are the practices homogeneous in high-income countries?

Objectives: To evaluate and compare practices regarding the diagnosis, isolation measures, and treatment of tuberculosis (TB) in high-income countries and mainly in Europe. Materials and Methods: A survey was conducted from November 2018 to April 2019 within the European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Study Group for Mycobacterial Infections (ESGMYC). The practices observed were compared to the main international guidelines. Results: Among 136 ESGMYC members, 64 (17 countries) responded to the questionnaire. In their practice, two (20.7%) or three sputum samples (79.3%) were collected for the diagnosis of pulmonary TB, alternatively induced sputum (n = 37, 67.2%), bronchoscopy (34, 58.6%), and gastric aspirates (15, 25.9%). Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAATs) were performed by 41 (64%) respondents whatever the smear result and by 47 (73%) in case of smear-positive specimens. NAAT and adenosine deaminase measurement were used for extrapulmonary TB diagnosis in 83.6 and 40.4% of cases, respectively. For isolation duration, 21 respondents (42.9%) were keeping isolation until smear negativity. An initial treatment without ethambutol was offered by 14% (n = 9) of respondents. Corticosteroid therapy, cerebrospinal fluid opening pressure testing, and repeated lumbar puncture were carried out for central nervous system TB by 79.6, 51.9, and 46.3% of the respondents, respectively. For patients with human immunodeficiency virus–TB coinfection, the preferred antiretroviral therapy included dolutegravir 50 mg twice a day (56.8%). Comparing with the recommendations of the main guidelines, the practices are not totally consistent. Conclusion: This study shows heterogeneous practices, particularly for diagnosis, and isolation, although rapid molecular testing is implemented in most centers. More standardization might be needed.publishersversionpublishe

Initiation and completion of treatment for latent tuberculosis infection in migrants globally:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: Latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is one of the most prevalent infections globally and can lead to the development of active tuberculosis disease. In many low-burden countries, LTBI is concentrated within migrant populations often because of a higher disease burden in the migrant's country of origin. National programmes consequently focus on screening and treating LTBI in migrants to prevent future tuberculosis cases; however, how effective these programmes are is unclear. We aimed to assess LTBI treatment initiation and outcomes among migrants, and the factors that influence both. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched Embase, MEDLINE, and Global Health, and manually searched grey literature from Jan 1, 2000, to April 21, 2020. We included primary research articles reporting on LTBI treatment initiation or completion, or both, in migrants and excluded articles in which data were not stratified by migrant status, or in which the data were related to outcomes before 2000. There were no geographical or language restrictions. All included studies were quality appraised using recognised tools depending on their design, and we assessed the heterogeneity of analyses using I2. We extracted data on the numbers of migrants initiating and completing treatment. Our primary outcomes were LTBI treatment initiation and completion in migrants (defined as foreign-born). We used random-effects meta-regression to examine the influence of factors related to these outcomes. The study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42019140338). FINDINGS: 2199 publications were retrieved screened, after which 39 publications from 13 mostly high-income, low-burden countries were included in our analyses, with treatment initiation and completion data reported for 31 598 migrants positive for LTBI, with not all articles reporting the full pathway from initiation to completion. The pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants testing positive who initiated treatment was 69% (95% CI 51-84; I2= 99·62%; 4409 of 8764). The pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants on treatment in datasets, who subsequently completed it was 74% (95% CI = 66-81; I2= 99·19%; 15 516 of 25 629). Where data were provided for the entire treatment pathway, the pooled estimate for the true proportion of migrants who initiated and completed treatment after a positive test was only 52% (95% CI 40-64; I2= 98·90%; 3289 of 6652). Meta-regression showed that LTBI programmes are improving, with more recent reported data (2010-20) associated with better rates of treatment initiation and completion, with multiple complex factors affecting treatment outcomes in migrants. INTERPRETATION: Although our analysis highlights that LTBI treatment initiation and completion in migrants has improved considerably from 2010-20, there is still room for improvement, with drop out reported along the entire treatment pathway. The delivery of these screening and treatment programmes will require further strengthening if the targets to eradicate tuberculosis in low-incidence countries are to be met, with greater focus needed on engaging migrants more effectively in the clinic and understanding the diverse and unique barriers and facilitators to migrants initiating and completing treatment. FUNDING: European Society of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, the Rosetrees Trust, the National Institute for Health Research, and the Academy of Medical Sciences

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the real-world diagnostic infrastructure for tuberculosis-An ESGMYC collaborative study

We determined the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mycobacterial diagnostic services. 40 laboratories from 22 countries completed an online questionnaire covering the redeployment of the laboratory infrastructure and/or staff for SARS-CoV-2 testing, staff shortages and supply chain disruptions. 28 laboratories reported monthly numbers of samples processed for mycobacterial investigations and monthly numbers of M. tuberculosis complex (MTBC) PCRs performed between October 1st 2018 and October 31st 2020. More than half (23/40) of the participating TB laboratories reported having performed COVID-19 diagnostics in the early phase of the pandemic, in part with negative impact on the mycobacterial service activities. All participating laboratories reported shortages of consumables and laboratory equipment due to supply chain issues. Average monthly sample numbers decreased by 24% between January 2020 and October 2020 compared to pre-pandemic averages. At the end of the study period, most participating laboratories had not returned to pre-pandemic average MTBC PCR throughput

Country-specific approaches to latent tuberculosis screening targeting migrants in EU/EEA* countries: A survey of national experts, September 2019 to February 2020.

BackgroundMigrants in low tuberculosis (TB) incidence countries in the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) are an at-risk group for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and are increasingly included in LTBI screening programmes.AimTo investigate current approaches and implement LTBI screening in recently arrived migrants in the EU/EEA and Switzerland.MethodsAt least one TB expert working at a national level from the EU/EEA and one TB expert from Switzerland completed an electronic questionnaire. We used descriptive analyses to calculate percentages, and framework analysis to synthesise free-text responses.ResultsExperts from 32 countries were invited to participate (30 countries responded): 15 experts reported an LTBI screening programme targeting migrants in their country; five reported plans to implement one in the near future; and 10 reported having no programme. LTBI screening was predominantly for asylum seekers (n = 12) and refugees (n = 11). Twelve countries use 'country of origin' as the main eligibility criteria. The countries took similar approaches to diagnosis and treatment but different approaches to follow-up. Six experts reported that drop-out rates in migrants were higher compared with non-migrant groups. Most of the experts (n = 22) called for a renewed focus on expanding efforts to screen for LTBI in migrants arriving in low-incidence countries.ConclusionWe found a range of approaches to LTBI screening of migrants in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. Findings suggest a renewed focus is needed to expand and strengthen efforts to meaningfully include migrants in these programmes, in order to meet regional and global elimination targets for TB