Search

Objective: To determine the yield of screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) among people with HIV (PWH) in low tuberculosis (TB) incidence countries (<10 TB cases per 100 000 persons)., Design: A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed to assess prevalence and predictive factors of LTBI, rate of TB progression, effect of TB preventive treatment (TPT), and numbers needed to screen (NNS)., Methods: PubMed and Cochrane Library were searched for studies reporting primary data, excluding studies on active or paediatric TB. We extracted LTBI cases, odds ratios, and TB incidences; pooled estimates using a random-effects model; and used the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for bias., Results: In 51 studies with 65 930 PWH, 12% [95% confidence interval (CI) 10-14] had a positive LTBI test, which was strongly associated with origin from a TB-endemic country [odds ratio (OR) 4.7] and exposure to TB (OR 2.9). Without TPT (10 629 PWH), TB incidence was 28/1000 person-years (PY; 95% CI 12-45) for LTBI-test positive versus 4/1000 PY (95% CI 0-7) for LTBI-test-negative individuals. Among 625 PWH (1644 PY) receiving TPT, 15 developed TB (6/1000 PY). An estimated 20 LTBI-positive individuals would need TPT to prevent one case of TB, and numbers NNS to detect LTBI or prevent active TB varied according to a-priori risk of LTBI., Conclusion: The relatively high prevalence of LTBI among PWH and the strong correlation with origin from a TB-endemic country support risk-stratified LTBI screening strategies for PWH in low-incidence countries and treating those who test positive., (Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Background: Screening and treatment for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) are key for TB control. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the British HIV Association (BHIVA) give conflicting guidance on which groups of people with HIV (PWH) should be screened, and previous national analysis demonstrated heterogeneity in how guidance is applied. There is an urgent need for a firmer clinical effectiveness evidence base on which to build screening policy., Methods: We conducted a systematic, programmatic LTBI-screening intervention for all PWH receiving care in Leicester, UK. We compared yields (percentage IGRA positive) and number of tests required when applying the NICE and BHIVA testing strategies, as well as strategies targeting screening by TB incidence in patients' countries of birth., Results: Of 1053 PWH tested, 118 were IGRA-positive (11.2%). Positivity was associated with higher TB incidence in country-of-birth [adjusted odds ratio, 50-149 cases compared with <50 cases/100 000: 11.6; 95% confidence interval (CI) 4.79-28.10)]. There was high testing uptake (1053/1069, 98.5%). Appropriate chemoprophylaxis was commenced in 100 of 117 (85.5%) patients diagnosed with LTBI, of whom 96 of 100 (96.0%) completed treatment. Delivering targeted testing to PWH from countries with TB incidence greater than 150 per 100 000 population or any sub-Saharan African country, would have correctly identified 89.8% of all LTBI cases while cutting tests required by 46.1% compared with NICE guidance, performing as well as BHIVA 2018 guidance., Conclusion: Targeting screening to higher risk PWH increases yield and reduces the number requiring testing. Our proposed 'PWH-LTBI streamlined guidance' offers a simplified approach, with the potential to improve national LTBI-screening implementation., (Copyright © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.)

Introduction: People living with HIV (PLWH) are at high risk of active tuberculosis (TB) but this risk in the era of antiretroviral treatment (ART) remains unclear. It is critical to identify the groups who should be prioritised for latent TB (LTBI) screening. In this study we identified the risk factors associated with developing incident TB disease, by analysing a 30-year observational cohort., Methods: We evaluated PLWH in Leicester, UK, between 1983 and 2017 to ascertain those who developed active TB and the timing of this in relation to HIV diagnosis; whether before, concurrently with, or more than 3 months after the diagnosis of HIV (incident TB). Predictors of incident TB were ascertained using Cox proportional hazards models., Results: In all, 325 out of 2158 (15.1%) PLWH under care had had active TB; 64/325 (19.7%) prior to HIV diagnosis, 161/325 (49.5%) concurrently with/within 3 months of HIV diagnosis and 100/325 (30.8%) had incident TB. Incident TB risk was 4.57/1000 person-years. Increased TB incidence in the country of birth was associated with an increased risk of developing incident TB [50-149/100 000 population, adjusted hazard ratio (AHR) = 3.10, 95% CI: 0.94-10.20; 150-249/100 000 population, AHR = 7.14, 95% CI: 3.46-14.74; 250-349/100 000 population, AHR = 5.90, 95% CI: 2.32-14.99; ≥ 350/100 000 population, AHR = 3.96, 95% CI: 1.39-11.26]., Conclusions: Tuberculosis risk remains high among PLWH and is related to TB incidence in the country of birth. Further work is required to determine whether specific groups of PLWH should be targeted for programmatic LTBI screening, and whether it will result in high uptake and completion of chemoprophylaxis and is cost-effective for widespread implementation., (© 2021 British HIV Association.)

Competing Interests: MP reports grants from Sanofi; grants and personal fees from Gilead Sciences; and personal fees from QIAGEN, outside the submitted work. CG reports an investigator-initiated grant from Gilead Sciences and consultant fees from Abbvie, outside the submitted work. The views expressed in the publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National Health Service, the NIHR, or the Department of Health and Social Care.

BackgroundMigrants in low tuberculosis (TB) incidence countries in the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) are an at-risk group for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and are increasingly included in LTBI screening programmes.AimTo investigate current approaches and implement LTBI screening in recently arrived migrants in the EU/EEA and Switzerland.MethodsAt least one TB expert working at a national level from the EU/EEA and one TB expert from Switzerland completed an electronic questionnaire. We used descriptive analyses to calculate percentages, and framework analysis to synthesise free-text responses.ResultsExperts from 32 countries were invited to participate (30 countries responded): 15 experts reported an LTBI screening programme targeting migrants in their country; five reported plans to implement one in the near future; and 10 reported having no programme. LTBI screening was predominantly for asylum seekers (n = 12) and refugees (n = 11). Twelve countries use 'country of origin' as the main eligibility criteria. The countries took similar approaches to diagnosis and treatment but different approaches to follow-up. Six experts reported that drop-out rates in migrants were higher compared with non-migrant groups. Most of the experts (n = 22) called for a renewed focus on expanding efforts to screen for LTBI in migrants arriving in low-incidence countries.ConclusionWe found a range of approaches to LTBI screening of migrants in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. Findings suggest a renewed focus is needed to expand and strengthen efforts to meaningfully include migrants in these programmes, in order to meet regional and global elimination targets for TB.

Background: Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is one of the most prevalent infections globally and can lead to the development of active tuberculosis disease. In many low-burden countries, LTBI is concentrated within migrant populations often because of a higher disease burden in the migrant's country of origin. National programmes consequently focus on screening and treating LTBI in migrants to prevent future tuberculosis cases; however, how effective these programmes are is unclear. We aimed to assess LTBI treatment initiation and outcomes among migrants, and the factors that influence both., Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Global Health, and manually searched grey literature from Jan 1, 2000, to April 21, 2020. We included primary research articles reporting on LTBI treatment initiation or completion, or both, in migrants and excluded articles in which data were not stratified by migrant status, or in which the data were related to outcomes before 2000. There were no geographical or language restrictions. All included studies were quality appraised using recognised tools depending on their design, and we assessed the heterogeneity of analyses using I 2 . We extracted data on the numbers of migrants initiating and completing treatment. Our primary outcomes were LTBI treatment initiation and completion in migrants (defined as foreign-born). We used random-effects meta-regression to examine the influence of factors related to these outcomes. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140338)., Findings: 2199 publications were retrieved screened, after which 39 publications from 13 mostly high-income, low-burden countries were included in our analyses, with treatment initiation and completion data reported for 31 598 migrants positive for LTBI, with not all articles reporting the full pathway from initiation to completion. The pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants testing positive who initiated treatment was 69% (95% CI 51-84; I 2 = 99·62%; 4409 of 8764). The pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants on treatment in datasets, who subsequently completed it was 74% (95% CI = 66-81; I 2 = 99·19%; 15 516 of 25 629). Where data were provided for the entire treatment pathway, the pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants who initiated and completed treatment after a positive test was only 52% (95% CI 40-64; I 2 = 98·90%; 3289 of 6652). Meta-regression showed that LTBI programmes are improving, with more recent reported data (2010-20) associated with better rates of treatment initiation and completion, with multiple complex factors affecting treatment outcomes in migrants., Interpretation: Although our analysis highlights that LTBI treatment initiation and completion in migrants has improved considerably from 2010-20, there is still room for improvement, with drop out reported along the entire treatment pathway. The delivery of these screening and treatment programmes will require further strengthening if the targets to eradicate tuberculosis in low-incidence countries are to be met, with greater focus needed on engaging migrants more effectively in the clinic and understanding the diverse and unique barriers and facilitators to migrants initiating and completing treatment., Funding: European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the Rosetrees Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Academy of Medical Sciences., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests SH is a freelance Senior Editor for The Lancet Infectious Diseases and other Lancet journals. All other authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

BackgroundMigrants account for a large and growing proportion of tuberculosis (TB) cases in low-incidence countries in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) which are primarily due to reactivation of latent TB infection (LTBI). Addressing LTBI among migrants will be critical to achieve TB elimination. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to determine effectiveness (performance of diagnostic tests, efficacy of treatment, uptake and completion of screening and treatment) and a second systematic review on cost-effectiveness of LTBI screening programmes for migrants living in the EU/EEA. Results: We identified seven systematic reviews and 16 individual studies that addressed our aims. Tuberculin skin tests and interferon gamma release assays had high sensitivity (79%) but when positive, both tests poorly predicted the development of active TB (incidence rate ratio: 2.07 and 2.40, respectively). Different LTBI treatment regimens had low to moderate efficacy but were equivalent in preventing active TB. Rifampicin-based regimens may be preferred because of lower hepatotoxicity (risk ratio = 0.15) and higher completion rates (82% vs 69%) compared with isoniazid. Only 14.3% of migrants eligible for screening completed treatment because of losses along all steps of the LTBI care cascade. Limited economic analyses suggest that the most cost-effective approach may be targeting young migrants from high TB incidence countries. Discussion: The effectiveness of LTBI programmes is limited by the large pool of migrants with LTBI, poorly predictive tests, long treatments and a weak care cascade. Targeted LTBI programmes that ensure high screening uptake and treatment completion will have greatest individual and public health benefit.

Background: Treating latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is an important public health intervention. In the UK, LTBI treatment is delivered in secondary care. Treating LTBI in the community would move care closer to home and could increase uptake and treatment completion rates. However, healthcare providers' views about the feasibility of this in the UK are unknown. This is the first study to investigate perceived barriers and enablers to primary care-based LTBI treatment among UK general practitioners (GPs)., Methods: A national survey amongst 140 randomly sampled UK GPs practising in areas of high TB incidence was performed. GPs' experience and perceived confidence, barriers and enablers of primary care-based LTBI treatment were explored and multivariable logistic regression was used to determine whether these were associated with a GP's willingness to deliver LTBI treatment., Results: One hundred and twelve (80 %) GPs responded. Ninety-three (83 %; 95 % CI 75 %-89 %) GPs said they would be willing to deliver LTBI treatment in primary care, if key perceived barriers were addressed during service development. The major perceived barriers to delivering primary care-based LTBI treatment were insufficient experience among GPs of screening and treating LTBI, lack of timely specialist support and lack of allied healthcare staff. In addition, GPs felt that appropriate resourcing was key to the successful and sustainable delivery of the service. GPs who reported previous experience of screening or treatment of patients with active or latent TB were almost ten times more likely to be willing to deliver LTBI treatment in primary care compared to GPs with no experience (OR: 9.98; 95 % CI 1.22-81.51)., Conclusions: UK GPs support primary care-based LTBI treatment, provided they are given appropriate training, specialist support, staffing and financing.

Background: UK tuberculosis (TB) notifications are rising due to disease in the immigrant population. National screening guidelines have been revised but cost-effectiveness analyses are hampered by the lack of data on the comparative performance of tuberculin skin tests (TSTs) and interferon γ release assays (IGRAs) in immigrants., Methods: Three-way evaluation of TSTs and two IGRAs (QuantiFERON Gold in-tube (QFN-GIT) and T-SPOT.TB) in immigrants aged ≥16 years to quantify test positivity, concordance and factors associated with positivity. Yields were computed at different incidence thresholds and the relative cost-effectiveness of screening was estimated using different latent TB infection (LTBI) screening modalities at varying incidence thresholds with or without port-of-arrival chest x-ray (CXR)., Results: 231 immigrants were included; median age 29 (IQR 24-37). TSTs were accepted by 80.9%, read in 93.5% and 30.3% were positive - QFN-GIT and T-SPOT.TB positive in 16.6% and 22.5% respectively. Positive TSTs, QFN-GIT and T-SPOT.TB were independently associated with increasing TB incidence in immigrants' countries of origin (p=0.007, 0.007, 0.037 respectively). Implementing current guidance (threshold 40/100 000 per year) would identify 98-100% of LTBIs (depending on test) but entail testing 97-99% of the cohort; screening at 150/100 000 per year would identify 49-71% of LTBIs but only entail screening half the cohort. The two most cost-effective screening strategies were no port-of-entry chest radiography and screen with single-step QFN-GIT at 250/100 000 per year (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER)) £21 565.3/case averted); and no port-of-entry CXR and screen with single-step QFN-GIT at 150/100 000 per year (averted additional 7.8 TB cases; ICER £31 867.1/case averted)., Conclusions: UK immigrant screening could cost-effectively and safely eliminate mandatory CXR on arrival by emphasising systematic screening for LTBI with single-step IGRA. Intermediate incidence thresholds balance the need to identify as many imported LTBIs as possible against limited service capacity.

Background: The health-care workers (HCWs) are at high risk of acquiring infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis. The objectives of this study were to compare the performance of the T-SPOT.TB and tuberculin skin test (TST) for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI), evaluate diagnostic concordance and risk factors for LTBI, and observe the progression to active tuberculosis (TB) disease among HCWs in a general hospital in Beijing., Methods: The prospective cohort study enrolled HCWs in a tertiary general hospital in Beijing, China, to evaluate LTBI with T-SPOT.TB and TST. The subjects were evaluated every 12 months during the 60-month follow-up., Results: Of 101 participating HCWs, 96 and 101 had valid TST and T-SPOT.TB results, respectively. Twenty-nine (28.7%, 95% confidence interval (CI), 19.9% - 37.5%) were defined as positive by T-SPOT.TB and 53 (55.2%, 95%CI, 45.2% - 64.9%) were defined as positive by TST (using a ≥ 10 mm cutoff). An agreement between the two tests was poor (57.3%, κ = 0.18, 95%CI, 0.01% - 0.52%). In multivariate analysis, direct exposure to sputum smear-positive TB patients was a significant risk factor for a positive T-SPOT.TB (OR 5.76; 95%CI 1.38 - 24.00). Pooled frequency of antigen-specific IFN-γ secreting T-cells for subjects who reported direct contact with sputum smear-positive TB patients was significantly higher than that for participants without direct contact (P = 0.045). One of 20 participants with positive result of T-SPOT.TB and TST developed active TB at 24-month follow-up., Conclusion: T-SPOT.TB is a more accurate, targeted method of diagnosing LTBI than TST.

Background: Continuing rises in tuberculosis notifications in the UK are attributable to cases in foreign-born immigrants. National guidance for immigrant screening is hampered by a lack of data about the prevalence of, and risk factors for, latent tuberculosis infection in immigrants. We aimed to determine the prevalence of latent infection in immigrants to the UK to define which groups should be screened and to quantify cost-effectiveness., Methods: In our multicentre cohort study and cost-effectiveness analysis we analysed demographic and test results from three centres in the UK (from 2008 to 2010) that used interferon-γ release-assay (IGRA) to screen immigrants aged 35 years or younger for latent tuberculosis infection. We assessed factors associated with latent infection by use of logistic regression and calculated the yields and cost-effectiveness of screening at different levels of tuberculosis incidence in immigrants' countries of origin with a decision analysis model., Findings: Results for IGRA-based screening were positive in 245 of 1229 immigrants (20%), negative in 982 (80%), and indeterminate in two (0·2%). Positive results were independently associated with increases in tuberculosis incidence in immigrants' countries of origin (p=0·0006), male sex (p = 0·046), and age (p < 0·0001). National policy thus far would fail to detect 71% of individuals with latent infection. The two most cost-effective strategies were to screen individuals from countries with a tuberculosis incidence of more than 250 cases per 100,000 (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio [ICER] was £17,956 [£1=US$1·60] per prevented case of tuberculosis) and at more than 150 cases per 100,000 (including immigrants from the Indian subcontinent), which identified 92% of infected immigrants and prevented an additional 29 cases at an ICER of £20,819 per additional case averted., Interpretation: Screening for latent infection can be implemented cost-effectively at a level of incidence that identifies most immigrants with latent tuberculosis, thereby preventing substantial numbers of future cases of active tuberculosis., Funding: Medical Research Council and Wellcome Trust., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The last decade has witnessed significant advances in mycobacterial genomics and cellular research which have resulted in the development of two new blood tests, the enzyme-linked immunospot assay (ELISpot) (TSPOT.TB, Oxford Immunotec, Oxford, UK) and the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) (QuantiFERON-TB Gold In-Tube, Cellestis, Carnegie, Australia). These tests, which are collectively known as interferon gamma release assays (IGRAs), detect latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) by measuring interferon (IFN)-gamma release in response to antigens present in Mycobacterium tuberculosis, but not bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine and most nontuberculous mycobacteria. This is done through enumeration of IFN-gamma-secreting T cells (ELISpot) or by measurement of IFN-gamma concentration (ELISA). The evidence base for these tests has expanded rapidly and now demonstrates that IGRAs are more specific than the tuberculin skin test (TST) as they are not confounded by previous BCG vaccination. In addition, with active tuberculosis (TB) as a surrogate for LTBI, it appears that the ELISA has a similar sensitivity to the TST, whereas the ELISpot is more sensitive. Using degree of exposure to TB as a surrogate for LTBI, both assays correlate at least as well with TB exposure as the TST. Recent longitudinal data have now demonstrated the prognostic power of positive IGRA results in recent contacts for the subsequent progression to active TB. Deployment of IGRAs, driven by new guidelines internationally, will impact on clinical practice in several ways. Their high specificity means that BCG-vaccinated individuals with a false-positive TST will not receive unnecessary preventive treatment, whereas improved sensitivity in individuals with weakened cellular immunity at highest risk of progressing to active TB (for example HIV-positive individuals) enables more reliable targeted testing and treatment of these vulnerable groups. The role of IGRAs in active TB is less clear but they may be useful as adjunctive tests in the diagnostic work-up of an individual with suspected TB. Finally, recent developments and future directions in IGRA development are reviewed., (Copyright 2009 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.)

Background: Diagnosis and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is a cornerstone of tuberculosis (TB) control in the developed world. In the last century, the tuberculin skin test (TST) was the only means of diagnosing LTBI. ELISpot and whole-blood ELISA, collectively known as interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs), are promising new tools., Areas of Agreement: IGRAs are more specific than TST for diagnosis of LTBI as they are not confounded by previous bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccination. Assessing IGRA sensitivity in the absence of a gold standard for LTBI is challenging. Studies have therefore used surrogate markers such as active TB and correlation with degree of TB exposure in contact investigations. These studies suggest that sensitivity of ELISpot is higher than TST while whole-blood ELISA has similar sensitivity to TST. Recent longitudinal studies demonstrating the prognostic power of these tests for development of active TB provide definitive evidence that positive IGRA results reflect infection with dormant yet viable bacilli., Areas of Controversy: Is the prognostic power of IGRAs greater than the TST? What are the false-negative rates in immunocompromised individuals with LTBI at high risk of progressing to active TB?, Growing Points: IGRAs have been incorporated into national guidelines, although their optimal deployment in diagnostic algorithms is evolving. The health economic benefits of utilizing IGRAs are increasingly recognized, partly because their high specificity avoids unnecessary chemoprophylaxis in BCG-vaccinated persons with false-positive TST results., Areas Timely for Developing Research: Current IGRAs are being improved and next-generation tests, with improved sensitivity, could enable the reliable exclusion of LTBI in immunocompromised individuals.