Abstract Background: Tuberculosis (TB), a major cause of death in people living with HIV (PLHIV), remains challenging to diagnose. Diagnostic accuracy data are lacking for promising triage tests, such as C-reactive protein (CRP), and confirmatory tests, such as sputum and urine Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra), and urine LAM, without prior symptom selection. Methods: 897 PLHIV initiating antiretroviral therapy were consecutively recruited in settings with high TB incidence, irrespective of symptoms. Participants were offered sputum induction, with a liquid culture reference standard. First, we evaluated point-of-care CRP testing on blood, compared to the World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended four-symptom screen (W4SS) for triage (n=800). Second, we evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Ultra) versus Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) for sputum-based confirmatory testing (n=787), with or without sputum induction. Third, we evaluated Ultra and Determine LF-LAM for urine-based confirmatory testing (n=732). Findings: CRP and number of W4SS symptoms had areas under the receiver operator characteristic curve of 0.78 (95% confidence interval 0.73, 0.83) and 0.70 (0.64, 0.75), respectively. For triage, CRP (≥10 mg/l) has similar sensitivity to W4SS [77% (68, 85) vs. 77% (68, 85); p>0.999] but higher specificity [64% (61, 68) vs. 48% (45, 52); p<0.001]; reducing unnecessary confirmatory testing by 138 per 1000 people and the number-needed-to-test from 6.91 (6.25, 7.81) to 4.87 (4.41, 5.51). Of sputum samples of which 31% (24, 39) required induction, Ultra had higher sensitivity than Xpert [71% (61, 80) vs. 56% (46, 66); p<0.001] but lower specificity [98% (96, 100) vs. 99% (98, 100); p<0.001]. The proportion of people with ≥1 positive confirmatory result detected by Ultra increased from 45% (26, 64) to 66% (46, 82) when induction was done. Programmatically-done haemoglobin, triage test combinations, and urine tests showed comparatively worse performance. Interpretation: Among ART-initiators in a high burden setting, CRP is a more specific triage test than W4SS. Sputum induction improves yield and sputum Ultra is a more accurate confirmatory test than Xpert. Funding: SAMRC (MRC-RFA-IFSP-01-2013), EDCTP2 (SF1401, OPTIMAL DIAGNOSIS), NIH/NIAD (U01AI152087).

The authors have declared no competing interest.

NCT03187964

The study was funded by: SAMRC (MRC-RFA-IFSP-01-2013), EDCTP2 (SF1401, OPTIMAL DIAGNOSIS), NIH/NIAD (U01AI152087). GT acknowledges funding from South African Medical Research Council (SAMRC Flagship Project MRC-RFA-IFSP-01-2013), the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP), and the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University. BWPR and HM acknowledge funding from the Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University. GN acknowledges funding from the SAMRC. The work reported herein was made possible through funding by the South African Medical Research Council through its Division of Research Capacity Development under the SAMRC Internship Scholarship Programme. The content hereof is the sole responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the SAMRC. GT had full access to all study data and final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Ethics committee/IRB of Stellenbosch University Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (N14/10/136) gave ethical approval for this work

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors