Incidence of self-reported tuberculosis treatment with community-wide universal testing and treatment for HIV and tuberculosis screening in Zambia and South Africa: A planned analysis of the HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: HIV is a potent risk factor for tuberculosis (TB). Therefore, community-wide universal testing and treatment for HIV (UTT) could contribute to TB control, but evidence for this is limited. Community-wide TB screening can decrease population-level TB prevalence. Combining UTT with TB screening could therefore significantly impact TB control in sub-Saharan Africa, but to our knowledge there is no evidence for this combined approach. METHODS AND FINDINGS: HPTN 071 (PopART) was a community-randomised trial conducted between November 2013 to July 2018; 21 Zambian and South African communities (with a total population of approximately 1 million individuals) were randomised to arms A (community-wide UTT and TB screening), B (community-wide universal HIV testing with treatment following national guidelines and TB screening), or C (standard-of-care). In a cohort of randomly selected adults (18 to 44 years) enrolled between 2013 and 2015 from all 21 communities (total size 38,474; 27,139 [71%] female; 8,004 [21%] HIV positive) and followed-up annually for 36 months to measure the population-level impact of the interventions, data on self-reported TB treatment in the previous 12 months (self-reported TB) were collected by trained research assistants and recorded using a structured questionnaire at each study visit. In this prespecified analysis of the trial, self-reported TB incidence rates were measured by calendar year between 2014 and 2017/2018. A p-value ≤0.05 on hypothesis testing was defined as reaching statistical significance. Between January 2014 and July 2018, 38,287 individuals were followed-up: 494 self-reported TB during 104,877 person-years. Overall incidence rates were similar across all arms in 2014 and 2015 (0.33 to 0.46/100 person-years). In 2016 incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C overall (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.48 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.28 to 0.81; p = 0.01]), with statistical significance reached. In 2017/2018, while incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C, statistical significance was not reached (aRR 0.58 [95% CI 0.27 to 1.22; p = 0.13]). Among people living with HIV (PLHIV) incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C in 2016 (RR 0.56 [95% CI 0.29 to 1.08; p = 0.08]) and 2017/2018 (RR 0.50 [95% CI 0.26 to 0.95; p = 0.04]); statistical significance was only reached in 2017/2018. Incidence rates in arms B and C were similar, overall and among PLHIV. Among HIV-negative individuals, there were too few events for cross-arm comparisons. Study limitations include the use of self-report which may have been subject to under-reporting, limited covariate adjustment due to the small number of events, and high losses to follow-up over time. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, community-wide UTT and TB screening resulted in substantially lower TB incidence among PLHIV at population-level, compared to standard-of-care, with statistical significance reached in the final study year. There was also some evidence this translated to a decrease in self-reported TB incidence overall in the population. Reduction in arm A but not B suggests UTT drove the observed effect. Our data support the role of UTT in TB control, in addition to HIV control, in high TB/HIV burden settings. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01900977.

The effect of systematic screening of the general population on TB case notification rates.

BACKGROUND: Understanding how TB case notification rates (TB-CNR) change with TB screening and their association with underlying TB incidence/prevalence could inform how they are best used to monitor screening impact.METHODS: We undertook a systematic review to identify articles published between 1 January 1980 and 13 April 2020 on TB-CNR trends associated with TB screening in the general-population. Using a simple compartmental TB transmission model, we modelled TB-CNRs, incidence and prevalence dynamics during 5 years of screening.RESULTS: Of 27,282 articles, seven before/after studies were eligible. Two involved population-wide screening, while five used targeted screening. The data suggest screening was associated with initial increases in TB-CNRs. Increases were greatest with population-wide screening, where screening identified a large proportion of notified people with TB. Only one study reported on sustained screening; TB-CNR trends were compatible with model simulations. Model simulations always showed a peak in TB-CNRs with screening. Following the peak, TB-CNRs declined but were typically sustained above baseline during the intervention. Incidence and prevalence decreased during the intervention; the relative decline in incidence was smaller than the decline in prevalence.CONCLUSIONS: Published data on TB-CNR trends with TB screening are limited. These data are needed to identify generalisable patterns and enable method development for inferring underlying TB incidence/prevalence from TB-CNR trends.

Does tuberculosis screening improve individual outcomes? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: To determine if tuberculosis (TB) screening improves patient outcomes, we conducted two systematic reviews to investigate the effect of TB screening on diagnosis, treatment outcomes, deaths (clinical review assessing 23 outcome indicators); and patient costs (economic review). METHODS: Pubmed, EMBASE, Scopus and the Cochrane Library were searched between 1/1/1980-13/4/2020 (clinical review) and 1/1/2010-14/8/2020 (economic review). As studies were heterogeneous, data synthesis was narrative. FINDINGS: Clinical review: of 27,270 articles, 18 (n=3 trials) were eligible. Nine involved general populations. Compared to passive case finding (PCF), studies showed lower smear grade (n=2/3) and time to diagnosis (n=2/3); higher pre-treatment losses to follow-up (screened 23% and 29% vs PCF 15% and 14%; n=2/2); and similar treatment success (range 68-81%; n=4) and case fatality (range 3-11%; n=5) in the screened group. Nine reported on risk groups. Compared to PCF, studies showed lower smear positivity among those culture-confirmed (n=3/4) and time to diagnosis (n=2/2); and similar (range 80-90%; n=2/2) treatment success in the screened group. Case fatality was lower in n=2/3 observational studies; both reported on established screening programmes. A neonatal trial and post-hoc analysis of a household contacts trial found screening was associated with lower all-cause mortality. Economic review: From 2841 articles, six observational studies were eligible. Total costs (n=6) and catastrophic cost prevalence (n=4; range screened 9-45% vs PCF 12-61%) was lower among those screened. INTERPRETATION: We found very limited patient outcome data. Collecting and reporting this data must be prioritised to inform policy and practice. FUNDING: WHO and EDCTP.

The sensitivity of the QuantiFERON®-TB Gold Plus assay in Zambian adults with active tuberculosis.

SETTING AND OBJECTIVE: To investigate the sensitivity of the new interferon-gamma release assay (IGRA), QuantiFERON®-TB Gold Plus (QFT-Plus), for active TB (used as a surrogate for latent tuberculous infection) in a Zambian TB clinic. DESIGN: Consecutive smear or Xpert® MTB/RIF-positive adult (age 18 years) pulmonary TB patients were recruited between June 2015 and March 2016. Venous blood was tested using QFT-Plus. The sensitivity was defined as the number positive divided by the total number tested. Using logistic regression, factors associated with positive QFT-Plus results were explored. RESULTS: Of 108 patients (median age 32 years, interquartile range 27-38; 73% male; 63% human immunodeficiency virus [HIV] positive), 90 were QFT-Plus-positive, 11 were negative and seven had indeterminate results; sensitivity was 83% (95%CI 75-90). There was no difference in sensitivity by HIV status (HIV-positive 85%, 95%CI 75-93; n = 68 vs. HIV-negative 80%, 95%CI 64-91; n = 40; P = 0.59). In models adjusted for age alone, CD4 cell count <100 cells/µl (OR 0.15, 95%CI 0.02-0.96; P = 0.05) and body mass index <18.5 kg/m2 (OR 0.27, 95%CI 0.08-0.91; P = 0.02) were associated with decreased odds of positive QFT-Plus results. CONCLUSION: Overall, the sensitivity of QFT-Plus is similar to that of the tuberculin skin test and other IGRAs. While overall sensitivity is not affected by HIV status, QFT-Plus sensitivity was lower among people living with HIV/acquired immune-deficiency syndrome with severe immunosuppression.

Chemoprophylaxis and vaccination in preventing subsequent cases of meningococcal disease in household contacts of a case of meningococcal disease: a systematic review.

Household contacts of an index case of invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) are at increased risk of acquiring disease. In revising WHO guidance on IMD in sub-Saharan Africa, a systematic review was undertaken to assess the effect of chemoprophylaxis and of vaccination in preventing subsequent cases of IMD in household contacts following an index case. A literature search for systematic reviews identified a single suitable review on chemoprophylaxis in 2004 (three studies meta-analysed). A search for primary research papers published since 2004 on chemoprophylaxis and without a date limit on vaccination was therefore undertaken. There were 2381 studies identified of which two additional studies met the inclusion criteria. The summary risk ratio for chemoprophylaxis vs. no chemoprophylaxis (four studies) in the 30-day period after a case was 0·16 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0·04-0·64, P = 0·008]; the number needed to treat to prevent one subsequent case was 200 (95% CI 111-1000). A single quasi-randomized trial assessed the role of vaccination. The risk ratio for vaccination vs. no vaccination at 30 days was 0·11 (95% CI 0·01-2·07, P = 0·14). The results support the use of chemoprophylaxis to prevent subsequent cases of IMD in household contacts of a case. Conclusions about the use of vaccination could not be drawn.