Evaluating systematic targeted universal testing for tuberculosis in primary care clinics of South Africa: A cluster-randomized trial (The TUTT Trial).

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends systematic symptom screening for tuberculosis (TB). However, TB prevalence surveys suggest that this strategy does not identify millions of TB patients, globally. Undiagnosed or delayed diagnosis of TB contribute to TB transmission and exacerbate morbidity and mortality. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial of large urban and rural primary healthcare clinics in 3 provinces of South Africa to evaluate whether a novel intervention of targeted universal testing for TB (TUTT) in high-risk groups diagnosed more patients with TB per month compared to current standard of care (SoC) symptom-directed TB testing. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Sixty-two clinics were randomized; with initiation of the intervention clinics over 6 months from March 2019. The study was prematurely stopped in March 2020 due to clinics restricting access to patients, and then a week later due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) national lockdown; by then, we had accrued a similar number of TB diagnoses to that of the power estimates and permanently stopped the trial. In intervention clinics, attendees living with HIV, those self-reporting a recent close contact with TB, or a prior episode of TB were all offered a sputum test for TB, irrespective of whether they reported symptoms of TB. We analyzed data abstracted from the national public sector laboratory database using Poisson regression models and compared the mean number of TB patients diagnosed per clinic per month between the study arms. Intervention clinics diagnosed 6,777 patients with TB, 20.7 patients with TB per clinic month (95% CI 16.7, 24.8) versus 6,750, 18.8 patients with TB per clinic month (95% CI 15.3, 22.2) in control clinics during study months. A direct comparison, adjusting for province and clinic TB case volume strata, did not show a significant difference in the number of TB cases between the 2 arms, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.14 (95% CI 0.94, 1.38, p = 0.46). However, prespecified difference-in-differences analyses showed that while the rate of TB diagnoses in control clinics decreased over time, intervention clinics had a 17% relative increase in TB patients diagnosed per month compared to the prior year, interaction IRR 1.17 (95% CI 1.14, 1.19, p < 0.001). Trial limitations were the premature stop due to COVID-19 lockdowns and the absence of between-arm comparisons of initiation and outcomes of TB treatment in those diagnosed with TB. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial suggests that the implementation of TUTT in these 3 groups at extreme risk of TB identified more TB patients than SoC and could assist in reducing undiagnosed TB patients in settings of high TB prevalence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: South African National Clinical Trials Registry DOH-27-092021-4901.

Reducing Initial Loss to Follow-up Among People With Bacteriologically Confirmed Tuberculosis: LINKEDin, a Quasi-experimental Study in South Africa.

Every person diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB) needs to initiate treatment. The World Health Organization estimated that 61% of people who developed TB in 2021 were included in a TB treatment registration system. Initial loss to follow-up (ILTFU) is the loss of persons to care between diagnosis and treatment initiation/registration. LINKEDin, a quasi-experimental study, evaluated the effect of 2 interventions (hospital recording and an alert-and-response patient management intervention) in 6 subdistricts across 3 high-TB burden provinces of South Africa. Using integrated electronic reports, we identified all persons diagnosed with TB (Xpert MTB/RIF positive) in the hospital and at primary health care facilities. We prospectively determined linkage to care at 30 days after TB diagnosis. We calculated the risk of ILTFU during the baseline and intervention periods and the relative risk reduction in ILTFU between these periods. We found a relative reduction in ILTFU of 42.4% (95% CI, 28.5%-53.7%) in KwaZulu Natal (KZN) and 22.3% (95% CI, 13.3%-30.4%) in the Western Cape (WC), with no significant change in Gauteng. In KZN and the WC, the relative reduction in ILTFU appeared greater in subdistricts where the alert-and-response patient management intervention was implemented (KZN: 49.3%; 95% CI, 32.4%-62%; vs 32.2%; 95% CI, 5.4%-51.4%; and WC: 34.2%; 95% CI, 20.9%-45.3%; vs 13.4%; 95% CI, 0.7%-24.4%). We reported a notable reduction in ILTFU in 2 provinces using existing routine health service data and applying a simple intervention to trace and recall those not linked to care. TB programs need to consider ILTFU a priority and develop interventions specific to their context to ensure improved linkage to care.