Yield and Coverage of Active Case Finding Interventions for Tuberculosis Control:A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background. Active case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) is a key strategy to reduce diagnostic delays, expedite treatment, and prevent transmission. Objective. Our objective was to identify the populations, settings, screening and diagnostic approaches that optimize coverage (proportion of those targeted who were screened) and yield (proportion of those screened who had active TB) in ACF programs. Methods. We performed a comprehensive search to identify studies published from 1980-2016 that reported the coverage and yield of different ACF approaches. For each outcome, we conducted meta-analyses of single proportions to produce estimates across studies, followed by meta-regression to identify predictors. Findings. Of 3,972 publications identified, 224 met criteria after full-text review. Most individuals who were targeted successfully completed screening, for a pooled coverage estimate of 93.5%. The pooled yield of active TB across studies was 3.2%. Settings with the highest yield were internally-displaced persons camps (15.6%) and healthcare facilities (6.9%). When compared to symptom screening as the reference standard, studies that screened individuals regardless of symptoms using microscopy, culture, or GeneXpert®MTB/RIF (Xpert) had 3.7% higher case yield. In particular, microbiological screening (usually microscopy) as the initial test, followed by culture or Xpert for diagnosis had 3.6% higher yield than symptom screening followed by microscopy for diagnosis. In a model adjusted for use of Xpert testing, approaches targeting persons living with HIV (PLWH) had a 4.9% higher yield than those targeting the general population. In all models, studies targeting children had higher yield (4.8%-5.7%) than those targeting adults. Conclusion. ACF activities can be implemented successfully in various populations and settings. Screening yield was highest in internally-displaced person and healthcare settings, and among PLWH and children. In high-prevalence settings, ACF approaches that screen individuals with laboratory tests regardless of symptoms have higher yield than approaches focused on symptomatic individuals

Over-prescription of short-acting β2-agonists is associated with poor asthma outcomes: results from the African cohort of the SABINA III study

Background The extent of short-acting β2-agonist (SABA) overuse in Africa remains poorly documented. As part of the SABA use IN Asthma (SABINA) III study, we assessed SABA prescriptions/clinical outcomes in 3 African countries. Methods Data on disease characteristics/asthma treatments were collected from patients (≥12 years) using electronic case report forms. Patients were classified by investigator-defined asthma severity (guided by the 2017 Global Initiative for Asthma) and practice type (primary/specialist care). Multivariable regression models analyzed associations between SABA prescriptions and outcomes. Results Data from 1778 patients (mean age, 43.7 years) were analyzed. Most patients were female (62.4%) and had moderate-to-severe asthma (63.3%), with 57.1 and 42.9% of patients treated in specialist and primary care, respectively. Asthma was partly controlled/uncontrolled in 66.2% of patients, with 57.9% experiencing ≥1 severe exacerbation in the previous 12 months. Overall, 46.5% of patients were prescribed ≥3 SABA canisters in the preceding 12 months (over-prescription); 26.2% were prescribed ≥10 canisters. SABAs were purchased over-the-counter by 32.6% of patients, of whom 79.3% had received SABA prescriptions; 71.9% and 40.1% for ≥3 and ≥10 canisters, respectively. Higher SABA prescriptions (vs. 1–2 canisters) were associated with increased incidence rate of severe exacerbations and lower odds of having at least partly controlled asthma (except 3–5 canisters). Conclusions Findings from this African cohort of the SABINA III study indicate that SABA over-prescription and SABA over-the-counter purchase are common and associated with poor asthma-related outcomes. This highlights the need for healthcare providers/policymakers to align clinical practices with the latest treatment recommendations

Consensus statement on measures to promote equitable authorship in the publication of research from international partnerships

Summary: Despite the acknowledged injustice and widespread existence of parachute research studies conducted in low‐ or middle‐income countries by researchers from institutions in high‐income countries, there is currently no pragmatic guidance for how academic journals should evaluate manuscript submissions and challenge this practice. We assembled a multidisciplinary group of editors and researchers with expertise in international health research to develop this consensus statement. We reviewed relevant existing literature and held three workshops to present research data and holistically discuss the concept of equitable authorship and the role of academic journals in the context of international health research partnerships. We subsequently developed statements to guide prospective authors and journal editors as to how they should address this issue. We recommend that for manuscripts that report research conducted in low‐ or middle‐income countries by collaborations including partners from one or more high‐income countries, authors should submit accompanying structured reflexivity statements. We provide specific questions that these statements should address and suggest that journals should transparently publish reflexivity statements with accepted manuscripts. We also provide guidance to journal editors about how they should assess the structured statements when making decisions on whether to accept or reject submitted manuscripts. We urge journals across disciplines to adopt these recommendations to accelerate the changes needed to halt the practice of parachute research

Global, regional, and national estimates of tuberculosis incidence and case detection among incarcerated individuals from 2000 to 2019: a systematic analysis.

People who are incarcerated are at high risk of developing tuberculosis. We aimed to estimate the annual global, regional, and national incidence of tuberculosis among incarcerated populations from 2000 to 2019. We collected and aggregated data for tuberculosis incidence and prevalence estimates among incarcerated individuals in published and unpublished literature, annual tuberculosis notifications among incarcerated individuals at the country level, and the annual number of incarcerated individuals at the country level. We developed a joint hierarchical Bayesian meta-regression framework to simultaneously model tuberculosis incidence, notifications, and prevalence from 2000 to 2019. Using this model, we estimated trends in absolute tuberculosis incidence and notifications, the incidence and notification rates, and the case detection ratio by year, country, region, and globally. In 2019, we estimated a total of 125 105 (95% credible interval [CrI] 93 736-165 318) incident tuberculosis cases among incarcerated individuals globally. The estimated incidence rate per 100 000 person-years overall was 1148 (95% CrI 860-1517) but varied greatly by WHO region, from 793 (95% CrI 430-1342) in the Eastern Mediterranean region to 2242 (1515-3216) in the African region. Global incidence per 100 000 person-years between 2000 and 2012 among incarcerated individuals decreased from 1884 (95% CrI 1394-2616) to 1205 (910-1615); however, from 2013 onwards, tuberculosis incidence per 100 000 person-years was stable, from 1183 (95% CrI 876-1596) in 2013 to 1148 (860-1517) in 2019. In 2019, the global case detection ratio was estimated to be 53% (95% CrI 42-64), the lowest over the study period. Our estimates suggest a high tuberculosis incidence rate among incarcerated individuals globally with large gaps in tuberculosis case detection. Tuberculosis in incarcerated populations must be addressed with interventions specifically tailored to improve diagnoses and prevent transmission as a part of the broader global tuberculosis control effort. National Institutes of Health. [Abstract copyright: This is an Open Access article published under the CC BY 3.0 IGO license which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. In any use of this article, there should be no suggestion that WHO endorses any specific organisation, products or services. The use of the WHO logo is not permitted. This notice should be preserved along with the article's original URL.

Screening for Tuberculosis in Migrants: A Survey by the Global Tuberculosis Network

Tuberculosis (TB) does not respect borders, and migration confounds global TB control and elimination. Systematic screening of immigrants from TB high burden settings and-to a lesser degree TB infection (TBI)-is recommended in most countries with a low incidence of TB. The aim of the study was to evaluate the views of a diverse group of international health professionals on TB management among migrants. Participants expressed their level of agreement using a six-point Likert scale with different statements in an online survey available in English, French, Mandarin, Spanish, Portuguese and Russian. The survey consisted of eight sections, covering TB and TBI screening and treatment in migrants. A total of 1055 respondents from 80 countries and territories participated between November 2019 and April 2020. The largest professional groups were pulmonologists (16.8%), other clinicians (30.4%), and nurses (11.8%). Participants generally supported infection control and TB surveillance established practices (administrative interventions, personal protection, etc.), while they disagreed on how to diagnose and manage both TB and TBI, particularly on which TBI regimens to use and when patients should be hospitalised. The results of this first knowledge, attitude and practice study on TB screening and treatment in migrants will inform public health policy and educational resources

Clinical standards for diagnosis, treatment and prevention of post-COVID-19 lung disease

BACKGROUND: The aim of these clinical standards is to provide guidance on ‘best practice’ care for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of post-COVID-19 lung disease. METHODS: A panel of international experts representing scientific societies, associations and groups active in post-COVID-19 lung disease was identified; 45 completed a Delphi process. A 5-point Likert scale indicated level of agreement with the draft standards. The final version was approved by consensus (with 100% agreement).RESULTS: Four clinical standards were agreed for patients with a previous history of COVID-19: Standard 1, Patients with sequelae not explained by an alternative diagnosis should be evaluated for possible post-COVID-19 lung disease; Standard 2, Patients with lung function impairment, reduced exercise tolerance, reduced quality of life (QoL) or other relevant signs or ongoing symptoms ≥4 weeks after the onset of first symptoms should be evaluated for treatment and pulmonary rehabilitation (PR); Standard 3, The PR programme should be based on feasibility, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness criteria, organised according to local health services and tailored to an individual patient’s needs; and Standard 4, Each patient undergoing and completing PR should be evaluated to determine its effectiveness and have access to a counselling/health education session. CONCLUSION: This is the first consensus-based set of clinical standards for the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of post-COVID-19 lung disease. Our aim is to improve patient care and QoL by guiding clinicians, programme managers and public health officers in planning and implementing a PR programme to manage post-COVID-19 lung disease

Clinical standards for the dosing and management of TB drugs

BACKGROUND: Optimal drug dosing is important to ensure adequate response to treatment, prevent development of drug resistance and reduce drug toxicity. The aim of these clinical standards is to provide guidance on ‘best practice´ for dosing and management of TB drugs. METHODS: A panel of 57 global experts in the fields of microbiology, pharmacology and TB care were identified; 51 participated in a Delphi process. A 5-point Likert scale was used to score draft standards. The final document represents the broad consensus and was approved by all participants. RESULTS: Six clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, defining the most appropriate initial dose for TB treatment; Standard 2, identifying patients who may be at risk of sub-optimal drug exposure; Standard 3, identifying patients at risk of developing drug-related toxicity and how best to manage this risk; Standard 4, identifying patients who can benefit from therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM); Standard 5, highlighting education and counselling that should be provided to people initiating TB treatment; and Standard 6, providing essential education for healthcare professionals. In addition, consensus research priorities were identified. CONCLUSION: This is the first consensus-based Clinical Standards for the dosing and management of TB drugs to guide clinicians and programme managers in planning and implementation of locally appropriate measures for optimal person-centred treatment to improve patient care