Search

BackgroundMigration is a major global driver of population change. Certain migrants may be at increased risk of infectious diseases, including tuberculosis (TB), HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C, and have poorer outcomes. Early diagnosis and management of these infections can reduce morbidity, mortality and onward transmission and is supported by national guidelines. To date, screening initiatives have been sporadic and focused on individual diseases; systematic routine testing of migrant groups for multiple infections is rarely undertaken and its impact is unknown. We describe the protocol for the evaluation of acceptability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an integrated approach to screening migrants for a range of infectious diseases in primary care.Methods and analysisWe will conduct a mixed-methods study which includes an observational cohort with interrupted time-series analysis before and after the introduction of routine screening of migrants for infectious diseases (latent TB, HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C) when first registering with primary care within Leicester, UK. We will assess trends in the monthly number and rate of testing and diagnosis for latent TB, HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C to determine the effect of the policy change using segmented regression analyses at monthly time-points. Concurrently, we will undertake an integrated qualitative sub-study to understand the views of migrants and healthcare professionals to the new testing policy in primary care. Finally, we will evaluate the cost-effectiveness of combined infection testing for migrants in primary care.Ethics and disseminationThe study has received HRA and NHS approvals for both the interrupted time-series analysis (16/SC/0127) and the qualitative sub-study (16/EM/0159). For the interrupted time-series analysis we will only use fully anonymised data. For the qualitative sub-study, we will gain written, informed, consent. Dissemination of the results will be through local and national meetings/conferences as well as publications in peer-reviewed journals.

Objective To determine whether there was an association between the coverage of booster immunisation of Diphtheria, Tetanus, acellular Pertussis and Polio (DTaP/IPV) and second Measles, Mumps and Rubella (MMR) dose by age 5 in accordance with the English national immunisation schedule by area-level socioeconomic deprivation and whether this changed between 2007/08 and 2010/11. Design Ecological study. Data Routinely collected national Cover of Vaccination Evaluated Rapidly data on immunisation coverage for DTaP/IPV booster and second MMR dose by age 5 and the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). Setting Primary Care Trust (PCT) areas in England between 2007/08 and 2010/11. Outcome Measures Population coverage (%) of DTaP/IPV booster and second MMR immunisation by age 5. Results Over the 4 years among the 9,457,600 children there was an increase in the mean proportion of children being immunised for DTaP/IPV booster and second MMR across England, increasing from 79% (standard deviation (SD12%)) to 86% (SD8%) for DTaP/IPV and 75% (SD10%) to 84% (SD6%) for second MMR between 2007/08 and 2010/11. In 2007/08 the area with lowest DTaP/IPV booster coverage was 31% compared to 54.4% in 2010/11 and for the second MMR in 2007/08 was 39% compared to 64.8% in 2010/11. A weak negative correlation was observed between average IMD score and immunisation coverage for the DTaP/IPV booster which reduced but remained statistically significant over the study period ( r = −0.298, p r = −0.179, p = 0.028 in 2010/11). This was similar for the second MMR in 2007/08 ( r = −0.225, p = 0.008) and 2008/09 ( r = −0.216, p = 0.008) but there was no statistically significant correlation in 2009/10 ( r = −0.108, p = 0.186) or 2010/11 ( r = −0.078, p = 0.343). Conclusion Lower immunisation coverage of DTaP/IPV booster and second MMR dose was associated with higher area-level socioeconomic deprivation, although this inequality reduced between 2007/08 and 2010/11 as proportions of children being immunised increased at PCT level, particularly for the most deprived areas. However, coverage is still below the World Health Organisation recommended 95% threshold for Europe.

Most UK tuberculosis (TB) cases occur in immigrants from high TB incidence areas, implicating reactivation of imported latent TB infection (LTBI). Strategies to identify and treat immigrant LTBI in primary care at the time of first registration (coded Flag-4) may be effective.This was an 11-year retrospective cohort study to evaluate effectiveness of LTBI screening in recent immigrants to Leicestershire at their time of primary care registration. We examined the temporal relationship between dates of Flag-4 primary care registration (n=59 007) and foreign-born TB (FB-TB) cases (n=857), for immigrants arriving to the UK after 1999. TB diagnosed6 months after registration was considered potentially preventable with screening. Primary outcomes were the potentially preventable proportion of FB-TB and the number needed to screen (NNS) of immigrants to identify one potentially preventable case, stratified by age and region of origin.250 cases (29%) were potentially preventable in Flag-4-registered immigrants. Overall, 511 cases (60%) were potentially preventable among primary-care registered immigrants, implying a significant proportion without Flag-4 status. Prospective TB incidence (95% CI) after Flag-4 registration was 183 (163 to 205) cases/100 000 person-years, with a NNS (95% CI) of 145 (130 to 162). Targeted screening was most effective for 16-35 year olds from TB incidence regions 150-499/100 000 (NNS (95% CI)=65 (57 to 74), preventing 159 (18.7%) cases). Unpreventable TB risk increased with delayed primary care registration after UK entry (p0.001) and was associated with HIV seropositivity (relative risk (95% CI)=1.89 (1.25 to 2.84), p=0.003).LTBI screening at primary care registration offers an effective strategy for potentially identifying immigrants at high risk of developing TB.