Sustainability and impact of an intervention to improve initiation of tuberculosis preventive treatment: results from a follow-up study of the ACT4 randomized trial.

Background: In a cluster randomized trial (clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02810678) a flexible but comprehensive health system intervention significantly increased the number of household contacts (HHC) identified and started on tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT). A follow-up study was conducted one year later to test the hypotheses that these effects were sustained, and were reproducible with a simplified intervention. Methods: We conducted a follow-up study from May 1, 2018 until April 30, 2019, as part of a multinational cluster randomized trial. Eight sites in 4 countries that had received the intervention in the original trial received no further intervention; eight other sites in the same countries that had not received the intervention (control sites in the original trial) now received a simplified version of the intervention. This consisted of repeated local evaluation of the Cascade of care for TB infection, and stakeholder decision making. The number of HHC identified and starting TPT were repeatedly measured at all 16 sites and expressed as rates per 100 newly diagnosed index TB patients. The sustained effect of the original intervention was estimated by comparing these rates after the intervention in the original trial with the last 6 months of the follow-up study. The reproducibility was estimated by comparing the pre-post intervention changes in rates at sites receiving the original intervention with the pre-post changes in rates at sites receiving the later, simplified intervention. Findings: With regard to the sustained impact of the original intervention, compared to the original post-intervention period, the number of HHC identified and treated per 100 newly diagnosed TB patients was 10 more (95% confidence interval: 84 fewer to 105 more), and 1 fewer (95% CI: 22 fewer to 20 more) respectively up to 14 months after the end of the original intervention. With regard to the reproducibility of the simplified intervention, at sites that had initially served as control sites, the number of HHC identified and treated per 100 TB patients increased by 33 (95% CI: -32, 97), and 16 (-69, 100) from 3 months before, to up to 6 months after receiving a streamlined intervention, although differences were larger, and significant if the post-intervention results were compared to all pre-intervention periods. Interpretation: Up to one year after it ended, a health system intervention resulted in sustained increases in the number of HHC identified and starting TPT. A simplified version of the intervention was associated with non-significant increases in the identification and treatment of HHC. Inferences are limited by potential bias due to other temporal effects, and the small number of study sites. Funding: Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (Grant number 143350).

High-dose, short-duration versus standard rifampicin for tuberculosis preventive treatment: a partially blinded, three-arm, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT) is a key component of tuberculosis elimination. To improve completion and reduce the burden for people and health systems, short, safe, and effective TPT regimens are needed. We aimed to compare safety and treatment completion of various doses and durations of rifampicin in people who were recommended to receive TPT. METHODS: This partially blinded, parallel-arm, non-inferiority, randomised, controlled, phase 2b trial was done at seven university-affiliated clinics in Canada, Indonesia, and Viet Nam. Participants aged 10 years or older were included if they had an indication for TPT according to WHO guidelines for Indonesia and Viet Nam, or Canadian guidelines for Canadian sites, and a positive tuberculin skin test or interferon-γ release assay. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive oral rifampicin at 10 mg/kg once daily for 4 months (standard-dose group), 20 mg/kg daily for 2 months (20 mg/kg group), or 30 mg/kg daily for 2 months (30 mg/kg group). The randomisation sequence was computer generated with blocks of variable size (three, six, and nine) and stratified by country for Indonesia and Viet Nam, and by city within Canada. Participants and investigators were masked to dose in high-dose groups, but unmasked to duration in all groups. The two co-primary outcomes were safety (in the safety population, in which participants received at least one dose of the study drug) and treatment completion (in the modified intention-to-treat [mITT] population, excluding those ineligible after randomisation). Protocol-defined adverse events were defined as grade 3 or worse, or rash or allergy of any grade, judged by an independent and masked panel as possibly or probably related to the study. A margin of 4% was used to assess non-inferiority. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03988933 (active). RESULTS: Between Sept 1, 2019, and Sept 30, 2022, 1692 people were assessed for eligibility, 1376 were randomly assigned, and eight were excluded after randomisation. 1368 participants were included in the mITT population (454 in the standard group, 461 in the 20 mg/kg group, and 453 in the 30 mg/kg group). 589 (43%) participants were male and 779 (57%) were female. 372 (82%) in the standard-dose group, 329 (71%) in the 20 mg/kg group, and 293 (65%) in the 30 mg/kg group completed treatment. No participants in the standard-dose group, one (<1%) of 441 participants in the 20 mg/kg group, and four (1%) of 423 in the 30 mg/kg group developed grade 3 hepatotoxicity. Risk of protocol-defined adverse events was higher in the 30 mg/kg group than in the standard-dose group (adjusted risk difference 4·6% [95% CI 1·8 to 7·4]) or the 20 mg/kg group (5·1% [2·3 to 7·8]). There was no difference in the risk of adverse events between the 20 mg/kg and standard-dose groups (-0·5% [95% CI -2·4 to 1·5]; non-inferiority met). Completion was lower in the 20 mg/kg group (-7·8% [95% CI -13·6 to -2·0]) and the 30 mg/kg group (-15·4% [-21·4 to -9·4]) than in the standard-dose group. INTERPRETATION: In this trial, 2 months of 30 mg/kg daily rifampicin had significantly worse safety and completion than 4 months of 10 mg/kg daily and 2 months of 20 mg/kg daily (the latter, a fully blinded comparison); we do not consider 30 mg/kg to be a good option for TPT. Rifampicin at 20 mg/kg daily for 2 months was as safe as standard treatment, but with lower completion. This difference remains unexplained. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

High dose rifampin for 2 months vs standard dose rifampin for 4 months, to treat TB infection: Protocol of a 3-arm randomized trial (2R2).

INTRODUCTION: Tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT) is an essential component for TB elimination. In order to be successfully implemented on a large scale, TPT needs to be safe, affordable and widely available in all settings. Short TPT regimens, that are less burdensome than longer regimens, to patients and health systems, are needed. Doses of rifampin higher than the standard 10mg/kg/day were tolerated in studies to reduce duration of treatment for tuberculosis disease (TBD). The objective of this trial is to test the safety of high dose rifampin monotherapy to shorten the duration of the currently recommended TPT of 4 months rifampin. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a phase 2b, randomised, controlled, parallel group, superiority, partially-blind trial. Primary outcomes are completion of treatment (as a proxy measure of tolerability) and safety. The two experimental arms comprise 60 days of (i) 20mg/kg/day or (ii) 30mg/kg/day rifampin; the control arm comprises 120 days of 10mg/kg/day rifampin as TPT. Participants are adults and children 10 years or older, eligible for TPT. Completion is the primary outcome, measured by pill count and is defined as taking minimum of 80% of treatment in 120% of allowed time; it will be tested for superiority by logistic regression. Safety outcome comprises proportion of grade 3-5 adverse events and grade 1-2 rash, adjudicated related to study drug, and resulting in permanent drug discontinuation; compared for non-inferiority between each of the two high dose arms and the standard arm, using Poisson regression. A sample size of 1,359 participants will give 80% power to detect a 10% difference in completion rates and a 1% difference in the safety outcome. The study is conducted in Canada, Indonesia and Vietnam. Enrolment is ongoing at all sites. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals from a local research ethics board (REB) have been obtained at all participating sites and by the trial coordinating centre. Approval has been given by drug regulatory agencies in Canada and Indonesia and by Ministry of Health in Vietnam; participants give written informed consent before participation. All data collected are non-nominal. Primary results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal when all participants have completed treatment; results of secondary outcomes will be submitted for publication at the end of study; all sites will receive the final data of participants from their sites. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Trial registered in ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03988933). Coordinating center is the study team working at McGill University Health Center-Research Institute (MUHC-RI); sponsor is the MUHC-RI; funding has been granted by Canadian Institute of Health Research (FDN-143350).

Human resource implications of expanding latent tuberculosis patient care activities.

Introduction: The World Health Organization (WHO) declared increasing services for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) a priority to eliminate tuberculosis (TB) by 2035. Yet, there is little information about thehuman resource needs required to implement LTBI treatment scale-up. Our study aimed to estimate the change in healthcare workers (HCW) time spent on different patient care activities, following an intervention to strengthen LTBI services. Methods: We conducted a time and motion (TAM) study, observing HCW throughout a typical workday before and after the intervention (Evaluation and Strengthening phases, respectively) at 24 health facilities in five countries. The precise time spent on pre-specified categories of work activities was recorded. Time spent on direct patient care was subcategorized as relating to one of three conditions: LTBI, active or suspected TB, and non-TB (i.e., patients with any other medical condition). A linear mixed model (LMM) was fit to estimate the change in HCW time following the intervention. Results: A total of 140 and 143 HCW participated in the TAMs during the Evaluation and Strengthening phases, respectively. Results from intervention facilities showed an increase of 9% (95% CI: 3%, 15%) in the proportion of HCW time spent on LTBI-related services, but with a corresponding change of -11% (95% CI: -21%, -1%) on active TB services. There was no change in the proportion of time spent on LTBI care in control facilities; this remained low in both phases of the study. Discussion: Our findings suggest that additional HCW personnel will be required for expansion of LTBI services to ensure that this expansion does not reduce the time available for care of active TB patients.

GeneXpert or chest-X-ray or tuberculin skin testing for household contact assessment (GXT): protocol for a cluster-randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization recommends tuberculosis (TB) preventive treatment (TPT) for all people living with HIV (PLH) and household contacts (HHC) of index TB patients. Tests for TB infection (TBI) or to rule out TB disease (TBD) are preferred, but if not available, this should not be a barrier if access to these tests is limited for high-risk people, such as PLH and HHC under 5 years old. There is equipoise on the need for these tests in different risk populations, especially HHC aged over 5. METHODS: This superiority cluster-randomized multicenter trial with three arms of equal size compares, in Benin and Brazil, three strategies for HHC investigation aged 0-50: (i) tuberculin skin testing (TST) or interferon gamma release assay (IGRA) for TBI and if positive, chest X-Ray (CXR) to rule out TBD in persons with positive TST or IGRA; (ii) same as (i) but GeneXpert (GX) replaces CXR; and (iii) no TBI testing. CXR for all; if CXR is normal, TPT is recommended. All strategies start with symptom screening. Clusters are defined as HHC members of the same index patients with newly diagnosed pulmonary TBD. The main outcome is the proportion of HHC that are TPT eligible who start TPT within 3 months of the index TB patient starting TBD treatment. Societal costs, incidence of severe adverse events, and prevalence of TBD are among secondary outcomes. Stratified analyses by age (under versus over 5) and by index patient microbiological status will be conducted. All participants provide signed informed consent. The study was approved by the Research Ethic Board of the Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre, the Brazilian National Ethical Board CONEP, and the "Comité Local d'Éthique Pour la Recherche Biomédicale (CLERB) de l'Université de Parakou," Benin. Findings will be submitted for publication in major medical journals and presented in conferences, to WHO and National and municipal TB programs of the involved countries. DISCUSSION: This randomized trial is meant to provide high-quality evidence to inform WHO recommendations on investigation of household contacts, as currently these are based on very low-quality evidence. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04528823.

High-dose rifamycins in the treatment of TB: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using high-dose rifamycin (HDR) regimens in TB treatment, but the safety and efficacy of HDR regimens remain uncertain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing HDR to standard-dose rifamycin (SDR) regimens. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and clinicaltrials.gov for prospective studies comparing daily therapy with HDRs to SDRs. Rifamycins included rifampicin, rifapentine and rifabutin. Our primary outcome was the rate of severe adverse events (SAEs), with secondary outcomes of death, all adverse events, SAE by organ and efficacy outcomes of 2-month culture conversion and relapse. This study was prospectively registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42020142519). RESULTS: We identified 9057 articles and included 13 studies with 6168 participants contributing 7930 person-years (PY) of follow-up (HDR: 3535 participants, 4387 PY; SDR: 2633 participants, 3543 PY). We found no significant difference in the pooled incidence rate ratio (IRR) of SAE between HDR and SDR (IRR 1.00, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.23, I 2=41%). There was no significant difference when analysis was limited to SAE possibly, probably or likely medication-related (IRR 1.07, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.41, I 2=0%); studies with low risk of bias (IRR 0.98, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.20, I 2=44%); or studies using rifampicin (IRR 1.00, 95% CI 0. 0.75-1.32, I 2=38%). No significant differences were noted in pooled outcomes of death, 2-month culture conversion and relapse. CONCLUSIONS: HDRs were not associated with a significant difference in SAEs, 2-month culture conversion or death. Further studies are required to identify specific groups who may benefit from HDR.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a health systems intervention for latent tuberculosis infection management (ACT4): a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Reaching the UN General Assembly High-Level Meeting on Tuberculosis target of providing tuberculosis preventive treatment to at least 30 million people by 2022, including 4 million children under the age of 5 years and 20 million other household contacts, will require major efforts to strengthen health systems. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a health systems intervention to strengthen management for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in household contacts of confirmed tuberculosis cases. METHODS: ACT4 was a cluster-randomised, open-label trial involving 24 health facilities in Benin, Canada, Ghana, Indonesia, and Vietnam randomly assigned to either a three-phase intervention (LTBI programme evaluation, local decision making, and strengthening activities) or control (standard LTBI care). Tuberculin and isoniazid were provided to control and intervention sites if not routinely available. Randomisation was stratified by country and restricted to ensure balance of index patients with tuberculosis by arm and country. The primary outcome was the number of household contacts who initiated tuberculosis preventive treatment at each health facility within 4 months of the diagnosis of the index case, recorded in the first or last 6 months of our 20-month study. To ease interpretation, this number was standardised per 100 newly diagnosed index patients with tuberculosis. Analysis was by intention to treat. Masking of staff at the coordinating centre and sites was not possible; however, those analysing data were masked to assignment of intervention or control. An economic analysis of the intervention was done in parallel with the trial. ACT4 is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02810678. FINDINGS: The study was done between Aug 1, 2016, and March 31, 2019. During the first 6 months of the study the crude overall proportion of household contacts initiating tuberculosis preventive treatment out of those eligible at intervention sites was 0·21. After the implementation of programme strengthening activities, the proportion initiating tuberculosis preventive treatment increased to 0·35. Overall, the number of household contacts initiating tuberculosis preventive treatment per 100 index patients with tuberculosis increased between study phases in intervention sites (adjusted rate difference 60, 95% CI 4 to 116), while control sites showed no statistically significant change (-12, -33 to 10). There was a difference in rate differences of 72 (95% CI 10 to 134) contacts per 100 index patients with tuberculosis initiating preventive treatment associated with the intervention. The total cost for the intervention, plus LTBI clinical care per additional contact initiating treatment was estimated to be CA$1348 (range 724 to 9708). INTERPRETATION: A strategy of standardised evaluation, local decision making, and implementation of health systems strengthening activities can provide a mechanism for scale-up of tuberculosis prevention, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Effects of programmatic interventions to improve the management of latent tuberculosis: a follow up study up to five months after implementation.

BACKGROUND: Less than 19% of those needing tuberculosis (TB) preventive treatment complete it, due to losses in several steps of the cascade of care for latent TB infection. A cluster randomized trial of a programmatic public health intervention to improve management of latent TB infection in household contacts was conducted in Rio de Janeiro. Interventions included contact registry, initial and in-service training, and a TB booklet. We conducted a follow-up study starting one month after the conclusion of this trial, to measure the effect of interventions implemented, and to identify remaining barriers and facilitators to latent TB infection treatment, from different perspectives. METHODS: In two health clinics in Rio de Janeiro that received the interventions in the trial, data for the latent TB infection cascade of care for household contacts was collected over a five-month period. The number of household contacts initiating treatment per 100 index-TB patients was compared with the cascade of care data obtained before and during the intervention trial. Semi-structured open-ended questionnaires were administered to healthcare workers, household contacts and index-TB patients regarding knowledge and perceptions about TB and study interventions. RESULTS: In this follow-up study, 184 household contacts per 100 index-TB patients were identified. When compared to the intervention period, there were 65 fewer household contacts per 100 index-TB patients, (95% CI -115, - 15) but the number starting latent TB infection treatment was sustained (difference -2, 95% CI -8,5). A total of 31 index-TB patients, 22 household contacts and 19 health care workers were interviewed. Among index-TB patients, 61% said all their household contacts had been tested for latent TB infection. All health care workers said it was very important to test household contacts, and 95% mentioned that possessing correct knowledge on the benefits of latent TB infection treatment was the main facilitator to enable them to recommend this treatment. CONCLUSION: In this follow-up study, we observed a sustained effect of interventions to strengthen the latent TB infection cascade of care on increasing the number of household contacts starting latent TB infection treatment.

Dépistage actif chez les groupes courant un risque accru de contracter le SRAS-CoV-2 au Canada : coûts et ressources humaines nécessaires.

CONTEXTE: Le dépistage du coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SRAS-CoV-2) est en grande partie passif, ce qui nuit au contrôle de l'épidémie. Nous avons élaboré des stratégies de dépistage actif du SRAS-CoV-2 au moyen d'une amplification en chaîne par polymérase couplée à une transcription inverse (RT-PCR) chez les groupes courant un risque accru de contracter le virus dans les provinces canadiennes. MÉTHODES: Nous avons identifié 5 groupes qui devraient être prioritaires pour le dépistage actif au moyen d'une RTPCR, soit les gens ayant été en contact avec une personne infectée par le SRAS-CoV-2 et ceux qui appartiennent à 4 populations à risque : employés d'hôpitaux, travailleurs en soins de santé communautaires ainsi qu'employés et résidents d'établissements de soins de longue durée, employés d'entreprises essentielles, et élèves et personnel scolaire. Nous avons estimé les coûts, les ressources humaines et la capacité de laboratoire nécessaires au dépistage des membres de ces groupes ou au dépistage sur des échantillons aléatoires aux fins de surveillance. RÉSULTATS: Du 8 au 17 juillet 2020, 41 751 dépistages par RT-PCR étaient réalisés chaque jour en moyenne dans les provinces canadiennes; nous avons estimé que ces tests mobilisaient 5122 employés et coûtaient 2,4 millions de dollars par jour (67,8 millions de dollars par mois). La recherche et le dépistage systématiques des contacts requerraient 1,2 fois plus de personnel et porteraient les coûts mensuels à 78,9 millions de dollars. S'il était réalisé en 1 mois, le dépistage de tous les employés des hôpitaux nécessiterait 1823 travailleurs supplémentaires et coûterait 29,0 millions de dollars. Pour la même période de temps, le dépistage de tous les travailleurs en soins de santé communautaires et de tous les employés et résidents des établissements de soins de longue durée nécessiterait 11 074 employés supplémentaires et coûterait 124,8 millions de dollars, et celui de tous les travailleurs essentiels nécessiterait 25 965 employés supplémentaires et coûterait 321,7 millions de dollars. Enfin, le dépistage sur 6 semaines de la population scolaire nécessiterait 46 368 employés supplémentaires et coûterait 816,0 millions de dollars. Les interventions visant à pallier les inefficacités, comme le dépistage à partir d'échantillons de salive et le regroupement des échantillons, pourraient réduire les coûts de 40 % et les besoins en personnel, de 20 %. Le dépistage de surveillance sur des échantillons de la population autre que les contacts coûterait 5 % des coûts associés à l'adoption d'une approche universelle de dépistage auprès des populations à risque. INTERPRÉTATION: Le dépistage actif des groupes courant un risque accru de contracter le SRAS-CoV-2 semble faisable et favoriserait la réouverture sûre et à grande échelle de l'économie et des écoles. Cette stratégie semble également abordable lorsque comparée aux 169,2 milliards de dollars versés par le gouvernement fédéral dans la lutte contre la pandémie en date de juin 2020.

Proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons and their transmission potential: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The study objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the proportion of asymptomatic infection among coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) positive persons and their transmission potential. METHODS: We searched Embase, Medline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv up to 22 June 2020. We included cohorts or cross-sectional studies which systematically tested populations regardless of symptoms for COVID-19, or case series of any size reporting contact investigations of asymptomatic index patients. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality using pre-specified criteria. Only moderate/high quality studies were included. The main outcomes were proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons at testing and through follow-up, and secondary attack rate among close contacts of asymptomatic index patients. A qualitative synthesis was performed. Where appropriate, data were pooled using random effects meta-analysis to estimate proportions and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). RESULTS: Of 6,137 identified studies, 71 underwent quality assessment after full text review, and 28 were high/moderate quality and were included. In two general population studies, the proportion of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection at time of testing was 20% and 75%, respectively; among three studies in contacts it was 8.2% to 50%. In meta-analysis, the proportion (95% CI) of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection in obstetric patients was 95% (45% to 100%) of which 59% (49% to 68%) remained asymptomatic through follow-up; among nursing home residents, the proportion was 54% (42% to 65%) of which 28% (13% to 50%) remained asymptomatic through follow-up. Transmission studies were too heterogenous to meta-analyse. Among five transmission studies, 18 of 96 (18.8%) close contacts exposed to asymptomatic index patients were COVID-19 positive. CONCLUSIONS: Despite study heterogeneity, the proportion of asymptomatic infection among COVID-19 positive persons appears high and transmission potential seems substantial. To further our understanding, high quality studies in representative general population samples are required.

Active testing of groups at increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 in Canada: costs and human resource needs.

BACKGROUND: Testing for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is largely passive, which impedes epidemic control. We defined active testing strategies for SARS-CoV-2 using reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) for groups at increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 in all Canadian provinces. METHODS: We identified 5 groups who should be prioritized for active RT-PCR testing: contacts of people who are positive for SARS-CoV-2, and 4 at-risk populations - hospital employees, community health care workers and people in long-term care facilities, essential business employees, and schoolchildren and staff. We estimated costs, human resources and laboratory capacity required to test people in each group or to perform surveillance testing in random samples. RESULTS: During July 8-17, 2020, across all provinces in Canada, an average of 41 751 RT-PCR tests were performed daily; we estimated this required 5122 personnel and cost $2.4 million per day ($67.8 million per month). Systematic contact tracing and testing would increase personnel needs 1.2-fold and monthly costs to $78.9 million. Conducted over a month, testing all hospital employees would require 1823 additional personnel, costing $29.0 million; testing all community health care workers and persons in long-term care facilities would require 11 074 additional personnel and cost $124.8 million; and testing all essential employees would cost $321.7 million, requiring 25 965 added personnel. Testing the larger population within schools over 6 weeks would require 46 368 added personnel and cost $816.0 million. Interventions addressing inefficiencies, including saliva-based sampling and pooling samples, could reduce costs by 40% and personnel by 20%. Surveillance testing in population samples other than contacts would cost 5% of the cost of a universal approach to testing at-risk populations. INTERPRETATION: Active testing of groups at increased risk of acquiring SARS-CoV-2 appears feasible and would support the safe reopening of the economy and schools more broadly. This strategy also appears affordable compared with the $169.2 billion committed by the federal government as a response to the pandemic as of June 2020.

Solutions to improve the latent tuberculosis Cascade of Care in Ghana: a longitudinal impact assessment.

BACKGROUND: Loss of patients in the latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) cascade of care is a major barrier to LTBI management. We evaluated the impact and acceptability of local solutions implemented to strengthen LTBI management of household contacts (HHCs) at an outpatient clinic in Ghana. METHODS: Local solutions to improve LTBI management were informed by a baseline evaluation of the LTBI cascade and questionnaires administered to index patients, HHCs, and health care workers at the study site in Offinso, Ghana. Solutions aimed to reduce patient costs and improve knowledge. We evaluated the impact and acceptability of the solutions. Specific objectives were to: 1) Compare the proportion of eligible HHCs completing each step in the LTBI cascade of care before and after solution implementation; 2) Compare knowledge, attitude, and practices (KAP) before and after solution implementation, based on responses of patients and health care workers (HCW) to structured questionnaires; 3) Evaluate patient and HCW acceptability of solutions using information obtained from these questionnaires. RESULTS: Pre and Post-Solution LTBI Cascades included 58 and 125 HHCs, respectively. Before implementation, 39% of expected < 5-year-old HHCs and 66% of ≥5-year-old HHCs were identified. None completed any further cascade steps. Post implementation, the proportion of eligible HHCs who completed identification, assessment, evaluation, and treatment initiation increased for HHCs < 5 to 94, 100, 82, 100%, respectively, and for HHCs ≥5 to 96, 69, 67, 100%, respectively. Pre and Post-Solutions questionnaires were completed by 80 and 95 respondents, respectively. Study participants most frequently mentioned financial support and education as the solutions that supported LTBI management. CONCLUSION: Implementation of locally selected solutions was associated with an increase in the proportion of HHCs completing all steps in the LTBI cascade. Tuberculosis programs should consider prioritizing financial support, such as payment for chest x-rays, to support LTBI cascade completion.

Adverse events in adults with latent tuberculosis infection receiving daily rifampicin or isoniazid: post-hoc safety analysis of two randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: An important problem limiting treatment of latent tuberculosis infection is the occurrence of adverse events with isoniazid. We combined populations from phase 2 and phase 3 open-label, randomised controlled trials, to establish risk factors for adverse events during latent tuberculosis infection treatment. METHODS: We did a post-hoc safety analysis based on data from two open-label, randomised controlled trials done in health-care facilities in Australia, Benin, Brazil, Canada, Ghana, Guinea, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea. Participants were consenting adults (aged ≥18 years) with a positive latent tuberculosis infection diagnostic test, indication for treatment, and without contraindications to rifampicin or isoniazid. Patients were centrally randomly assigned 1:1 to 4 months of daily 10 mg/kg rifampicin or 9 months of daily 5 mg/kg isoniazid. The primary outcome evaluated was adverse events (including grade 1-2 rash and all events of grade 3-5) resulting in permanent discontinuation of study medication and judged possibly or probably related to study drug by a masked, independent, three-member adjudication panel (trial registration: NCT00170209; NCT00931736). FINDINGS: Participants were recruited from April 27, 2004, up until Jan 31, 2007 (phase 2), and Oct 1, 2009, up until Dec 31, 2014 (phase 3). The safety populations for each group comprised 3205 individuals receiving isoniazid and 3280 receiving rifampicin. Among those receiving isoniazid, 86 (2·7%) of 3205 had grade 1-2 rash or any grade 3-5 adverse events, more than the 50 (1·5%) of 3280 who had these events with rifampicin (risk difference -1·2%, 95% CI -1·9 to -0·5). Age was associated with adverse events in adults receiving isoniazid. Compared with individuals aged 18-34 years, the adjusted odds ratio (OR) for adverse events was 1·8 (95% CI 1·1-3·0) for individuals aged 35-64 years and 3·0 (1·2-6·8) for individuals aged 65-90 years. With rifampicin, adverse events were associated with inconsistent medication adherence (adjusted OR 2·0, 1·1-3·6) and concomitant medication use (2·8, 1·5-5·2), but not age, with an adjusted OR of 1·1 (0·6-2·1) for individuals aged 35-64 years and 1·7 (0·5-4·7) for individuals aged 65-90 years. One treatment-related death occurred in the isoniazid group. INTERPRETATION: In patients without a contraindication, rifampicin is likely to be the safest latent tuberculosis infection treatment option. With more widespread use of rifampicin, rare, but serious adverse events might be seen. However, within these randomised trials, rifampicin was safer than isoniazid and adverse events were not associated with older age. Therefore, rifampicin should become a primary treatment option for latent tuberculosis infection based on its safety. FUNDING: Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Treatment of Drug-Resistant Tuberculosis. An Official ATS/CDC/ERS/IDSA Clinical Practice Guideline.

Background: The American Thoracic Society, U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, European Respiratory Society, and Infectious Diseases Society of America jointly sponsored this new practice guideline on the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis (DR-TB). The document includes recommendations on the treatment of multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) as well as isoniazid-resistant but rifampin-susceptible TB.Methods: Published systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and a new individual patient data meta-analysis from 12,030 patients, in 50 studies, across 25 countries with confirmed pulmonary rifampin-resistant TB were used for this guideline. Meta-analytic approaches included propensity score matching to reduce confounding. Each recommendation was discussed by an expert committee, screened for conflicts of interest, according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology.Results: Twenty-one Population, Intervention, Comparator, and Outcomes questions were addressed, generating 25 GRADE-based recommendations. Certainty in the evidence was judged to be very low, because the data came from observational studies with significant loss to follow-up and imbalance in background regimens between comparator groups. Good practices in the management of MDR-TB are described. On the basis of the evidence review, a clinical strategy tool for building a treatment regimen for MDR-TB is also provided.Conclusions: New recommendations are made for the choice and number of drugs in a regimen, the duration of intensive and continuation phases, and the role of injectable drugs for MDR-TB. On the basis of these recommendations, an effective all-oral regimen for MDR-TB can be assembled. Recommendations are also provided on the role of surgery in treatment of MDR-TB and for treatment of contacts exposed to MDR-TB and treatment of isoniazid-resistant TB.

The mTST - An mHealth approach for training and quality assurance of tuberculin skin test administration and reading.

BACKGROUND: The Tuberculin Skin Test (TST) is a relatively simple test for detecting latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) but requires regular quality assurance to ensure proper technique for administration and reading. The objective of this study was to estimate the accuracy and reproducibility of an mhealth approach (the mTST) to measure the size of swelling immediately following TST administration (TST injection bleb) and after 48-72 hours (TST induration). METHODS: Five non-clinical and one clinical reviewer measured the size of TST injection blebs, and TST indurations using smartphone acquired photos of sites of TST administration and readings in patients, or saline injections in volunteers. The reference standard was the onsite measurement (measured by an experienced TB nurse) of the actual TST injection bleb, or induration. Agreement of reviewers' measurements with the reference standard, as well as agreement within and between reviewers, was estimated using Cohen's kappa coefficient. RESULTS: Using the mTST method to assess bleb size in 64 photos of different TST injections, agreement between reviewers, and the reference standard was very good to excellent (κ ranged from 0.75 to 0.87), and within-reviewer reproducibility of readings was excellent (κ ranged from 0.86 to 0.96). Using the mTST method to assess TST induration in 72 photos, reviewers were able to detect no induration (<5mm) and induration of 15mm or greater with accuracy of 95% and 92% respectively, but accuracy was only 20% and 77% for reactions of 5-9mm and 10-14mm respectively. CONCLUSION: The mTST approach appears to be a reliable tool to assess TST administration. The mTST approach was accurate to read indurations of 0-4mm or 15+mm, but less accurate for reactions of 5-14mm. We believe the mTST approach could be useful for training and quality assurance in locations where on-site supervision is not possible.

Enhancing the public health impact of latent tuberculosis infection diagnosis and treatment (ACT4): protocol for a cluster randomised trial.

INTRODUCTION: Treatment of latent tuberculosis (TB) infection (LTBI) is an important component of the End-TB strategy. However, the number of individuals who successfully complete LTBI treatment remains low as there are losses at all steps in the LTBI 'cascade-of-care'. The reasons for these losses are variable and highly dependent on the setting. We have planned a trial of a standardised public health approach to strengthen the management of household contacts (HHCs) of newly diagnosed patients with pulmonary TB. Assessing costs related to approach is a secondary objective of the study. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A cluster randomised trial will be conducted in 24 randomisation units (health facilities or groups of health facilities) in five countries. In Phase 1, at intervention sites, we will conduct a standardised assessment of the current LTBI programme, with a focus on cascade-of-care endpoints. Standardised open-ended questionnaires on practices, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding TB prevention are then administered to key patient groups and healthcare workers. At each site, local stake-holders will review study findings and select solutions based on their acceptability, cost and effectiveness. In Phase 2, intervention clinics will implement the selected solutions, along with contact measurement registries and regular in-service LTBI management training. Control sites will continue their usual LTBI care with no explicit evaluation, strengthening or training activities. The primary study outcome is the number of HHC initiating LTBI treatment per newly diagnosed active TB patient, within 3 months of diagnosis of the index patient. An intention-to-treat analysis will be performed, using a Poisson regression approach. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval from the MUHC ethical review board (ERB) was obtained in November 2015. During the study standardised tools will be developed and made publicly available. Key study findings and novel methodologic contributions will be detailed in publications and other dissemination activities. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02810678; Pre-Results.

The impact of improved detection and treatment of isoniazid resistant tuberculosis on prevalence of multi-drug resistant tuberculosis: A modelling study.

INTRODUCTION: Isoniazid-resistant, rifampin susceptible tuberculosis (INHR-TB) is the most common form of drug resistant TB globally. Treatment of INHR-TB with standard first-line therapy is associated with high rates of multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB). We modelled the potential impact of INHR-TB detection and appropriate treatment on MDR-TB prevalence. METHODS: A decision analysis model was developed to compare three different strategies for the detection of TB (AFB smear, Xpert MTB/RIF, and Line-Probe Assays (LPA)), combined with appropriate treatment. The population evaluated were patients with a globally representative prevalence of newly diagnosed, drug-susceptible (88.6%), isoniazid-resistant (7.3%), and multidrug resistant (4.1%) pulmonary TB. Our primary outcome was the proportion of patients with MDR-TB after initial attempt at diagnosis and treatment within a 2-year period. Secondary outcomes were the proportion of i) individuals with detected TB who acquired MDR-TB ii) individuals who died after initial attempt at diagnosis and treatment. RESULTS: After initial attempt at diagnosis and treatment, LPA combined with appropriate INHR-TB therapy resulted in a lower proportion of prevalent MDR-TB (1.61%; 95% Uncertainty Range (UR: 2.5th and 97.5th percentiles generated from 10 000 Monte Carlo simulation trials) 1.61-1.65), when compared to Xpert (1.84%; 95% UR 1.82-1.85) and AFB smear (3.21%; 95% UR 3.19-3.26). LPA also resulted in fewer cases of acquired MDR-TB in those with detected TB (0.35%; 95% UR 0.34-0.35), when compared to Xpert (0.67%; 95% UR 0.65-0.67) and AFB smear (0.68%; 95% UR 0.67-0.69). The majority of acquired MDR-TB arose from the treatment of INHR-TB in all strategies. Xpert-based strategies resulted in a lower proportion of death (2.89%; 95% UR 2.87-2.90) compared to LPA (2.93%; 95% UR 2.91-2.94) and AFB smear (3.21%; 95% UR 3.19-3.23). CONCLUSION: Accurate diagnosis and tailored treatment of INHR-TB with LPA led to an almost 50% relative decrease in acquired MDR-TB when compared with an Xpert MTB/RIF strategy. Continued reliance on diagnostic and treatment protocols that ignore INHR-TB will likely result in further generation of MDR-TB.

Safety and Side Effects of Rifampin versus Isoniazid in Children.

BACKGROUND: The treatment of latent infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis is important in children because of their vulnerability to life-threatening forms of tuberculosis disease. The current standard treatment - 9 months of isoniazid - has been associated with poor adherence and toxic effects, which have hampered the effectiveness of the drug. In adults, treatment with 4 months of rifampin has been shown to be safer and to have higher completion rates than 9 months of isoniazid. METHODS: In this multicenter, open-label trial, we randomly assigned 844 children (<18 years of age) with latent M. tuberculosis infection to receive either 4 months of rifampin or 9 months of isoniazid. The primary outcome was adverse events of grade 1 to 5 that resulted in the permanent discontinuation of a trial drug. Secondary outcomes were treatment adherence, side-effect profile, and efficacy. Independent review panels whose members were unaware of trial-group assignments adjudicated all adverse events and progression to active tuberculosis. RESULTS: Of the children who underwent randomization, 829 were eligible for inclusion in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. A total of 360 of 422 children (85.3%) in the rifampin group completed per-protocol therapy, as compared with 311 of 407 (76.4%) in the isoniazid group (adjusted difference in the rates of treatment completion, 13.4 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 7.5 to 19.3). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of adverse events, with fewer than 5% of the children in the combined groups with grade 1 or 2 adverse events that were deemed to be possibly related to a trial drug. Active tuberculosis, including 1 case with resistance to isoniazid, was diagnosed in 2 children in the isoniazid group during 542 person-years of follow-up, as compared with no cases in the rifampin group during 562 person-years (rate difference, -0.37 cases per 100 person-years; 95% CI, -0.88 to 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: Among children under the age of 18 years, treatment with 4 months of rifampin had similar rates of safety and efficacy but a better rate of adherence than 9 months of treatment with isoniazid. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and Conselho Nacional de Pesquisa; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00170209 .).

Community involvement in biomedical research conducted in the global health context; what can be done to make it really matter?

BACKGROUND: Community involvement in research has been advocated by researchers, communities, regulatory agencies, and funders with the aim of reinforcing subjects' protection and improving research efficiency. Community involvement also has the potential to improve dissemination, uptake, and implementation of research findings. The fields of community based participatory research conducted with indigenous populations and of participatory action research offer a large base of experience in community involvement in research. Rules on involving the population affected when conducting research have been established in these fields. But what is the role of community engagement in clinical research and observational studies conducted in biomedical research outside of these specific areas? More than 20 years ago, in the field of HIV medicine, regulatory bodies and funding agencies (such as the US National Institutes of Health) recommended the constitution of a formal organism, the Community Advisory Board (CAB), as part of the study requirements for HIV trials. More recently, CABs have been adopted and used in other fields of medical research, such as malaria. CABs are not without limitations, however, and there is little research on the effectiveness of their use in achieving community protection and participation. Nevertheless, CABs could be a model to import into clinical trials and observational research where no alternative model of community representation is currently being used. CONCLUSIONS: Allocating more resources to training and shifting more power to community representatives could be part of the solution to current CAB limitations. However, for researchers to be able to apply these recommendations on community involvement, certain conditions need to be met. In particular, funding agencies need to recognize the human and financial resources required for serious community involvement, and the academic environment needs to take community involvement into account when appraising, mentoring, and training researchers.