining the aims of the study, if agreed, patients (or their relatives in the case of mental impairment or critical illness) signed an informed consent form–as approved by the ethics committee.

We conducted a multicenter, prospective, double-blinded, diagnostic test study from December 2015 to April 2018; ten reference centers distributed in seven states of Mexico participated (eight tertiary care centers and two secondary care general hospitals). Men and women older than 18 years of age, with prior diagnosis of HIV infection and “suspected disseminated histoplasmosis” were consecutively identified, followed up and treated by the study´s infectious diseases physicians from each center as previously described.[21]. For inclusion, at least a blood or a bone marrow culture in media supporting H. capsulatum growth and 20 ml of urine were required; according to the on-site physician´s criteria, additional tissue samples from diverse anatomical sites were obtained for culture and histopathology. Patients with incomplete clinical information and those who refused to participate in the study were excluded.

Clinical definitions

Suspected PDH was defined as any patient with any three of the following: fever, weight loss (>5% of total body weight in the last 6 months), lymphadenopathy, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, mucous ulcers, skin lesions, gastrointestinal bleeding, diarrhea; bicytopenia or pancytopenia (hemoglobin <10 g/dL, total neutrophils count <1.8 x103/μL, platelets <100,000/μL), elevation of two times over the normal upper limit of aspartate aminotransferase, lactic dehydrogenase and/or ferritin; radiographic evidence of extrapulmonary involvement (lymphadenopathy, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, liver and/or spleen abscess, pancreatitis, cholecystitis, epididymitis, gastrointestinal, adrenal, brain, heart, bone, prostate or joint lesions). Proven-PDH in PLWHIV was defined according to the revised definitions of invasive fungal disease from the EORTC/MSGREC.[20] Probable-PDH in PLWHIV was defined as any patient with suspected PDH and a positive Histoplasma urine antigen test.

We classified as PDH–negative cases as the absence of H. capsulatum growth in cultures or the absence of yeast-like structures in the histopathology exam regardless of whether other opportunistic infections or AIDS defining malignancies were diagnosed.

Sample management

The samples taken included blood, bone marrow, tissue biopsies and urine. The blood samples were inoculated in BD BACTEC Myco/F Lytic medium for culture and in a vacutainer tube with EDTA to perform DNA extraction for PCRs. The bone marrow samples to perform Wright and Grocott’s methenamine silver stains and inoculated in BD BACTEC Myco/F Lytic medium, BD BACTEC Peds Plus/F, Löwenstein-Jensen medium and Sabouraud medium for culture and in a vacutainer tube with EDTA for DNA extraction for PCRs; tissue biopsy samples were collected and transported in Stuart medium to the central laboratory to be inoculated for culture in BD BACTEC Plus Aerobic/F, BD BACTEC Plus Anaerobic/F, Löwenstein-Jensen and Sabouraud, and another part was processed for DNA extraction for PCRs. The tissue biopsy samples could also be collected and transported in formalin for histopathological analysis. The urine samples were collected for PCR amplification and antigen detection by the IAHE (Immuno-Mycologics [IMMY], Norman, OK, United States) according to manufacturer´s instructions. The rest of the urine sample was frozen at -70°C until August 2019, when it was defrosted to perform the antigen detection test using the cHGEI IMMY (IMMY, Norman) and MVHUALFA (MiraVista Diagnostics IN, USA) according to manufacturer´s instructions. All patients provided a single urine sample for all assays. All cultures were processed as previously described.[21]

Preliminary and definitive results of the cultures and histopathological studies were reported to the patient’s physician as soon as they were available to follow up the patients and define the treatment. The results of the molecular and antigen detection tests were not informed, nor were they given any clinical value and were only of the knowledge of the principal investigator of this study. The study was double blind, laboratory technicians responsible for the reading and culture processing were blinded to the result of the rest of the samples, and vice versa. The central laboratory of this study where all the samples were analyzed is accredited by the College of American Pathology for bacterial, fungal and mycobacterial identification and antimicrobial susceptibility testing.

Antigen detection procedures in urine samples

Urine Histoplasma antigen detection test using the IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA kit

Urine samples were transported at 4°C and upon arrival to the central laboratory, frozen at –20°C and processed for antigen detection in batches every two weeks. The test was performed using the IAHE (IMMY, Norman, OK, United States) following the manufacturer´s instructions. Calibrators and positive and negative controls provided by the manufacturer were included in each trial. These kits were purchased from the manufacturer. The results were categorized as positive and negative, as recommended by the manufacturer. Recently, we reported the performance of this test with urine samples from 288 patients.[21]

Urine Histoplasma antigen detection test using the clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay kit

This is an immunoenzymatic sandwich microplate assay which employs monoclonal antibodies to detect Histoplasma galactomannan in urine. Urine samples were defrosted and placed at room temperature before being processed according to the manufacturer’s instructions, using a standard seven-point antigen curve with concentrations ranging from 0.4 to 25 ng/mL. Positive and negative controls provided by the manufacturer were included in each assay. The optical densities (OD) were read at 450 nm and 620/630 nm, and the Histoplasma antigen concentration was calculated based on a seven-point calibration curve using a 4-parameter equation. A positive result was considered when a concentration ≥0.2 ng/mL was obtained, as indicated by the manufacturer.

Urine Histoplasma antigen detection test using MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA kit

This assay is a lateral flow–based immunoassay, which employs polyclonal antibodies in the direct detection of Histoplasma antigen in urine. Urine samples were defrosted and waited until they reached room temperature to process according to the manufacturer’s instructions. In short, 100 μL of urine was added to the diluent tube (included in the kit), it was mixed thoroughly and 100 μL of the suspension was taken, which was added to the Lateral Flow device. The reading was done visually, 40 min after the test. The presence of two lines, regardless of its intensity, was considered positive. While a negative result was interpreted when only the control line was observed in the Lateral Flow device. The results were categorized as positive and negative, as recommended by the manufacturer. Controls (positive and negative) were included at the time of the kit was open.

Sample preparation for molecular assays

DNA extraction

1) In peripheral blood and bone marrow samples. Separation of leukocytes from peripheral blood and bone marrow was performed by density gradient using Ficoll hypaque (HISTOPAQUE -1077, Sigma Aldrich, Burlington, MA, United States). The white cell packet was recovered and washed twice with 1 mL of Dulbecco´s Phosphate Buffered Saline (GIBCO, Thermo Fisher, Scientific Baltics UAB, Vilnius, Lithuania) before proceeding to DNA extraction. For DNA extraction, the cell packet was re-suspended in 180 μL of ATL lysis buffer (Qiagen, Hilden, Germany), 20 μL of proteinase K was added, the mixture was incubated at 56°C for 1 hour. Subsequently, the sample was exposed 5 min to a water bath, followed by three cycles of exposure to liquid nitrogen for 1 min and water bath for 2 min. After the lysis, the sample was left 5 min at room temperature to continue the extraction using the DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen) following the manufacturer’s recommendations. 2) In tissue samples. The tissue was macerated in a mortar, the lysate was collected and was suspended in 180 μL ATL lysis buffer (Qiagen) and 20 μl of proteinase K, the sample was incubated at 56°C overnight. DNA extraction was performed following the procedure for exposure to liquid nitrogen and water bath, followed by the DNeasy Blood & Tissue kit (Qiagen) previously mentioned. 3) In urine samples. Samples were defrosted and placed at room temperature (15–25°C) prior to DNA extraction. They were subsequently centrifuged at 4°C at 5000 rpm for 30 min. The supernatant was discarded, and the sediment was used for DNA extraction, which was performed using the ONE–4–ALL Genomic DNA Mini Preps kit (Bio Basic, Amherst, NY, United States) according to the manufacturer’s recommendations.

Molecular assay procedures

Hcp100 nested PCR assays

1) In blood, bone marrow, and tissue samples. The nested PCR assay was conducted as described by Bialek et al.[22] with minor modifications. For external PCR we use the primers HCI and HCII. The reaction was carried out in a final volume of 50 μL with the following reagent concentration: 1X Buffer, 1 mM MgCl2, 100 μM dNTPs (Roche Diagnostics, Germany), and 0·5 pmol of each primer, 1·5 U Taq DNA polymerase (Invitrogen, CA, United States) and 10 μL of the DNA. The program used was: 95°C for 5 min, 35 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, 65°C for 30 s, 72°C for 1 min, and a final extension of 72°C for 5 min. With which we obtained a product of 391 bp. Five microliters of the product of the first reaction were taken for nested PCR. The primers HCIII and HCIV that define a 210 bp fragment were used. The reaction was carried out in a final volume of 50 μL and the concentration of the reagents was as follows: 1X Buffer, 1 mM MgCl2, 100 μM dNTPs (Roche Diagnostics), 0·5 pmol of each primer, and 1.5 U Taq DNA polymerase (Invitrogen). The amplification program was: 95°C for 5 min, 30 cycles of 94°C for 30 s, 72°C for 1 min and a final extension of 72°C for 5 min. 2) In urine samples the amplification procedure was conducted primarily according to Bialek, et al.[22] with minor modifications by Taylor et al.[23] The first PCR was carried out in a reaction mixture of 25 μL containing 1X Buffer, 2 mM MgCl2, 200 μM dNTPs, 100 pmol of each primer (HCI and HCII), 1.0 U Taq DNA polymerase (Applied Biosystems, Inc., Foster City, CA, United States), and 50–100 ng of DNA. The amplification program was: one cycle at 94°C for 5 min; 35 cycles at 94°C for 30 s, 50°C for 30 s and 72°C for 1 min, plus a final extension cycle at 72°C for 5 min. The second reaction was carried out in a volume of 25 μL with the following reagent concentrations: 1X Buffer, 1.8 mM MgCl2, 200 μM dNTPs, 100 pmol. of each primer (HCIII and HCIV), 1U Taq DNA polymerase (Applied Biosystems), and 1 μL of the product of the first reaction. The amplification conditions were a cycle at 94°C for 5 min; 30 cycles at 94°C for 30 s, 65°C for 30 s and 72°C for 1 min, and one final cycle at 72°C for 5 min. All assays included negative controls (water reagents) and positive controls (DNA extracted from a culture of H. capsulatum). The result was considered positive when a band of 391 bp and / or 210 bp was observed in the 1.5% agarose gel, while it was considered negative when these bands were not observed.

1281−1283220 SCAR nested PCR assays in blood, bone marrow, tissue biopsies, and urine

For the first PCR, the reaction mixture comprised 10 ng of DNA in a 25 μL reaction volume containing 1X Buffer, 200 μM dNTPs (Applied Biosystems), 2 mM MgCl2, 1 U of Taq polymerase (Applied Biosystems) and 50 pmol of each oligonucleotide, SCAR220F (5´–CATTGTTGGAGGAACCTGCT–3´) and SCAR220R (5´–GAGCTGCAGGATGTTTGTTG–3´). The following program was used for the PCR: one cycle at 94°C for 3 min, followed by 30 cycles of 95°C for 1 min, 55°C for 1 min and 72°C for 1 min with a final extension step at 72°C for 5 min. The second PCR reaction was conducted with 2 μL of the product from the first PCR in a total reaction volume of 25 μL containing 1X Buffer, 200 μM dNTPs (Applied Biosystems), 2 mM MgCl2, 1 U of Taq polymerase (Applied Biosystems) and 50 pmol of each oligonucleotide, SCAR200F (5´–CTCATTACTGTCAACACTGCGG–3´) and SCAR200R (5´–GCTGCAGGATGTTTGTTGATGT–3´) under the same cycling conditions of the first round of amplification, except that 60°C for 1 min was used for annealing the template.

Amplification of β-globin gene (internal control)

To validate the presence of amplifiable DNA and the absence of inhibitory substances, a PCR was performed using GH20 (5´–GAAGAGCCAAGGACAGGTAC–3´) and PCO4 (5´–CAACTTCATCCACGTTCACC–3´) primers.[24] The reaction was carried out in a final volume of 50 μL with the following reagent concentration: 1X Buffer, 1 mM MgCl2, 100 μM dNTP´s, 0·5 pmol of each primer, 1·5 U Taq DNA polymerase (Invitrogen) and 2 μL of the DNA. The program used was: 95°C for 7 min, 35 cycles of 94°C for 1 min, 50°C for 30 s, 72°C for 45 s, and a final extension of 72°C for 7 min. With which we obtained a product of 268 bp. A negative control (reagents plus water) and a positive control (reagents plus human DNA) were included in each experiment.

Statistical analysis

We described and compared the patient’s characteristics and clinical variables between patients with proven-PDH and patients PDH negative. We used median and interquartile range (IQR) for continuous variables and frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and Mann-Whitney U and Pearson’s X2 or Fisher´s exact test as statistical tests accordingly. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was determined as significant. We calculated the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), positive and negative likelihood ratios, with their respective 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of the antigen urine tests and molecular tests, using as gold standard the cases classified as proven-PDH by culture and/or histopathology. The Kappa index and its respective 95% CI were used to determine the agreement between urine Histoplasma antigen detection tests. We use STATA 11.0 software (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, United States) to perform the statistical analysis.

Results

During the study period, 444 patients potentially eligible to participate were seen; 25 were excluded for not complying with the definition of suspected PDH, two with incomplete clinical information, one refused to sign the informed consent and one with no clinical samples available. Then, we included 415 patients for the analysis; 108/415 (26%) patients with proven-PDH, in 30/108 (28%) the diagnosis was done by identification of Histoplasma by both culture and histopathology, in 65/108 (60%) by isolation of Histoplasma in at least one culture, and in 13/108 (12%) by histopathology; and 41 with probable PDH (Fig 1). The relevant clinical characteristics of the patients included in the study are described in Table 1. Among the 266 patients without PDH, we found 48 (18%) mycobacterial infections (22 by Mycobacterium tuberculosis, 25 by M. avium complex, and one case by M. tuberculosis and M. avium complex infection); 29 patients (10.9%) with other diagnosis (17 with bacteremia / fungemia [blood and/or bone marrow positive cultures], and 12 with histopathology diagnosis of cytomegalovirus, Kaposi sarcoma, lymphoma and/or HIV lymphadenopathy) and in 189 (71.1%) the diagnosis was not established.

Fig 1. Study Flowchart.

Fig 1

Abbreviation: PDH = Progressive disseminated histoplasmosis.

Table 1. Clinical characteristics of the patients included in the study.

Demographic characteristic Proven disseminated histoplasmosis (n = 108) Probable histoplasmosis (n = 41) Without PDH (n = 266)
Age, median (IQR) 33 (11) 36 (16) 36 (14)
Male, n (%) 90 (83.3) 37 (90.2) 233 (87.6)
Risk occupation for histoplasmosis, n (%) 15 (13.9) 5 (12.2) 34 (12.8)
Warehouse exposure, n (%) 14 (13) 7 (17.1) 72 (27.1)
HIV Diagnosis
Time with known HIV diagnosis, (months) median (IQR) 3 (44) 2 (14) 3 (43)
CD4 count (cells/ μL) median (IQR) 25.5 (69) 40.5 (71) 36.5 (72)
Log HIV Viral load, median (IQR) 5.18 (5.60) 5.57 (6.15) 5.34 (5.72)
CD4+ count < 100 cells/μL, n (%) 70 (64.8) 31 (75.6) 203 (76.3)
ART naïve, n (%) 62 (57.4) 23 (56.1) 142 (53.4)
Signs and symptoms
Fever, n (%) 107 (99.1) 41 (100) 246 (92.5)
Weight loss, n (%) 98 (90.7) 39 (95.1) 235 (88.3)
Hepatomegaly, n (%) 71 (65.7) 27 (65.9) 193 (72.6)
Cough, n (%) 65 (60.2) 31 (75.6) 158 (59.4)
Dyspnea, n (%) 59 (54.6) 25 (61) 135 (50.8)
Diarrhea, n (%) 55 (50.9) 24 (58.5) 125 (47)
Lymphadenopathy, n (%) 54 (50) 30 (73.2) 177 (66.5)
Splenomegaly, n (%) 54 (50) 15 (36.6) 155 (58.3)
Skin lesions, n (%) 35 (32.4) 8 (19.5) 55 (20.7)
Vomit, n (%) 30 (27.8) 9 (22) 48 (18)
Mucous ulcers, n (%) 12 (11.1) 4 (9.8) 36 (13.5)
Gastrointestinal bleeding, n (%) 11 (10.2) 4 (9.8) 35 (13.2)
Laboratory abnormalities
Anemia, n (%) 66 (61.1) 27 (65.9) 145 (54.5)
Thrombocytopenia, n (%) 58 (53.7) 20 (48.8) 82 (30.8)
Neutropenia, n (%) 35 (32.4) 13 (31.7) 79 (29.7)
Platelets count (cells x1000/mm3), median (IQR) 90 (135) 108 (187) 158 (179)
AST elevation 2x NUL, n (%) 63 (58.3) 15 (36.6) 67 (25.2)
AST (IU/L), median (IQR) 107.5 (186) 55.5 (83) 46 (57)
Alkaline phosphatase (mg/dL), median (IQR) 223 (309) 164 (149) 124 (155)
LDH elevation 2x NUL, n (%) 71 (65.7) 12 (29.3) 44 (16.5)
LDH > 1000 mg/dL, n (%) 46 (42.6) 4 (9.8) 16 (6)
LDH (mg/dL), median (IQR) 969.5 (1682) 365 (514) 302 (301)
Sodium (mEq/L), median (IQR) 131 (6) 133 (9) 132 (8)
Radiographic findings
Thorax image
Mediastinal adenopathies, n (%) 13 (12) 12 (29.3) 67 (25.2)
Tree in bud infiltrate, n (%) 11 (10.2) 5 (12.2) 52 (19.5)
Extrapulmonary image
Hepatomegaly, n (%) 40 (37) 23 (56.1) 161 (60.5)
Splenomegaly, n (%) 34 (31.5) 14 (34.1) 138 (51.9)
Neck adenopathies, n (%) 12 (11.1) 11 (26.8) 50 (18.8)
Retroperitoneal adenopathies, n (%) 9 (8.3) 9 (22) 39 (14.7)
Abdominal adenopathies, n (%) 8 (7.4) 5 (12.2) 31 (11.7)
Inguinal adenopathies, n (%) 2 (1.9) 6 (14.6) 14 (5.3)
Pericardial effusion, n (%) - - 2 (0.8)
Mortality 34/76 (44.7) 14/34 (41.2) 64/240 (26.7)

Abbreviation: PDH = Progressive disseminated histoplasmosis. ART = Antiretroviral treatment. AST = Aspartate aminotransferase. NUL = Normal upper limit. LDH = Lactic dehydrogenase.

Diagnostic accuracy of the antigen detection procedures in urine samples

Of the 415 patients, we analyzed 391 urine samples (one per patient) by the IAHE, cHGEI IMMY and MVHUALFA assays. Twenty-six percent (104/391) of the samples analyzed by the three antigen detection tests were proven-PDH cases. The IAHE test detected 70 (67.3%) of them as positive; while 11/ 287 cases without proven-PDH, according to the gold standard, resulted as positive. The cHGEI IMMY test detected 95/104 (91.3%) as positive; while 26/287 cases without proven-PDH were detected as positive. The range of antigen concentration in the cases detected as positive by cHGEI IMMY was 0.43998 ng/mL–>25 ng/mL, and the median was >25 ng/mL. The MVHUALFA test detected 94/104 (90.4%) as positive; while 22/287 cases without proven-PDH were detected as positive. The sensitivity/specificity values were 67.3% (95% CI, 57.4–76.2)/ 96.2% (95% CI, 93.2–98.0) for IAHE, 91.3% (95% CI, 84.2–96.0)/ 90.9% (95% CI, 87.0–94.0) for cHGEI IMMY and 90.4% (95% CI, 83.0–95.3)/ 92.3% (95% CI, 88.6–95.1) for MVHUALFA. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR + and LR- data from all tests are shown in Table 2. More descriptive results are shown in Fig 2. The Fig 3 shows the distribution of the 391 samples analyzed with the three urine Histoplasma antigen detection tests. The agreement between the cHGEI IMMY and MVHUALFA was of 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84–0.87).

Table 2. Performance evaluation of three urine Histoplasma antigen detection tests and two molecular tests for the diagnosis of progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with human immunodeficiency virus.

Urine antigen Hcp100 nested PCR SCAR 1281−1283220 nested PCR
IAHE (n = 391) cHGEI IMMY (n = 391 MVHUALFA (n = 391) Blood (n = 393) Bone marrow (n = 343) Tissue (n = 75) Urine (n = 297) Blood (n = 392) Bone marrow (n = 344) Tissue (n = 75) Urine (n = 291)
Sensitivity % (95% CI) 67.3
(57.4–76.2)
91.3
(84.2–96.0)
90.4
(83.0–95.3)
62.9
(53.3–72.5)
65.9
(56.0–75.8)
62.1
(44.4–79.7)
34.9
(24.8–46.2)
65.3
(55.9–74.7)
70.8
(61.3–80.2)
71.4
(54.7–88.2)
18.1
(10.5–28.1)
Specificity % (95% CI) 96.2
(93.2–98.0)
90.9
(87.0–94.0)
92.3
(88.6–95.1)
89.5
(86.0–93.0)
89.0
(85.2–92.9)
82.6
(71.7–93.6)
67.3
(60.6–73.5)
58.8
(53.2–64.5)
52.9
(46.8–59.1)
40.4
(26.4–54.5)
90.4
(85.5–94.0)
Accuracy % (95% CI) 88.5
(84.9–91.5)
91.0
(87.7–93.6)
91.8
(88.6–94.3)
82.9
(78.8–86.5)
83.0
(78.7–86.9)
74.6
(63.3–84.0)
58.2
(52.4–63.9)
60.4
(55.4–65.3)
57.5
(52.1–62.8)
52.0
(40.1–63.7)
69.7
(64.1–74.9)
PPV %
(95% CI)
86.4
(77.0–93.0)
78.5
(70.1–85.4)
81.0
(72.7–87.7)
66.3
(56.6–76.0)
67.4
(57.5–77.3)
69.2
(51.5–87.0)
29.3
(20.6–39.3)
34.6
(27.7–41.4)
34.4
(27.5–41.3)
41.7
(27.7–55.6)
42.9
(26.3–60.7)
NPV %
(95% CI)
89.0
(85.0–92.3)
96.6
(93.7–98.4)
96.3
(93.4–98.2)
88.0
(84.4–91.7)
88.3
(84.4–92.3)
77.6
(65.9–89.2)
72.7
(66.0–78.8)
83.6
(78.5–88.6)
83.9
(78.2–89.5)
70.4
(53.1–87.6)
73.4
(67.6–78.7)
LR+
(95% CI)
17.7
(9.8–33.0)
10.0
(7.5–12.6)
11.8
(8.5–15.4)
6.00
(4.16–8.66)
6.00
(4.10–8.78)
3.57
(1.79–7.12)
1.1
(0.7–1.5)
1.59
(1.30–1.94)
1.50
(1.25–1.81)
1.20
(0.86–1.67)
1.9
(1.0–3.6)
LR-
(95% CI)
0.3
(0.3–0.4)
0.1
(0.0–0.2)
0.1
(0.1–0.2)
0.41
(0.32–0.54)
0.38
(0.29–0.51)
0.46
(0.28–0.75)
1.0
(0.8–1.2)
0.59
(0.44–0.79)
0.55
(0.39–0.78)
0.71
(0.36–1.40)
0.9
(0.8–1.0)

Abbreviation: CI = Confidence Interval. IAHE = IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA kit. cHGEI IMMY = clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay. MVHUALFA = MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA.

Fig 2. Flowchart of urine samples submitted to the three urine Histoplasma antigen detection tests.

Fig 2

Abbreviation: IAHE = IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA kit. cHGEI IMMY = clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay. MVHUALFA = MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA. PDH = Progressive disseminated histoplasmosis. No inconclusive results were found.

Fig 3. Distribution of the 391 samples analyzed with the three urine Histoplasma antigen detection tests.

Fig 3

Abbreviation: IAHE = IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA kit. cHGEI IMMY = clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay. MVHUALFA = MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA. AD = Additional diagnosis.

Discrepant results between antigen detection tests and gold standard

False negatives results

Among patients with proven-PDH, we found seven that had a negative result in the three urine Histoplasma antigen detection tests, two were diagnosed by culture only, and the other five by histopathology see Table 3; three that had a negative result in two tests, (one with cHGEI IMMY/MVHUALFA negative, one with IAHE/MVHUALFA negative, and one with IAHE/cHGEI IMMY negative); and 26 had a negative result in one test (25 with IAHE, and one with MVHUALFA).

Table 3. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of proven-PDH cases with a negative result by all three urine Histoplasma antigen detection tests.
Age/ Gender Time since HIV diagnosis /Relevant medical history CD4 + (cells/mL)/ Plasma RNA HIV (copies/mL)/ Antiretroviral treatment Signs and symptoms Radiographic Pulmonary and extrapulmo-nary involvement Empirical antifun-gal before samples Sites sampled for Culture / Pathology Final diagnosis/ Treatment/ Evolution Hcp100 nested PCR 1281−1283220 SCAR nested PCR
1 31/ Male 2 mo/History of esophageal candida 25/ 26,133/ Yes (TDF + FTC + EFV) Weight loss, nausea, vomit, diarrhea, fever, peripheral adenopathies, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, acute renal failure, anemia, thrombocytopenia LDH>x2 NUL, ferritin elevation Yes (tree in bud pattern and cavitary lesions; mediastinal adenopathies, hepato-splenomegaly) FLZ (<72 h) Blood culture: negative
BM culture: H. capsulatum
Bone biopsy pathology: negative
Proven PDH/ Unknown/ Death due to PDH ▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
2 33 / Male 49 mo/History of Kaposi´s sarcoma and syphilis; chemotherapy 111/ 88,000/ Yes (TDF + ABC + 3TC + RAL) Weight loss, nausea, vomit, diarrhea, fever, anemia, thrombocytopenia, AST >x2 NUL No AMB (<72 h) Blood culture: H. capsulatum
BM culture: H. capsulatum and Salmonella sp. Group D
Biopsy pathology: NA
Proven PDH and Salmonella sp. Group D infection/ Unknown/ Death due to PDH ▪Blood: +
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
3 19 / Female 3 mo/History of M. tuberculosis infection, PCP, corticoste-roids consumption 59/ 2,170,000/ Yes (TDF + FTC + EFV) Weight loss, dyspnea, cough, fever, anemia, LDH >x2 NUL No No Blood culture: negative
BM culture: negative
BM biopsy pathology: H. capsulatum
Proven PDH/ Unknown/ Death due to PDH ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
4 34 / Male 68 mo/History of Kaposi´s sarcoma, corticoste-roids consumption Unknown/ Unknown/ Yes (TDF + DRV + RTV + RAL) Weight loss, cough, fever, peripheral adenopathies, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, cutaneous lesions, LDH >x2 NUL Yes (Neck, mediastinal, abdominal adenopathies; hepatomegaly splenomegaly) ITZ (>72 h) Blood culture: MAC
BM culture: MAC
BM biopsy pathology: H. capsulatum
Proven PDH and MAC infection/ Unknown/ Death due to PDH Blood: -
BM: -
Tissue:NA
Urine: -
Blood: +
BM: +
Tissue:NA
Urine: -
5 29 / Male Simultaneous/ None 3/ 233, 163/ None Weight loss, fever, peripheral adenopathies, mucosal ulcers, cutaneous lesions, anemia Yes (micronodular infiltrate; neck adenopathies) No Blood culture: negative
BM culture: negative
Bone biopsy pathology: H. capsulatum
Proven PDH/ Unknown/ Death due to PDH ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
6 24 / Male 27 mo/none 120/ 40,889/ None Weight loss, fever, mucosal ulcers, cutaneous lesions, anemia No No Blood culture: negative
BM culture: negative
Skin biopsy culture: negative
Skin biopsy pathology: H. capsulatum
Proven PDH/ Unknown/ Unknown ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue: -
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: -
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:N
▪Urine: -
7 32 / Male 106 mo/History of Cyclospora infection 7/ 180,000/ Yes (LPV/r + RAL) Weight loss, diarrhea, fever, peripheral adenopathies, hepatomegaly, acute renal failure, anemia, ferritin elevation Mediastinal, retroperitoneal adenopathies, hepatomegaly No Blood culture: negative
BM culture: negative
Bone biopsy pathology: H. capsulatum
Proven PDH/ Unspecified antifungal treatment/ Survived ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue: -
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: +
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA

Abbreviation: mo = Months. AST = Aspartate aminotranferase. LDH = Lactic dehydrogenase. NUL = Normal upper limit. PCP = Pneumocystis pneumonia. FTC = Emtricitabine. TDF = Tenofovir. EFV = Efavirenz. ABC = Abacavir. LPV/r = Lopinavir/ritonavir. RAL = Raltegravir. 3TC = Lamivudine. DRV = Darunavir. RTV = Ritonavir. FLZ = Fluconazole. AMB = Amphotericin B. ITZ = Itraconazole. MAC = Mycobacterium avium Complex. BM = Bone marrow. NA = Not available.

Cases with probable progressive disseminated histoplasmosis

Among patients without proven-PDH, 41 presented at least one positive antigen test (probable cases). In 25 of them no other diagnosis was defined (Table 4), while in 16 we found additional diagnoses (Table 5).

Table 4. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of 25 patients with probable PDH and without additional diagnosis.

Age/ Gender Time since HIV diagnosis Antiretro-viral treatment Radiographic Pulmonary and extrapulmonary involvement Empirical antifun-gal before samples IAHE cHGEI IMMY MVHUA- LFA Hcp100 nested PCR 1281−1283220 SCAR nested PCR
1 39/Male 39 mo TDF + FTC + EFV None EQC (<72 h) Positive Positive Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
2 40/Male 2 mo None Micronodular infiltrates, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly NA Positive Positive Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: +
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
3 52/Male 0 mo None Mediastinal lymphadenopathies, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly NA Positive Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
4 60/Male 2 mo None Micronodular and nodular infiltrates; neck and mediastinal lymphadenopathies NA Negative Positive Positive ▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: -
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
5 29/Male 8 mo ABC + 3TC LPV/r Micronodular infiltrates, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly >72h ITZ Negative Positive Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: NA
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: -
▪BM: NA
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
6 36/Male 0 mo None Micronodular infiltrates NA Negative Positive Positive ▪Blood: +
▪BM: -
▪Tissue: +
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: -
▪BM: +
▪Tissue: -
▪Urine: -
7 23/Male 4 mo TDF + FTC + DTG Micronodular infiltrates, budd in tree infiltrates, neck and mediastinal lymphadenopathies, hepatomegaly NA Negative Positive Positive ▪Blood: NA/NA
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: NA
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
8 36/Male 107 mo TDF + FTC + ABC + LPV/r NA >72 h FLZ Negative Positive Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue: +
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
9 22/Male 0 mo None Micronodular infiltrates, hepatomegaly NA Negative Positive Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
10 37/Male 0 mo TDF + FTC + EFV Micronodular infiltrates ITZ Negative Positive Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
11 64/Male 0 mo None Consolidation infiltrates, budd in tree infiltrates, hepatomegaly AMB Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: +
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
12 21/Male 0 mo None Micronodular infiltrates FLZ Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
13 21/Female 19 mo TDF + FTC + EFV Micronodular and consolidation infiltrates, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly NA Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
14 37/Male 2 mo None NA NA Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue: -
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
15 53/Male 0 mo None Micronodular infiltrates, pleural effusion, neck, mediastinal and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathies, hepatomegaly NA Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
16 41/Male 174 mo AZT + 3TC + EFV Consolidation infiltrates, budd in tree infiltrates, hepatomegaly NA Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
17 40/Male 1 mo None Micronodular infiltrates, pleural effusion, neck lymphadenopathies NA Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +/-
18 53/Male 0 mo None Micronodular and nodular infiltrates; hepatomegaly FLZ Positive Negative Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
19 29/Female 106 mo 3TC + AZT + LPV/r Neck and mediastinal lymphadenopathies, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly NA Positive Negative Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
20 43/Male 190 mo ABC + 3TC + AZT + ATV/r Micronodular infiltrates, budd in tree, cavitary lesions, retroperitoneal lymphadenopathies, hepatomegaly ITZ Positive Negative Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
21 38/Male 0 mo None Abdominal and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathies, hepatomegaly NA Positive Negative Negative ▪Blood: NA
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: NA
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
22 41/Male 2 mo TDF + FTC + EFV Micronodular infiltrates, hepatomegaly, AMB Negative Negative Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
23 45/Male 0 mo None NA NA Negative Negative Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
24 35/Fe-male 0 mo None Consolidation infiltrates, intestinal lesions FLZ Negative Negative Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
25 30/Male 8 mo TDF + FTC + RAL Consolidation and nodular infiltrates, pleural effusion; neck, axillar, retroperitoneal, inguinal lymphadenopathies, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly NA Negative Negative Positive ▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +

Abbreviations: IAHE = IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA kit. cHGEI IMMY = clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay. MVHUALFA = MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA. Mo = Months, TDF = Tenofovir, FTC = Emtricitabine, EFV = Efavirenz, ABC = Abacavir, 3TC = Lamivudine, LPV/r = Lopinavir/ritonavir, DTG = Dolutegravir, AZT = Zidovudine, ATV/r = Atazanavir/ritonavir, RAL = Raltegravir, EQC = Echinocandins. ITZ = Itraconazole. FLZ = Fluconazole. AMB = Amphotericin B. BM = Bone marrow, NA = Not available.

Table 5. Clinical and laboratory characteristics of 16 patients with probable PDH and with an additional diagnosis.

Age / Gender Time since HIV diag-nosis Antire-troviral treat-ment Radiographic Pulmonary and extrapulmonary involvement Empirical antifungal before samples Final diagnosis IAHE cHGEI IMMY MVHUA- LFA Hcp100 nested PCR 1281−1283220 SCAR nested PCR
1 28/Male 0 mo None Micronodular infiltrates <72 h AMB C. neoformans Positive Positive Positive ▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
2 33/Male 80 mo TDF + AZT + LPV/r Micronodular infiltrates, budd in tree, mediastinal lymphadenopathies, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly NA M. tuberculosis Positive Positive Negative ▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
3 53/Male 0 mo None Hepatomegaly and splenomegaly ITZ and AMB Malbranchea spp. Negative Positive Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: +
▪Tissue: +
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: +
▪BM: -
▪Tissue: -
▪Urine: -
4 33/Fe- male 2 mo None NA FLZ and ITZ Granulomatous hepatitis Negative Positive Positive ▪Blood: +
▪BM: -
▪Tissue: -
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: -
▪BM: +
▪Tissue: +
▪Urine: +
5 33/Male 0 mo None Consolidation and nodular infiltrates, pleural effusion, abdominal, inguinal and retroperitoneal adenopathies, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly, pericardial effusion FLZ M. bovis, CMV colitis, HPV infection Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: NA
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: -
▪BM: NA
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
6 27/Male 2 mo 3TC+ABC+EFV Pleural effusion, mediastinal effusion, neck, mediastinal lymphadenopathies, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly NA M. tuberculosis Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: +
▪BM: -
▪Tissue: +
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue: +
▪Urine: +
7 28/Male 0 mo None Micronodular infiltrates, axillar and mediastinal lymphadenopathies, hepatomegaly, splenomegaly NA M. tuberculosis Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
▪Blood: -
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
8 27/Male 82 mo LPV/r + TDF + FTC + EFV Cavitary lesions NA C. neoformans Positive Negative Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
9 46/Male 0 mo None Consolidations and micronodular infiltrates ITZ C. neoformans Positive Negative Negative ▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
10 24/Male 3 mo None Micronodular infiltrates FLZ M. avium Negative Negative Positive ▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
11 38/Male 1 mo None Consolidations and micronodular infiltrates; neck, mediastinal, inguinal lymphadenopathies NA HIV associated lymphadenopa-thy Negative Negative Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue: +
▪Urine: -
12 48/Male 132 mo TDF + FTC + EFV Nodular infiltrates, pleural effusion; neck, axillar, mediastinal lymphadenopathies; CNS lesions FLZ and AMB CMV proctitis Negative Negative Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM:NA
▪Tissue: -
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM:NA
▪Tissue: -
▪Urine: -
13 36/Male 138 mo None Micronodular infiltrates; mediastinal, axillar, abdominal, retroperitoneal, inguinal lymphadenopathies; hepatomegaly, splenomegaly NA M. bovis Negative Negative Positive ▪Blood: +
▪BM: +
▪Tissue: -
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: +
14 45/Male 2 mo TDF + FTC + EFV Nodular infiltrates, pleural effusion; cervical, mediastinal, abdominal, retroperitoneal, inguinal lymphadenopathies; hepatomegaly, splenomegaly NA M. avium and Sarcoma Kaposi Negative Negative Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: +
▪Tissue: +
▪Urine: NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM: +
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -
15 36/Male 6 mo TDF + FTC + EFV Nodular lung infiltrates, neck, mediastinal, abdominal, inguinal and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathies; hepatomegaly, splenomegaly and pericardial effusion AMB M. avium Negative Positive Positive ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue: -
▪Urine: -
▪Blood: +
▪BM: -
▪Tissue: +
▪Urine: -
16 21/Male 0 mo TDF + FTC + EFV Mediastinal and retroperitoneal lymphadenopathies, gastrointestinal lesions NA M. tuberculosis Negative Positive Negative ▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine:NA
▪Blood: -
▪BM: -
▪Tissue:NA
▪Urine: -

Abbreviation: IAHE = IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA kit. cHGEI IMMY = clarus Histoplasma GM Enzyme Immunoassay. MVHUALFA = MiraVista Histoplasma Urine Antigen LFA. mo = Months. TDF = Tenofovir. AZT = Zidovudine. LPV/r = Lopinavir/ritonavir. 3TC = Lamivudine. ABC = Abacavir. EFV = Efavirenz. FTC = Emtricitabine. AMB = Amphotericin B. ITZ = Itraconazole. FLZ = Fluconazole. BM = Bone marrow. NA = Not available.

From the 41 patients, 26 had only one positive urine Histoplasma antigen detection test (six with IAHE positive, 11 with cHGEI IMMY positive, nine MVHUALFA positive). Twelve patients presented two urine antigen positive tests (two patients with IAHE/cHGEI IMMY, and 10 with cHGEI IMMY/MVHUALFA). Finally, three patients had positive results in the three tests.

Diagnostic accuracy of the molecular assays in blood, bone marrow, tissue biopsies and urine samples

Of the 415 patients, the Hcp100 nested PCR was performed on 393, 343, 75 and 297, blood, bone marrow, tissue and urine samples (one per patient) respectively. Twenty-five percent (97/393) of the blood samples analyzed were proven-PDH cases, 61 (62.9%) of them had a positive test. Thirty-one of the 296 cases without PDH resulted false positive. Twenty-six percent (88/343) of the bone marrow samples came from proven-PDH cases. Fifty-eight (65.9%) of them had a positive test. Of the 255 cases without PDH, this test detected 28 as false positive. Thirty-nine percent (29/75) of the tissue samples were cases of proven-PDH. Eighteen (62.1%) of them had a positive test. Of the 46 cases without PDH, eight were detected as false positive. Twenty-eight percent (83/297) of the urine samples were obtained from proven-PDH cases. Twenty-nine (34.9%) of them had a positive test. Of the 214 cases without PDH, the test detected 70 as false positive, see Fig 4.

Fig 4. Flowchart of the samples subjected to Hcp100 nested PCR.

Fig 4

Abbreviation: PDH = Progressive disseminated histoplasmosis. No inconclusive results were found.

Of the 415 patients, we analyzed 392, 344, 75 and 291, blood, bone marrow, tissue and urine samples (one per patient) respectively by 1281−1283220 SCAR nested PCR. Twenty-five percent (98/392) of the blood samples were cases of proven-PDH. Sixty-four (65.3%) of them had a positive test. Of the 294 cases without PDH, 121 were detected as false positive. Twenty-six percent (89/344) of the bone marrow samples were cases of proven-PDH. Sixty-three (70.8%) of them had a positive test. Of the 255 cases without PDH, the test detected 120 as false positive. Thirty-seven percent (28/75) of the tissue samples were cases of proven-PDH. Twenty (71.4%) of them had a positive test. Of the 47 cases without PDH, 28 were detected as false positive for the test. Twenty nine percent (83/291) of the urine samples belonged to patients of proven-PDH. Fifteen (18.1%) of them had a positive test. Of the 208 cases without PDH, the test detected 20 as false positive, see Fig 5. Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, LR + and LR- data for all test are shown in Table 3.

Fig 5. Flowchart of the samples subjected to 1281−1283220 SCAR nested PCR.

Fig 5

Abbreviation: PDH = Progressive disseminated histoplasmosis. No inconclusive results were found.

Discussion

The data presented in this report show that the new methods (cHGEI IMMY and MVHUALFA) for the detection of Histoplasma antigen in urine are excellent tools for diagnosing PDH in PLWHIV. These methods are based on simple and achievable procedures for most of the clinical laboratories and both are far superior to molecular methods (Hcp100 and -1281-1283220 SCAR markers that use nested PCRs), due to the high values of sensitivity/specificity, 91.3% (95% CI, 84.2–96.0) / 90.9% (95% CI, 87.0–94.0) for cHGEI IMMY and 90.4% (95% CI, 83.0–95.3) / 92.3% (95% CI, 88.6–95.1) for MVHUALFA, obtained in this clinical trial.

Additional advantages of the MVHUALFA are the possibility of doing a single test without waiting until a certain quota is filled with a plate or platform, the ease of performing the test, practically next to the patient’s bed, which allows having the result in minutes and at a very reasonable cost and, finally, the possibility of execution by personnel with minimal training. In this cohort study with the highest number of PDH cases among PLWHIV, we detected 149 patients with histoplasmosis (35.9% of prevalence), 108 of them with proven-PDH and 41 with probable-PDH (based on any positive urine Histoplasma antigen test). This prevalence of histoplasmosis among PLWHIV seems to be higher than that reported from Guatemala (8%) and Colombia (23%),[15] which gives an additional support to these findings.

In the late 1980s MiraVista introduced the detection of Histoplasma antigen in urine and serum samples as a diagnostic tool for histoplasmosis.[13] This test has shown sensitivity values of 95% to 100% in urine and 92% to 100% in serum.[11,25] However, it is performed at MiraVista laboratories in Indianapolis USA, which delays the availability of the results, with the consequent delay of the appropriate treatment and great risk of complications and death. On the other hand, IMMY launched the first screening test for Histoplasma antigen in urine (IAHE), through an ELISA test using polyclonal antibodies approved by FDA in 2007.[14] In a recent publication, we reported a sensitivity and specificity of 67·1% and 97.5% respectively, for the diagnosis of PDH in PLWHIV.[21] Recently, this test was discontinued, since the manufacturer delivered the new platform, cHGEI IMMY.

In this study, we determined the diagnostic accuracy of the new generation antigen detection tests, the cHGEI IMMY, (monoclonal antibodies) and the MVHUALFA (polyclonal antibodies). The cHGEI IMMY showed good to excellent analytical performance, with an NPV of 96.6% in a population with a 35.9% prevalence of histoplasmosis, placing it as a good tool to rule out PDH in PLWHIV. These data agree with those of Cáceres et al. who found a sensitivity and specificity of 98% and 97% respectively, and NPV of 100% in 63 PLWHIV with PDH.[15] The improvement in diagnostic accuracy of the new test released by IMMY (cHGEI IMMY) is clear when compared to the previous version (IAHE). This test can be easily implemented at any clinical laboratory with medium infrastructure and personnel with moderate training or experience in performing ELISA tests. In addition, it is a rapid analysis that provides results in approximately 3 hours, it has CE [Conformité Européenne] Mark and FDA clearance. Furthermore, this test quantifies the concentration of antigen and leaves open the possibility of exploring its usefulness for the patient’s follow-up, once the treatment has begun. One limitation of this test is the use of a standard curve of seven points, plus a positive and a negative control and a blank, then the laboratory has to collect several samples to optimize the use of the kit, which delays the diagnosis in settings where the test is requested unfrequently.

This is the first study to determine the performance of the MVHUALFA in urine samples to diagnose PDH in PLWHIV, with LR+ of 11.8 and LR- of 0.1. Cáceres et. al.[16] recently reported the performance of this test in serum of 75 PLWHIV with suspected histoplasmosis, 24 of them with proven-PDH. They found a sensitivity of 96% and specificity of 90%, by visual reading; while, with the use of an automated reader, the sensitivity and specificity were 92% and 94%, respectively. In our study, the result was read visually, with the presence of two bands, regardless of their intensity, as a positive result. In 20 samples, the observed result was weakly positive, 14 were cases of proven-PDH, and six without proven-PDH according to the gold standard; however, one of them had a positive result by both tests, cHGEI IMMY and MVHUALFA. Definitely, the use of the automated reader should be considered in order to avoid reading errors, although this test has the great advantage of being presented in a single format, less than a minute is required to perform the test, and 40 minutes to read the result, which allows it to really work as a point of care test.

Either test is an excellent choice, both to rule out or to confirm PDH in PLWHIV. The integration of these tests in clinical laboratories will certainly impact on early diagnosis and treatment, and therefore on the outcome of patients. The selection will surely depend on its availability in different countries, on the infrastructure available in the laboratories, existence of trained personnel in carrying out the tests, and of course, on the costs.

Based on several limitations of the traditional gold standard tests as are those related to laboratory infrastructure, staff training, analytical performance, turnaround time for diagnosis; and the benefits of the antigen tests (high diagnosis accuracy, kits commercially available, lower laboratory biosecurity level, ease performance) the 2020 PAHO/WHO Guidelines for the diagnosis and managing disseminated histoplasmosis among PLWHIV recommends “disseminated histoplasmosis should be diagnosed among PLWHIV by detecting circulating Histoplasma antigens”, it is acknowledge that financial, technical and implementation strategies are needed to achieved this goal. [26,27] In the same way, one of the objectives of the International Histoplasmosis Advocacy Group is that at least one laboratory in all of the countries in the Americas have rapid and accurate tests available for the diagnosis of histoplasmosis.[28]

An important issue to keep in mind, especially in endemic areas, is that these tests have shown cross-reactivity with Blastomyces, Coccidiodes, Paracoccidioides [13,14]. Thus, of the 41 patients with probable-PDH, in 25 patients no other diagnosis was defined and among the other 16 patients different co-infections and inflammatory conditions were diagnosed. In this report, we found three patients with probable-PDH and C. neoformans infection (isolated both in blood and in bone marrow cultures), and one case of proven-PDH with C. neoformans recovered from blood. Cryptococcosis and histoplasmosis are common fungal infections in PLWHIV, however, Cryptococcus/Histoplasma co-infection is rare, there are only a few reports in patients with advanced HIV and CD4 lymphocyte count <100 cells / mm3, likewise, there is a report of a case without HIV, with chronic treatment with steroids. This co-infection is likely underestimated due to the faster growth of C. neoformans and the slower growth rate of Histoplasma. Likewise, the diagnosis of one of them can cause the underestimation of the existence of the other.[29,30,31]

Among the patients with probable-PDH without other added diagnosis, 8/25 had a positive Hcp100 nested PCR result and 16/25 a positive 1281−1283220 nested PCR result. Meanwhile, among the patients with other co-infections 10/16 had a Hcp100 nested PCR positive result or a positive 1281−1283220 SCAR nested PCR result. An interesting finding that opens the possibility of using molecular tests as diagnostic support, although they showed variable data on sensitivity and specificity.

Seven proven-PDH cases showed false negative results in the three antigen detection tests. In two previous studies, false negative results have been attributed to the probable low concentration of circulating antigen as a result of using TMP/SMX as a treatment for other infections in PLWHIV,[15,16] since this antibiotic has shown in–vitro activity against Histoplasma.[32] Although, we do not have the information on the use of TMP/SMX, it is commonly used in PLWHIV as prophylaxis against Pneumocystis jirovecii. Another possibility that has not been explored, is the interference of foods, vaginal creams, consumption of caffeine, acetaminophen and acetylsalicylic acid is not known yet. Of these patients, 2/7 had positive cultures and 5/7 showed positive histopathological results. The Hcp 100 nested PCR showed positivity in 3/7, while 1281−1283220 SCAR nested PCR was positive in 6/7. Although the sensitivity of the PCR tests was more or less similar, the specificity of the nested Hcp100 PCR (between 892.6% and 89.5%) in blood, bone marrow and tissue samples was higher than the specificity observed with the SCAR 1281 PCR -1283220 (between 40.4% and 58.8%).

One of the most widely used molecular tools for the detection of Histoplasma has been the Hcp100 gene. The data reported on the sensitivity and specificity of this PCR test are greater than 90%. However, the majority of these studies are quite different in terms of population studied, samples analyzed, extraction protocols, PCR platforms, use of DNAs from Histoplasma isolate collections, as well as, inclusion of healthy patients to determine the specificity of the test.[17] Moreover, there are only a few studies in PLWHIV and suspected PDH, where the investigators reported sensitivity from 89 to 100% and specificity from 98 to 100% using different fluids.[3336] In this multicenter comparative trial the sensitivity observed was from 62.1 to 65.9% in blood, bone marrow or tissue biopsies and the specificity from 82.6 to 89.5%. The diagnostic accuracy of Hcp100 nested PCR in urine, which may be the sample of choice for diagnosis, due to the ease to obtain it, showed the lowest analytical performance, with 34% sensitivity and 67% specificity. The performance of the 1281–1283220 SCAR nested PCR was generally poor, had a LR+ of 1.2 to 1.9 and LR- of 0.55 to 0.9, likewise, the Hcp100 nested PCR only showed a performance between regular and good, even when performed on bone marrow samples. Even though, this test has shown some utility in studying histoplasmosis in occupational and recreational outbreaks.[37,19]

In the study of Frias et al. 2011,[18] the specificity of the 1281−1283220 SCAR markers was determined by performing PCR from genomic DNA. In this study the description of the method and its initial analytical validation were carried out. In our multicenter, prospective, double-blind cohort study of patients with HIV and suspected diagnosis of disseminated and progressive histoplasmosis, we are describing the real diagnostic performance of this molecular test. This may explain the differences in specificity found in both studies.

Two major disadvantages towards the use of nucleic acid amplification techniques are the lack of standardized protocols given that there is still no consensus on which is the best sample, number of samples to analyze, DNA extraction protocol, target or platform for amplification, and trained personnel are needed to perform these types of tests.

Our study has some limitations, we did not evaluate the possible interference of foods, creams, medications that could influence the performance of the tests, nor we considered the intentional search for infection by blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis and paracoccidioidomycosis, the main agents that show cross-reaction with the Histoplasma antigen detection tests.[11,14]

We consider that our study has the strength to determine the performance of rapid tests for the diagnosis of histoplasmosis—antigen detection in urine and molecular tests—which are the two modalities proposed to make them available in at least one city in each country of America.[28] Furthermore, the performance of these tests was determined by comparing them with the gold standard (culture/histopathology). Additionally, we started from the clinical definition of suspected cases of PDH that reflects the daily clinical reasoning that triggers the diagnostic approach and allowed us to evaluate each test in a real-life setting.

In conclusion, urine Histoplasma antigen detection tests showed excellent performance for the diagnosis of PDH in PLWHIV. The integration of these tests in clinical laboratories will certainly impact on early diagnosis and treatment, and consequently on the outcome of patients. These tests have an advantage over PCR tests, their functioning is higher, they are commercial standardized tests, easy and quick to perform, and provide results in minutes or hours. Therefore, the integration of these tests in clinical laboratories will certainly impact on early diagnosis/treatment and consequently on the outcome of the patients.

Supporting information

S1 STARD Checklist. Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies.

(PDF)

Acknowledgments

The authors thank the personnel of the Laboratorio Nacional de Máxima Seguridad para el Estudio de la Tuberculosis y Enfermedades Emergentes, CONACYT/Instituto Nacional de Ciencias Médicas y Nutrición Salvador Zubirán for their invaluable help with sample´s processing.

We thank IMMY and Dr. L. Joseph Wheat (MiraVista Diagnostic Laboratories) for providing us with the necessary kits to perform this study. Neither of them influenced the study design, analysis and interpretation of data, writing and publication of results.

Data Availability

All database is available in figshare repository: https://figshare.com/s/26d91c9f2b37dc922a38.

Funding Statement

This work was supported by the Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACyT) [FOSISS 2015-1 261482] https://www.conacyt.gob.mx/ to AMG. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Bahr NC, Antinori S, Wheat LJ, Sarosi GA. Histoplasmosis infections worldwide: Thinking outside of the Ohio River Valley. Curr Trop Med Rep. 2015;2(2):70–80. Epub 2015 Apr 11. 10.1007/s40475-015-0044-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sifuentes-Osornio J, Corzo-León DE, Ponce-de-León LA. Epidemiology of invasive fungal infections in Latin America. Curr Fungal Infect Rep. 2012;6(1):23–34. Epub 2012 Jan 5. 10.1007/s12281-011-0081-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Vigilancia Epidemiológica de casos de VIH/SIDA en México Registro Nacional de Casos de SIDA Actualización al cierre del 2019. July 16, 2020. Available from: https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/533424/RN_4o_Trim_2019.pdf
  • 4.Wheat J. Endemic mycoses in AIDS: A clinical review. Clin Microbiol Rev.1995;8(1):146–59. Epub 1995 Jan. 10.1128/CMR.8.1.146-159.1995 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.McKinsey DS, Spiegel RA, Hutwagner L, Stanford J, Driks MR, Brewer J, et al. Prospective study of histoplasmosis in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus: incidence, risk factors, and pathophysiology. Clin Infect Dis.1997;24(6):1195–203. Epub 1997 Jun 01. 10.1086/513653 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Lofgren SM, Kirsch EJ, Maro VP, Morrissey AB, Msuya LJ, Kinabo GD, et al. Histoplasmosis among hospitalized febrile patients in northern Tanzania. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2012;106(8):504–7. Epub 2012 Jun 26. 10.1016/j.trstmh.2012.05.009 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Sifuentes-Osornio J, Torres-Gonzalez P, Ponce-de-Leon LA. Diagnosis and treatment of non-European fungal infections. Current Fungal Infection Reports. 2014;8:1–10. Epub 2014 Aug 22. 10.1007/s12281-014-0202-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Adenis A, Nacher M, Hanf M, Basurko C, Dufour J, Huber F, et al. Tuberculosis and histoplasmosis among human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients: a comparative study. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;90(2):216–23. Epub 2014 Jan 6. 10.4269/ajtmh.13-0084 PubMed Central . PMCID: PMC3919221. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nacher M, Adenis A, Sambourg E, Huber F, Abboud P, Epelboin L, et al. Histoplasmosis or tuberculosis in HIV-infected patients in the amazon: what should be treated first? PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014;8(12):e3290. eCollection 2014 Dec. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0003290 . PMCID: PMC4256267. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Guimarães AJ, Nosanchuk JD, Zancopé-Oliveira RM. Diagnosis of histoplasmosis. Braz J Microbiol. 2006;37(1):1–13. Epub 2006 Mar. 10.1590/S1517-83822006000100001 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hage CA, Ribes JA, Wengenack NL, Baddour LM, Assi M, McKinsey DS, et al. Multicenter evaluation of tests for diagnosis of histoplasmosis. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53(5):448–54. Epub 2011 Aug 2. 10.1093/cid/cir435 Erratum in: Clin Infect Dis. 2012;54(3):454. . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Zhang X, Gibson B Jr, Daly TM. Evaluation of commercially available reagents for diagnosis of histoplasmosis infection in immunocompromised patients. J Clin Microbiol. 2013;51(12):4095–101. Epub 2013/10/02. 10.1128/JCM.02298-13 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Wheat LJ, Kohler RB, Tewari RP. Diagnosis of disseminated histoplasmosis by detection of Histoplasma capsulatum antigen in serum and urine specimens. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(2):83–8. Epub 1986 Jan 09. 10.1056/NEJM198601093140205 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Cloud JL, Bauman SK, Neary BP, Ludwig KG, Ashwood ER. Performance characteristics of a polyclonal enzyme immunoassay for the quantitation of Histoplasma antigen in human urine samples. Am J Clin Pathol. 2007;128(1):18–22. Epub 2007 Jan 07. 10.1309/Q7879TYDW5D93QK7 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Cáceres DH, Samayoa BE, Medina NG, Tobón AM, Guzmán BJ, Mercado D, et al. Multicenter validation of commercial antigenuria reagents to diagnose progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in people living with HIV/AIDS in two Latin American countries. J Clin Microbiol. 2018;56(6): e01959–17. Epub 2018 May 25. 10.1128/JCM.01959-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Cáceres DH, Gómez BL, Tobón AM, Chiller TM, Lindsley MD. Evaluation of a Histoplasma antigen lateral flow assay for the rapid diagnosis of progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in Colombian patients with AIDS. Mycoses. 2020;63(2):139–144. Epub 2019. November 27. 10.1111/myc.13023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Muñoz C, Gómez BL, Tobón A, Arango K, Restrepo A, Correa MM, et al. Validation and clinical application of a molecular method for identification of Histoplasma capsulatum in human specimens in Colombia, South America. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2010;17(1):62–7. Epub 2009 Nov 25. 10.1128/CVI.00332-09 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Frías-de-León MG, Arenas-López G, Taylor ML, Acosta-Altamirano G, Reyes-Montes M del R. Development of specific sequence-characterized amplified region markers for detecting Histoplasma capsulatum in clinical and environmental samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2012;50(3):673–9. Epub 2011 Dec 21. 10.1128/JCM.05271-11 . [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Buitrago MJ, Canteros CE, Frías-De-León G, González Á, Marques-Evangelista De Oliveira M, Muñoz CO, et al. Comparison of PCR protocols for detecting Histoplasma capsulatum DNA through a multicenter study. Rev Iberoam Micol. 2013;30(4):256–60. Epub 2013 Apr 11. 10.1016/j.riam.2013.03.004 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Donelly JP, Chen SC, Kauffman CA, Steinbach WJ, Baddley JW, Verweij PE. et al. Revision and update of the consensus definitions of invasive fungal disease from the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer and the Mycoses Study Group Education and Research Consortium. Clin Infect Dis. 2019. ciz1008. Epub ahead of print. 10.1093/cid/ciz1008 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Torres-González P, Niembro-Ortega MD, Martínez-Gamboa A, Ahumada-Topete VH, Andrade-Villanueva J, Araujo-Meléndez J, et al. Diagnosis accuracy cohort study and clinical value of the Histoplasma urine antigen (ALPHA Histoplasma EIA) for disseminated histoplasmosis among HIV infected patients: A multicenter study. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2018;12: e0006872. Epub 2018 Nov 05. 10.1371/journal.pntd.0006872 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Bialek R, Feucht A, Aepinus C, Just-Nübling G, Robertson VJ, Knobloch J, et al. Evaluation of two nested PCR assays for detection of Histoplasma capsulatum DNA in human tissue. J. Clin. Microbiol. 2002;40(5):1644–7. Epub 2002 May. 10.1128/jcm.40.5.1644-1647.2002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Taylor M.L, Ruíz-Palacios G.M, Reyes-Montes M.R, Rodríguez-Arellanes G, Carreto-Binaghi L.E, Duarte-Escalante E, et al. Identification of the infection source of an unusual outbreak of histoplasmosis, in a hotel in Acapulco, state of Guerrero, Mexico. FEMS Immunol. Med. Microbiol. 2005;45(3):435–441. Epub 2005 Sep 01. 10.1016/j.femsim.2005.05.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Bialek R, Konrad F, Kern J, Aepinus C, Cecenas L, Gonzalez GM, et al. PCR based identification and discrimination of agents of mucormycosis and aspergillosis in paraffin wax embedded tissue. J Clin Pathol. 2005;58(11):1180–1184. Epub 2005 Nov. 10.1136/jcp.2004.024703 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Connolly PA, Durkin MM, Lemonte AM, Hackett EJ, Wheat LJ. Detection of Histoplasma antigen by a quantitative enzyme immnunoassay. Clin Vaccine Immunol. 2007;14(12):1587–91. Epub 2007 Oct 03. 10.1128/CVI.00071-07 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Second WHO Model list of essential in vitro diagnostics, WHO/MVP/EMP/2019.05. March 31, 2020. Avaliable from: https://www.who.int/medical_devices/publications/Standalone_document_v8.pdf
  • 27.Pan American Health Organization and World Health Organization. Diagnosing and managing disseminated histoplasmosis among people living with HIV. Https://Iris.Paho.Org/Handle/10665.2/52304. 2020. acessado em 21/06/2020. [PubMed]
  • 28.Cáceres DH, Adenis A, de Souza JVB, Gómez B, Cruz K, Pasqualotto A, et al. The Manaus Declaration: Current situation of histoplasmosis in the Americas, Report of the II Regional Meeting of the International Histoplasmosis Advocacy Group. Curr Fungal Infect Rep.2019. Epub Nov 2019. 10.1007/s12281-019-00365-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Ferry T, Ponceau B, Gaultier JB, Piens MA, Biron F, Picot S, et al. Disseminated cryptococcosis and histoplasmosis co-infection in a HIV-infected woman in France. J Infect. 2005;51(3):e173–6. 10.1016/j.jinf.2004.12.017 . [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Asif S, Bennett J, Pauly RR. A unique case of Cryptococcus and Histoplasmosis co-infection in an HIV-negative male on chronic steroid therapy. Cureus. 2019;11(5):e4654. 10.7759/cureus.4654 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Aronis ML, Pires-dos-Santos R, Zubaran-Goldani L. Disseminated Histoplasma capsulatum and Cryptococcus neoformans co-infection in patients with AIDS. Mycopathologia. 2011;172(3):233–6. Epub 2011 Apr 7. 10.1007/s11046-011-9422-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Brilhante RS, Fechine MA, Cordeiro RDA, Rocha MF, Ribeiro JF, Monteiro AJ, et al. In vitro effect of sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim against Histoplasma capsulatum var. capsulatum. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 54(9):3978–9. Epub 2010. June 21. 10.1128/AAC.00793-10 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Maubon D, Simon S, Aznar C. Histoplasmosis diagnosis using a polymerase chain reaction method. Application on human samples in French Guiana, South America. Diagn Microbiol Infect Dis. 2007;58(4):441–4. Epub 2007 May 16. 10.1016/j.diagmicrobio.2007.03.008 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Al Toranzo, Tiraboschi IN, Fernández N, Ibarra-Camou B, Rivas MC, Lee W, et al. Molecular diagnosis of human histoplasmosis in whole blood samples. Rev Argent Microbiol. 2009;41(1): 20–6. Epub 2009 Oct. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dantas KC, Freitas RS, da Silva MV, Criado PR, Luiz ODC, Vicentini AP. Comparison of diagnostic methods to detect Histoplasma capsulatum in serum and blood samples from AIDS patients. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0190408. eCollection 2018. Epub: 2018 Jun 17. 10.1371/journal.pone.0190408 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Scheel CM, Zhou Y, Theodoro RC, Abrams B, Balajee SA, Litvintseva AP. Development of a loop-mediated isothermal amplification method for detection of Histoplasma capsulatum DNA in clinical samples. J Clin Microbiol. 2014; 52(2):483–8. Epub 2013 Nov 27. 10.1128/JCM.02739-13 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Frías-De-León MG, Ramírez-Bárcenas JA, Rodríguez-Arellanes G, Velasco-Castrejón O, Taylor ML, Reyes-Montes MDR. Usefulness of molecular markers in the diagnosis of occupational and recreational histoplasmosis outbreaks. Folia Microbiol (Praha). 2017;62(2):111–116. Epub 2016 Oct 10. 10.1007/s12223-016-0477-4 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009215.r001

Decision Letter 0

Todd B Reynolds, Angel Gonzalez

13 Nov 2020

Dear Dr. Sifuentes-Osornio,

Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Diagnostic accuracy of antigen detection in urine and molecular assays testing in different clinical samples for the diagnosis of progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in patients living with HIV/AIDS: A prospective multicenter study in Mexico." for consideration at PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. As with all papers reviewed by the journal, your manuscript was reviewed by members of the editorial board and by several independent reviewers. In light of the reviews (below this email), we would like to invite the resubmission of a significantly-revised version that takes into account the reviewers' comments.

We cannot make any decision about publication until we have seen the revised manuscript and your response to the reviewers' comments. Your revised manuscript is also likely to be sent to reviewers for further evaluation.

When you are ready to resubmit, please upload the following:

[1] A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript. 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.

[2] Two versions of the revised manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed; the other a clean version (uploaded as the manuscript file).

Important additional instructions are given below your reviewer comments.

Please prepare and submit your revised manuscript within 60 days. If you anticipate any delay, please let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email. Please note that revised manuscripts received after the 60-day due date may require evaluation and peer review similar to newly submitted manuscripts.

Thank you again for your submission. We hope that our editorial process has been constructive so far, and we welcome your feedback at any time. Please don't hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Angel Gonzalez, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Todd Reynolds

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Key Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?

As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:

Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?

Reviewer #1: Methods

-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated? Yes

-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives? Yes

-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested? Yes

-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested? Yes

-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions? Yes

-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met? Yes

Comments about methods

1. Methods: please in “clinical definitions” add the EORCT/MSGREC reference.

2. Methods: please in “antigen detection procedures in urine samples” add more details of kits used (please see first major comment).

3. Methods: please check in “Histoplasma antigen detection in urine, using the IMMY ASR GM EIA” please check line 203 “The optical densities (OD) were read at 450 nm”. Product package insert said on reading the test: “A dual wavelength reader is required, with absorbances read at 450 nm and 620/630 nm. Blank on the 1X Wash Buffer ( ). This assay has not been validated with a single wavelength reader”. Additional, please correct in line 202; “0·4” by “0.4”.

Reviewer #2: Authors provided us with an important study on the comparaison of several diagnostic tools using similar samples collected prospectively and consecutively.

Objectives, case-definition and populations are clearly explained.

The methods section informed us on the samples origin, management and detailed procedures on how they perform analyses.

Statistics are correct and adapted to the design. Still no information regarding the statistical power was given. But this can be approach using the confidence interval mentionned when necessary accross the manuscript.

Ethics met probably the mexican regulations but not sure since the study was not registered at the national level.

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

Results

-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?

-Are the results clearly and completely presented?

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity?

Reviewer #1: -Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan? Yes

-Are the results clearly and completely presented? Yes

-Are the figures (Tables, Images) of sufficient quality for clarity? No, please improve resolution

Comments about results

1. Results: this a great multicenter study, that add valuable information about histoplasmosis in Mexico (10 study places from seven Mexico states). I would like to suggest, add a map describing patient tested by region, and positivity by region. Please check figure 3 of this study published by Falci et al in Brazil (https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz073).

2. Results: authors did a great description of the 280 patients without histoplasmosis, in especial the description of co-infections. Is it same information available for the histoplasmosis cases? It is available, please added it. I am very curious in special for mycobacterial co-infections.

3. Results: Please, in table 3 add value of assay accuracy (this value is important to know correct proportion of classification).

4. Results: Line 411 and 424, please clarified that this false negative and positive results are from the antigen results.

5. Results: “false positive” On these 26 patients is available data of serology (immunodiffusion or complement Fixation)? What happened with data from molecular testing on these 26 patients? I think data from Hcp 100 nested PCR would be useful (not too sensitive, but specific).

6. Please improve figures resolution, I was not able to see information presented there (figures pending to review).

Reviewer #2: Flow charts are comprehensive and in compliance with the written results section.

Results matched the plan analyses.

Results are clearly and completely presented with results in appendix to help let the reader consult the overall detailed results.

There are several tables and figures. If all of them are useful it may be helpful to merge tables as recommended below.

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

Conclusions

-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?

-Is public health relevance addressed?

Reviewer #1: -Are the conclusions supported by the data presented? Yes

-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described? Yes

-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study? Yes

-Is public health relevance addressed? Yes

Comments about

1. Discussion: Analytical performance of molecular test was not the best, but I consider these negative results add valuable information. Reading the discussion, I got the felling this data was ignored at the end of the manuscript. Please include some points like the detection of DNA in six of the seven false negatives of the antigen test. And also discuss the specificity issue with the 1281-1283220 SCAR nested PCR (compared with original validations results, Frias et at 2011).

Reviewer #2: Conclusions and limitations are well expressed with considerations to the lack of informations regarding the main fungal infections that have described to date due to due to the study design.

Authors expressed on how there resuls are important in the field with considerations to he public health impact of different patients' management strategies.

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

Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?

Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.

Reviewer #1: Diagnostic accuracy of antigen detection in urine and molecular assays testing in different clinical samples for the diagnosis of progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in patients living with HIV/AIDS: A prospective multicenter study in Mexico.

This is a well prepared manuscript. Data presented in this manuscript is valuable and will add important information for the improvement of histoplasmosis diagnosis and care.

I would like to highlight the good design of this study, and the way data was presented. This study evaluated a large number of patients, and lot of laboratory and clinical data. Information presented is clear and easy to follow and understand (congratulation to authors).

I think data presented here about molecular testing is also valuable.

Some aspect needs to be improved, in order to do this manuscript much better.

Minor:

1. Please check the use of italics in microorganism names, in special “Histoplasma”.

2. Did you have any indeterminate results using the MiraVista LFA?

3. Do you have data of the Histoplasma EIA concentration? Can you present the median and rank of the concentration?

4. On Tables 1 and 2: it is possible to add data about co-infections and add CD4<100? Please also correct and extra comma after some of the values (age, HIV diagnosis, CD4, HIV VL…). Addtionally, in signs and symptoms, and X rays, I would like to suggest listed these from more frequent to less frequent.

5. Table 1: correct proportion of diarrhea (correct is 94.9%, or you can use 95.0%)

Major:

1. Please mention antigen test commercial names and products references. Please check products web-site.

a. Clarus HISTOPLASMA GM ENZYME IMMUNOASSAY (https://www.immy.com/hgm)

b. MiraVista Histoplasma urine antigen LFA (https://www.immy.com/hgm)

2. The IMMY ALPHA Histoplasma EIA is a product discontinued, this product was replaced by the Clarus HISTOPLASMA GM ENZYME IMMUNOASSAY (the IMMY ASR GM EIA your evaluated here). Do you think it is necessary to present this data? In special based in the fact that this data was previous published? (PLOS NTD Nov 5, 2018). I would like to suggest removed it, this could be help on shorter the final paper, and also help on avoid confusion on people not experts on histoplasmosis diagnosis.

3. Introduction: Please add more details in the introduction about the problem of the histoplasmosis and tuberculosis co-infection. Here some recommended references:

a. Adenis et al. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014 Feb;90(2):216-23.

b. Nacher et al. PLoS Negl Trop Dis. 2014 Dec 4;8(12):e3290.

c. Adenis et al. Lancet Infect Dis. 2018 Oct;18(10):1150-1159.

d. Caceres and Valdes. J Fungi (Basel). 2019 Aug 9;5(3):73.

4. Introduction: Please also mention in the introduction that the IMMY ASR GM EIA and the MiraVista lateral flow assay were previous validated, here the references:

a. Caceres et al. Mycoses. 2020 Feb;63(2):139-144.

b. Caceres et al. J Clin Microbiol. 2018 May 25;56(6):e01959-17.

5. Methods: please in “clinical definitions” add the EORCT/MSGREC reference.

6. Methods: please in “antigen detection procedures in urine samples” add more details of kits used (please see first major comment).

7. Methods: please check in “Histoplasma antigen detection in urine, using the IMMY ASR GM EIA” please check line 203 “The optical densities (OD) were read at 450 nm”. Product package insert said on reading the test: “A dual wavelength reader is required, with absorbances read at 450 nm and 620/630 nm. Blank on the 1X Wash Buffer ( ). This assay has not been validated with a single wavelength reader”. Additional, please correct in line 202; “0·4” by “0.4”.

8. Results: this a great multicenter study, that add valuable information about histoplasmosis in Mexico (10 study places from seven Mexico states). I would like to suggest, add a map describing patient tested by region, and positivity by region. Please check figure 3 of this study published by Falci et al in Brazil (https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofz073).

9. Results: authors did a great description of the 280 patients without histoplasmosis, in especial the description of co-infections. Is it same information available for the histoplasmosis cases? It is available, please added it. I am very curious in special for mycobacterial co-infections.

10. Results: Please, in table 3 add value of assay accuracy (this value is important to know correct proportion of classification).

11. Results: Line 411 and 424, please clarified that this false negative and positive results are from the antigen results.

12. Results: “false positive” On these 26 patients is available data of serology (immunodiffusion or complement Fixation)? What happened with data from molecular testing on these 26 patients? I think data from Hcp 100 nested PCR would be useful (not too sensitive, but specific).

13. Please improve figures resolution, I was not able to see information presented there (figures pending to review).

14. Discussion: Analytical performance of molecular test was not the best, but I consider these negative results add valuable information. Reading the discussion, I got the felling this data was ignored at the end of the manuscript. Please include some points like the detection of DNA in six of the seven false negatives of the antigen test. And also discuss the specificity issue with the 1281-1283220 SCAR nested PCR (compared with original validations results, Frias et at 2011).

As final comments, I hope the author with data of this study will prepare a second manuscript comparing patients with and without histoplasmosis.

Reviewer #2: Minor revision.

METHODS

Ag detection procedures, sample preparation of molecular assays and molecular assay procedures could be pushed to an appendix to commit to the objective of reducing the word number

Regarding Ag detection procedures, information regarding the number of wells per patients is missing and also what was the threshold considered regaring CV in order to decide if a new test is necessary or not.

Are there samples that were run several times for any reasons or not? This could give informations regarding quality control procedures performed or not on the different run.

RESULTS

Authors should merge Table 1 and 2 to save the number of tables and give a comprehensive overview of baseline data for the total population, the proven Progressive Disseminated Histoplasmosis (PDH) cases and add both the characteristics of probable PDH and patients without proven PDH.

First column with the 415 patients, 2nd clumn with the 108 confirmed, 27 probable and 280 without PDH, raw data column results should express n/N and percentage in ().

This table will enable harmonization of the raw data because informations was missed in between the two tables.

Please correct typos in the tables, notably kommas duplicate or missing informations after kommas.

If available in population characteristics, time from ART initiation would be of high relevance since about 1/2 patients included and similar for PDH proven are not ART naive, informing on the context of potential infectious IRIS when discovering/diagnosing the disease. The context of IRIS may be relevant when discussing the false positive and negative patients.

As the information is probably available, case-fatality rate should be expressed in the four populations listed above.

It is not clearly explain why the total number and the number of PDH-proven urine samples for antigen detection varies from one test to another.

Please clarify. It may help explain variation in agreement in between antigen detection tests.

Another proposal, which may have a low impact on statistical power would be to only consider those samples that were available for all antigen detection methods.

DISCUSSION

An important reference is lacking. Authors should have mentionned the recently release WHO Guidelines on diagnosing and treating histoplasmosis in people living with HIV.

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

Summary and General Comments

Use this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.

Reviewer #1: This is a well prepared manuscript. Data presented in this manuscript is valuable and will add important information for the improvement of histoplasmosis diagnosis and care.

I would like to highlight the good design of this study, and the way data was presented. This study evaluated a large number of patients, and lot of laboratory and clinical data. Information presented is clear and easy to follow and understand (congratulation to authors).

I think data presented here about molecular testing is also valuable.

Some aspect needs to be improved, in order to do this manuscript much better.

Reviewer #2: Manuscript is well written with the required details regarding the study design and results.

This study provided up to date informations on antigen detection and PCR.

Results on antigen detection are of high importance since WHO recently recommend using this method in diagnosing PDH in people living with HIV.

When considering the required relevance of the discussion and simplification of the manuscript in general, it might have been better to submit experiments on antigen detection and PCR in two separate manuscripts.

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

PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Diego H. Caceres

Reviewer #2: No

Figure Files:

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (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 figures@plos.org.

Data Requirements:

Please note that, as a condition of publication, PLOS' data policy requires that you make available all data used to draw the conclusions outlined in your manuscript. Data must be deposited in an appropriate repository, included within the body of the manuscript, or uploaded as supporting information. This includes all numerical values that were used to generate graphs, histograms etc.. For an example see here: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pbio.1001908#s5.

Reproducibility:

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, PLOS recommends that you deposit 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 https://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/submission-guidelines#loc-methods

Attachment

Submitted filename: Review.pdf

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009215.r003

Decision Letter 1

Todd B Reynolds, Angel Gonzalez

6 Feb 2021

Dear Dr. Sifuentes-Osornio,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Diagnostic accuracy of antigen detection in urine and molecular assays testing in different clinical samples for the diagnosis of progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in patients living with HIV/AIDS: A prospective multicenter study in Mexico.' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow up email. A member of our team will be in touch with a set of requests.

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

Should you, your institution's press office or the journal office choose to press release your paper, you will automatically be opted out of early publication. We ask that you notify us now if you or your institution is planning to press release the article. All press must be co-ordinated with PLOS.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Angel Gonzalez, Ph.D.

Associate Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Todd Reynolds

Deputy Editor

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

***********************************************************

PLoS Negl Trop Dis. doi: 10.1371/journal.pntd.0009215.r004

Acceptance letter

Todd B Reynolds, Angel Gonzalez

23 Feb 2021

Dear Prof. Sifuentes-Osornio,

We are delighted to inform you that your manuscript, "Diagnostic accuracy of antigen detection in urine and molecular assays testing in different clinical samples for the diagnosis of progressive disseminated histoplasmosis in patients living with HIV/AIDS: A prospective multicenter study in Mexico.," has been formally accepted for publication in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

We have now passed your article onto the PLOS Production Department who will complete the rest of the publication process. All authors will receive a confirmation email upon publication.

The corresponding author will soon be receiving a typeset proof for review, to ensure errors have not been introduced during production. Please review the PDF proof of your manuscript carefully, as this is the last chance to correct any scientific or type-setting errors. Please note that major changes, or those which affect the scientific understanding of the work, will likely cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript. Note: Proofs for Front Matter articles (Editorial, Viewpoint, Symposium, Review, etc...) are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.

Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.

Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases.

Best regards,

Shaden Kamhawi

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Paul Brindley

co-Editor-in-Chief

PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 STARD Checklist. Standards for Reporting Diagnostic accuracy studies.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Review.pdf

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Answer_to_Reviewers.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All database is available in figshare repository: https://figshare.com/s/26d91c9f2b37dc922a38.


    Articles from PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES