BACKGROUND: Active case finding (ACF) is an alternative strategy to accelerate the identification of TB cases among the migrant population.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of ACF TB in migrants.
METHODS: This study uses the PRISMA model as a method of searching for journal articles in the databases of Google Scholar, ProQuest, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, and PubMed, as well as other sources such as textbooks and reports from 2017 to 2021 with the keywords "tuberculosis" AND "active case finding" AND "migrant". The search revealed 371 articles, of which 26 met the criteria for further discussion.
RESULTS: Most studies show that the TB incidence among migrants is higher than in the local population. Factors leading to increased cases include lack of knowledge about the symptoms, high mobilization, social isolation, economic problems, and medication adherence that impact an advanced stage. Furthermore, it is also influenced by the low quality of health services, including accessibility, health facilities, health workers, and information. Therefore, Active Case Finding (ACF) is more effective in identifying cases of TB in the risk groups. This was conducted on migrants with increased notifications followed up with treatment.
CONCLUSION: ACF is effective approach in screening and diagnosing TB in the migrant group.
BACKGROUND: Contact tracing is used for multiple infectious diseases, most recently for COVID-19, but data regarding its effectiveness in disease control are scarce. To address this knowledge gap and inform public health decision making for COVID-19, we systematically reviewed the existing literature to determine the effectiveness of contact tracing in the control of communicable illness.
METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from database inception up to Nov 22, 2021, for published studies evaluating associations between provider-initiated contact tracing for transmissible infectious diseases and one of three outcomes of interest: case detection rates among contacts or at the community level, overall forward transmission, or overall disease incidence. Clinical trials and observational studies were eligible, with no language or date restrictions. Reference lists of reviews were searched for additional studies. We excluded studies without a control group, using only mathematical modelling, not reporting a primary outcome of interest, or solely examining patient-initiated contact tracing. One reviewer applied eligibility criteria to each screened abstract and full-text article, and two reviewers independently extracted summary effect estimates and additional data from eligible studies. Only data reported in published manuscripts or supplemental material was extracted. Risk of bias for each included study was assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool (randomised studies) or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (non-randomised studies).
FINDINGS: We identified 9050 unique citations, of which 47 studies met the inclusion criteria: six were focused on COVID-19, 20 on tuberculosis, eight on HIV, 12 on curable sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and one on measles. More than 2 million index patients were included across a variety of settings (both urban and rural areas and low-resource and high-resource settings). Of the 47 studies, 29 (61·7%) used observational designs, including all studies on COVID-19, and 18 (38·3%) were randomised controlled trials. 40 studies compared provider-initiated contact tracing with other interventions or evaluated expansions of provider-initiated contact tracing, and seven compared programmatic adaptations within provider-initiated contact tracing. 29 (72·5%) of the 40 studies evaluating the effect of provider-initiated contact tracing, including four (66·7%) of six COVID-19 studies, found contact tracing interventions were associated with improvements in at least one outcome of interest. 23 (48·9%) studies had low risk of bias, 22 (46·8%) studies had some risk of bias, and two (4·3%) studies (both randomised controlled trials on curable STIs) had high risk of bias.
INTERPRETATION: Provider-initiated contact tracing can be an effective public health tool. However, the ability of authorities to make informed choices about its deployment might be limited by heterogenous approaches to contact tracing in studies, a scarcity of quantitative evidence on its effectiveness, and absence of specificity of tracing parameters most important for disease control.
FUNDING: The Sullivan Family Foundation, Massachusetts General Hospital Executive Committee on Research, and US National Institutes of Health.
BACKGROUND: Community-based active case-finding interventions might identify and treat more people with tuberculosis disease than standard case detection. We aimed to assess whether active case-finding interventions can affect tuberculosis epidemiology in the wider community.
METHODS: We did a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for studies that compared tuberculosis case notification rates, tuberculosis disease prevalence, or tuberculosis infection prevalence or incidence in children, between populations exposed and unexposed to active case-finding interventions. We included studies published in English between Jan 1, 1980, and April 13, 2020. Studies of active case-finding in the general population, in populations perceived to be at high risk for tuberculosis, and in closed settings were included, whereas studies of tuberculosis screening at health-care facilities, among household contacts, or among children only, and studies that screened fewer than 1000 people were excluded. To estimate effectiveness, we extracted or calculated case notification rates, prevalence of tuberculosis disease, and incidence or prevalence of tuberculosis infection in children, and compared ratios of these outcomes between groups that were exposed or not exposed to active case-finding interventions.
RESULTS: 27 883 abstracts were screened and 988 articles underwent full text review. 28 studies contributed data for analysis of tuberculosis case notifications, nine for prevalence of tuberculosis disease, and two for incidence or prevalence of tuberculosis infection in children. In one cluster-randomised trial in South Africa and Zambia, an active case-finding intervention based on community mobilisation and sputum drop-off did not affect tuberculosis prevalence, whereas, in a cluster-randomised trial in Vietnam, an active case-finding intervention based on sputum tuberculosis tests for everyone reduced tuberculosis prevalence in the community. We found inconsistent, low-quality evidence that active case-finding might increase the number of cases of tuberculosis notified in populations with structural risk factors for tuberculosis.
INTERPRETATION: Community-based active case-finding for tuberculosis might be effective in changing tuberculosis epidemiology and thereby improving population health if delivered with high coverage and intensity. If possible, active case-finding projects should incorporate a well designed, robust evaluation to contribute to the evidence base and help elucidate which delivery methods and diagnostic strategies are most effective.
FUNDING: WHO Global TB Programme.
BACKGROUND: Xpert MTB/RIF Ultra (Xpert Ultra) and Xpert MTB/RIF are World Health Organization (WHO)-recommended rapid nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) widely used for simultaneous detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex and rifampicin resistance in sputum. To extend our previous review on extrapulmonary tuberculosis (Kohli 2018), we performed this update to inform updated WHO policy (WHO Consolidated Guidelines (Module 3) 2020).
OBJECTIVES: To estimate diagnostic accuracy of Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF for extrapulmonary tuberculosis and rifampicin resistance in adults with presumptive extrapulmonary tuberculosis.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, Web of Science, Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, the International Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number Registry, and ProQuest, 2 August 2019 and 28 January 2020 (Xpert Ultra studies), without language restriction.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Cross-sectional and cohort studies using non-respiratory specimens. Forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis: tuberculous meningitis and pleural, lymph node, bone or joint, genitourinary, peritoneal, pericardial, disseminated tuberculosis. Reference standards were culture and a study-defined composite reference standard (tuberculosis detection); phenotypic drug susceptibility testing and line probe assays (rifampicin resistance detection).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and applicability using QUADAS-2. For tuberculosis detection, we performed separate analyses by specimen type and reference standard using the bivariate model to estimate pooled sensitivity and specificity with 95% credible intervals (CrIs). We applied a latent class meta-analysis model to three forms of extrapulmonary tuberculosis. We assessed certainty of evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS: 69 studies: 67 evaluated Xpert MTB/RIF and 11 evaluated Xpert Ultra, of which nine evaluated both tests. Most studies were conducted in China, India, South Africa, and Uganda. Overall, risk of bias was low for patient selection, index test, and flow and timing domains, and low (49%) or unclear (43%) for the reference standard domain. Applicability for the patient selection domain was unclear for most studies because we were unsure of the clinical settings. Cerebrospinal fluid Xpert Ultra (6 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity (95% CrI) against culture were 89.4% (79.1 to 95.6) (89 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 91.2% (83.2 to 95.7) (386 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 168 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 79 (47%) would not have tuberculosis (false-positives) and 832 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 11 (1%) would have tuberculosis (false-negatives). Xpert MTB/RIF (30 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 71.1% (62.8 to 79.1) (571 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) and 96.9% (95.4 to 98.0) (2824 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have tuberculous meningitis, 99 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 28 (28%) would not have tuberculosis; and 901 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 29 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Pleural fluid Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 75.0% (58.0 to 86.4) (158 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 87.0% (63.1 to 97.9) (240 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 192 would be Xpert Ultra-positive: of these, 117 (61%) would not have tuberculosis; and 808 would be Xpert Ultra-negative: of these, 25 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (25 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against culture were 49.5% (39.8 to 59.9) (644 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 98.9% (97.6 to 99.7) (2421 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have pleural tuberculosis, 60 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive: of these, 10 (17%) would not have tuberculosis; and 940 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative: of these, 50 (5%) would have tuberculosis. Lymph node aspirate Xpert Ultra (1 study) Xpert Ultra sensitivity and specificity (95% confidence interval) against composite reference standard were 70% (51 to 85) (30 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and 100% (92 to 100) (43 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 70 would be Xpert Ultra-positive and 0 (0%) would not have tuberculosis; 930 would be Xpert Ultra-negative and 30 (3%) would have tuberculosis. Xpert MTB/RIF (4 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity against composite reference standard were 81.6% (61.9 to 93.3) (377 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 96.4% (91.3 to 98.6) (302 participants; low-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have lymph node tuberculosis, 118 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive and 37 (31%) would not have tuberculosis; 882 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative and 19 (2%) would have tuberculosis. In lymph node aspirate, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity against culture was 86.2% (78.0 to 92.3), lower than that against a composite reference standard. Using the latent class model, Xpert MTB/RIF pooled specificity was 99.5% (99.1 to 99.7), similar to that observed with a composite reference standard. Rifampicin resistance Xpert Ultra (4 studies) Xpert Ultra pooled sensitivity and specificity were 100.0% (95.1 to 100.0), (24 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 100.0% (99.0 to 100.0) (105 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 100 would be Xpert Ultra-positive (resistant): of these, zero (0%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 900 would be Xpert Ultra-negative (susceptible): of these, zero (0%) would have rifampicin resistance. Xpert MTB/RIF (19 studies) Xpert MTB/RIF pooled sensitivity and specificity were 96.5% (91.9 to 98.8) (148 participants; high-certainty evidence) and 99.1% (98.0 to 99.7) (822 participants; high-certainty evidence). Of 1000 people where 100 have rifampicin resistance, 105 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-positive (resistant): of these, 8 (8%) would not have rifampicin resistance; and 895 would be Xpert MTB/RIF-negative (susceptible): of these, 3 (0.3%) would have rifampicin resistance.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF may be helpful in diagnosing extrapulmonary tuberculosis. Sensitivity varies across different extrapulmonary specimens: while for most specimens specificity is high, the tests rarely yield a positive result for people without tuberculosis. For tuberculous meningitis, Xpert Ultra had higher sensitivity and lower specificity than Xpert MTB/RIF against culture. Xpert Ultra and Xpert MTB/RIF had similar sensitivity and specificity for rifampicin resistance. Future research should acknowledge the concern associated with culture as a reference standard in paucibacillary specimens and consider ways to address this limitation.
OBJECTIVE: To assess the design, delivery and outcomes of interventions to improve adherence to treatment for paediatric tuberculosis in low- and middle-income countries and develop a contextual framework for such interventions.
METHODS: We searched PubMed and Cochrane databases for reports published between 1 January 2003 and 1 December 2013 on interventions to improve adherence to treatment for tuberculosis that included patients younger than 20 years who lived in a low- or middle-income country. For potentially relevant articles that lacked paediatric outcomes, we contacted the authors of the studies. We assessed heterogeneity and risk of bias. To evaluate treatment success - i.e. the combination of treatment completion and cure - we performed random-effects meta-analysis. We identified areas of need for improved intervention practices.
FINDINGS: We included 15 studies in 11 countries for the qualitative analysis and of these studies, 11 qualified for the meta-analysis - representing 1279 children. Of the interventions described in the 15 studies, two focused on education, one on psychosocial support, seven on care delivery, four on health systems and one on financial provisions. The children in intervention arms had higher rates of treatment success, compared with those in control groups (odds ratio: 3.02; 95% confidence interval: 2.19-4.15). Using the results of our analyses, we developed a framework around factors that promoted or threatened treatment completion.
CONCLUSION: Various interventions to improve adherence to treatment for paediatric tuberculosis appear both feasible and effective in low- and middle-income countries.
Journal»The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
SETTING: In low-incidence regions, tuberculosis (TB) often affects vulnerable populations. Guidelines recommend active case finding (ACF) in homeless populations, but there is no consensus on a preferred screening method.
OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the use of chest X-ray (CXR) screening in ACF for TB in homeless populations.
DESIGN: Articles were identified through EMBASE, Medline and the Cochrane Library. Studies using symptom screens, CXRs, sputum sweeps, tuberculin skin tests and/or interferon-gamma release assays to detect active TB in homeless populations were sought. Data were extracted using a standardised method by two reviewers and validated with an objective tool.
RESULTS: Sixteen studies addressing CXR screening of homeless populations for active TB in low-incidence regions were analysed. The pooled prevalence of active TB in the 16 study cohorts was 931 per 100 000 population screened (95%CI 565-1534) and 782/100 000 CXR performed (95%CI 566-1079). Six of seven longitudinal screening programs reported a reduction in regional TB incidence after implementation of the CXR-based ACF programme.
CONCLUSION: Our data suggest that CXR screening is a good tool for ACF in homeless populations in low-incidence regions.
BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of Lay Health Workers (LHW) in increasing case detection rate and treatment success outcome of Tuberculosis cases
METHODS: PUBMED,; Google scholar, African Journal Online (AJOL) and other search engines were systematically searched, for literature from 2000 to 2012 for studies that are either: [randomized/cluster randomized/non randomized or prospective cohort study); assessing lay Health care worker participation in tuberculosis (TB) treatment, using the key words (LHW, TB and treatment). Studies were pooled using a random effect model. Of the thirteen studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria for systemic review, only five were heterogeneous enough for a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: There was a marginal effectiveness of LHW involvement in TB treatment success rate, RR 1.09 Confidence Interval. [0.98-1.21]. There was no publication bias; with {p = 0.135 for Eggar's weighed regression analysis}. Restrictive analysis showed a marginally higher summary relative risk in rural based studies RR 1.12, C.I. [1.01-1.24]; compared to urban studies RR 1.01, C.I. [0.91-1.13].
CONCLUSION: The use of Lay Health care workers is associated with a marginal benefit in improving TB treatment success compared to standard facility based TB care. Larger studies are needed to properly prove its superiority.
Journal»The international journal of tuberculosis and lung disease : the official journal of the International Union against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease
BACKGROUND: Screening for tuberculosis (TB) disease aims to improve early TB case detection. The ultimate goal is to improve outcomes for people with TB and to reduce Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission in the community through improved case detection, reduction in diagnostic delays and early treatment. Before screening programmes are recommended, evidence is needed of individual and/or community-level benefits.
METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess the evidence that screening for TB disease 1) initially increases the number of TB cases initiated on anti-tuberculosis treatment, 2) identifies cases earlier in the course of disease, 3) reduces mortality and morbidity, and 4) impacts on TB epidemiology.
RESULTS: A total of 28 798 publications were identified by the search strategy: 27 087 were excluded on initial screening and 1749 on full text review, leaving 62 publications that addressed at least one of the study questions. Screening increases the number of cases found in the short term. In many settings, more than half of the prevalent TB cases in the community remain undiagnosed. Screening tends to find cases earlier and with less severe disease, but this may be attributed to case-finding studies using more sensitive diagnostic methods than routine programmes. Treatment outcomes among people identified through screening are similar to outcomes among those identified through passive case finding. Current studies provide insufficient evidence to show that active screening for TB disease impacts on TB epidemiology.
CONCLUSION: Individual and community-level benefits from active screening for TB disease remain uncertain. So far, the benefits of earlier diagnosis on patient outcomes and transmission have not been established.
Active case finding (ACF) is an alternative strategy to accelerate the identification of TB cases among the migrant population.
OBJECTIVE:
This study aimed to synthesize the evidence for the effectiveness of ACF TB in migrants.
METHODS:
This study uses the PRISMA model as a method of searching for journal articles in the databases of Google Scholar, ProQuest, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, Elsevier, and PubMed, as well as other sources such as textbooks and reports from 2017 to 2021 with the keywords "tuberculosis" AND "active case finding" AND "migrant". The search revealed 371 articles, of which 26 met the criteria for further discussion.
RESULTS:
Most studies show that the TB incidence among migrants is higher than in the local population. Factors leading to increased cases include lack of knowledge about the symptoms, high mobilization, social isolation, economic problems, and medication adherence that impact an advanced stage. Furthermore, it is also influenced by the low quality of health services, including accessibility, health facilities, health workers, and information. Therefore, Active Case Finding (ACF) is more effective in identifying cases of TB in the risk groups. This was conducted on migrants with increased notifications followed up with treatment.
CONCLUSION:
ACF is effective approach in screening and diagnosing TB in the migrant group.
