Search

Background Tuberculosis (TB) preventive therapy (TPT) reduces the risk of TB disease in people with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), yet uptake has been suboptimal in many countries. We assessed whether QuantiFERON Gold In-Tube (QGIT) during routine HIV care increased TB infection (TBI) testing and TPT prescriptions. Methods This parallel-arm, 1:1 cluster-randomized controlled trial compared the standard-of-care tuberculin skin test to QGIT in South Africa. We enrolled consenting, TPT-eligible adults diagnosed with HIV ≤30 days prior and used intention-to-treat analyses for the outcomes: proportion of patients with documented TBI results, proportion with documented TPT, and time from enrollment to outcomes. Findings We enrolled 2232 patients across 14 clinics from November 2014 to May 2017 (58% in intervention clinics). At 24 months of follow-up, more participants in intervention clinics had TBI results (69% vs 2%, P <.001) and TPT prescriptions (45% vs 30%, P =.13) than control clinics. Controlling for baseline covariates, intervention clinics had 60% (95% confidence interval, 51–68; P <.001) more participants with TBI results and 12% (95% confidence interval, −6 to 31; P =.18) more with TPT prescriptions. Among participants with results, those in intervention clinics received results and TPT faster (intervention: median of 6 and 29 days after enrollment vs control: 21 and 54 days, respectively). Interpretation In this setting, QGIT in routine HIV care resulted in more patients with TBI results. Clinicians also initiated more people with HIV on TPT in QGIT intervention clinics, and did so more quickly, than the control arm. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02119130. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Missing or undiagnosed patients with tuberculosis (TB) or coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are of concern. Identifying both infections in patients with no diagnosis prior to death contributes to understanding the burden of disease. To confirm reports of global reduction in TB incidence, a 2012 autopsy study of adults dying at home of natural causes in a high-TB-burden setting was repeated, including severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) assessments after the first COVID-19 surge in South Africa. Methods Adult decedents who died at home with insufficient information to determine cause of death, no recent hospitalization, and no current antemortem TB or COVID-19 diagnosis were identified between March 2019 and October 2020 with a 4-month halt during lockdown. A standardized verbal autopsy followed by minimally invasive needle autopsy (MIA) was performed. Biopsies were taken for histopathology from liver, bilateral brain and lung; bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was collected for Xpert (MTB/RIF) and mycobacterial culture, and blood for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. After the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, a nasopharyngeal swab and lung tissue were subjected to SARS-CoV-2 PCR testing. Results Sixty-six MIAs were completed in 25 men and 41 women (median age, 60 years); 68.2% had antemortem respiratory symptoms and 30.3% were people with HIV. Overall, TB was diagnosed in 11 of 66 (16.7%) decedents, and 14 of 41 (34.1%) in the COVID-19 pandemic were SARS-CoV-2 positive. Conclusions Undiagnosed TB in adults dying at home has decreased but remains unacceptably high. Forty percent of decedents had undiagnosed COVID-19, suggesting that estimates of excess deaths may underestimate the impact of SARS-CoV-2 on mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Household contact investigation for people newly diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB) is poorly implemented, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Conditional cash incentives may improve uptake. Methods We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, crossover trial of 2 TB contact investigation approaches (household-based and incentive-based) in 28 public primary care clinics in South Africa. Each clinic used 1 approach for 18 months, followed by a 6-month washout period, after which the opposite approach was used. Fourteen clinics were randomized to each approach. In the household-based arm, we conducted TB screening and testing of contacts at the household. In the incentive-based arm, both index patients and ≤10 of their close contacts (either within or outside the household) were given small cash incentives for presenting to study clinics for TB screening. The primary outcome was the number of people with incident TB who were diagnosed and started on treatment at study clinics. Results From July 2016 to January 2020, we randomized 28 clinics to each study arm, and enrolled 782 index TB patients and 1882 contacts in the household-based arm and 780 index patients and 1940 contacts in the incentive-based arm. A total of 1413 individuals started on TB treatment in the household-based arm and 1510 in the incentive-based arm. The adjusted incidence rate ratio of TB treatment initiation in the incentive- versus household-based arms was 1.05 (95% confidence interval:.97–1.13). Conclusions Incentive-based contact investigation for TB has similar effectiveness to traditional household-based approaches and may be a viable alternative or complementary approach to household-based investigation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In South Africa, 19% of adults are living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV; LWH). Few data on the influence of HIV on severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) household transmission are available. Methods We performed a case-ascertained, prospective household transmission study of symptomatic adult index SARS-CoV-2 cases LWH and not living with HIV (NLWH) and their contacts from October 2020 to September 2021. Households were followed up 3 times a week for 6 weeks to collect nasal swabs for SARS-CoV-2 testing. We estimated household cumulative infection risk (HCIR) and duration of SARS-CoV-2 positivity (at a cycle threshold value <30 as proxy for high viral load). Results HCIR was 59% (220 of 373), not differing by index HIV status (60% LWH vs 58% NLWH). HCIR increased with index case age (35–59 years: adjusted OR [aOR], 3.4; 95% CI, 1.5–7.8 and ≥60 years: aOR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0–10.1) compared with 18–34 years and with contacts' age, 13–17 years (aOR, 7.1; 95% CI, 1.5–33.9) and 18–34 years (aOR, 4.4; 95% CI, 1.0–18.4) compared with <5 years. Mean positivity was longer in cases LWH (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.4; 95% CI,.1–.9). Conclusions Index HIV status was not associated with higher HCIR, but cases LWH had longer positivity duration. Adults aged >35 years were more likely to transmit and individuals aged 13–34 to be infected SARS-CoV-2 in the household. As HIV infection may increase transmission, health services must maintain HIV testing and antiretroviral therapy initiation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Longitudinal pneumococcus colonization data in high human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) prevalence settings following pneumococcal conjugate vaccine introduction are limited. Methods In 327 randomly selected households, 1684 individuals were enrolled and followed-up for 6 to 10 months during 2016 through 2018 from 2 communities. Nasopharyngeal swabs were collected twice weekly and tested for pneumococcus using quantitative lytA real-time polymerase chain reaction. A Markov model was fitted to the data to define the start and end of an episode of colonization. We assessed factors associated with colonization using logistic regression. Results During the study period, 98% (1655/1684) of participants were colonized with pneumococcus at least once. Younger age (<5 years: adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 14.1; 95% confidence [CI], 1.8–111.3, and 5–24 years: aOR, 4.8, 95% CI, 1.9–11.9, compared with 25–44 years) and HIV infection (aOR, 10.1; 95% CI, 1.3–77.1) were associated with increased odds of colonization. Children aged <5 years had fewer colonization episodes (median, 9) than individuals ≥5 years (median, 18; P <.001) but had a longer episode duration (<5 years: 35.5 days; interquartile range, 17–88) vs. ≥5 years: 5.5 days (4–12). High pneumococcal loads were associated with age (<1 year: aOR 25.4; 95% CI, 7.4–87.6; 1–4 years: aOR 13.5, 95% CI 8.3–22.9; 5–14 years: aOR 3.1, 95% CI, 2.1–4.4 vs. 45–65 year old patients) and HIV infection (aOR 1.7; 95% CI 1.2–2.4). Conclusions We observed high levels of pneumococcus colonization across all age groups. Children and people with HIV were more likely to be colonized and had higher pneumococcal loads. Carriage duration decreased with age highlighting that children remain important in pneumococcal transmission. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Household contact tracing for tuberculosis (TB) may facilitate diagnosis and access to TB preventive treatment (TPT). We investigated whether household contact tracing and intensive TB/human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening would improve TB-free survival. Methods Household contacts of index TB patients in 2 South African provinces were randomized to home tracing and intensive HIV/TB screening or standard of care (SOC; clinic referral letters). The primary outcome was incident TB or death at 15 months. Secondary outcomes included tuberculin skin test (TST) positivity in children ≤14 years and undiagnosed HIV. Results From December 2016 through March 2019, 1032 index patients (4459 contacts) and 1030 (4129 contacts) were randomized to the intervention and SOC arms. Of intervention arm contacts, 3.2% (69 of 2166) had prevalent microbiologically confirmed TB. At 15 months, the cumulative incidence of TB or death did not differ between the intensive screening (93 of 3230, 2.9%) and SOC (80 of 2600, 3.1%) arms (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI],.66–1.24). TST positivity was higher in the intensive screening arm (38 of 845, 4.5%) compared with the SOC arm (15 of 800, 1.9%; odds ratio, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.07–4.72). Undiagnosed HIV was similar between arms (41 of 3185, 1.3% vs 32 of 2543, 1.3%; odds ratio, 1.02; 95% CI,.64–1.64). Conclusions Household contact tracing with intensive screening and referral did not reduce incident TB or death. Providing referral letters to household contacts of index patients is an alternative strategy to home visits. Clinical Trials Registration ISRCTN16006202. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Providing incentives to screen close contacts for tuberculosis (TB) is an alternative to household-based contact investigation. We aimed to characterize patients and contexts where this incentive-based strategy might be preferred. Methods This is a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial of TB contact investigation in Limpopo District, South Africa, conducted between 2016 and 2020. Twenty-eight clinics were randomly allocated to household-based vs incentive-based contact investigation. In the incentive-based arm, index participants and contacts received transport reimbursement and incentives for TB screening and microbiological diagnosis of contacts. We estimated differences in mean number of contacts per index participant with household-based vs incentive-based contact investigation overall and within subgroups of index participants. Results A total of 3776 contacts (1903 in the incentive-based and 1873 in the household-based arm) were referred by 2501 index participants. A higher proportion of contacts in the incentive-based than household-based arm were adults (72% vs 59%), reported chronic TB symptoms (25% vs 16%) or ever smoking (23% vs 11%). Index participants who walked or bicycled to a clinic referred 1.03 more contacts per index (95% confidence interval [CI],.48 to 1.57) through incentive-based than household-based investigation. Index participants living with >5 household members referred 0.48 more contacts per index (95% CI,.03 to.94) through household-based than incentive-based investigation. Conclusions Relative to household-based investigation, incentive-based investigation identifies contacts likely at higher risk for active TB. Incentive-based investigation may be more appropriate for index participants who can easily access clinics, versus household-based investigation for patients with large households. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02808507. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]