Scaling up evidence-based approaches to tuberculosis screening in prisons

People deprived of liberty have among the highest rates of tuberculosis globally. The incidence of tuberculosis is ten times greater than the incidence of tuberculosis in the general population. In 2021, WHO updated its guidance to strongly recommend systematic screening for tuberculosis in prisons and penitentiary systems. Which case-finding strategies should be adopted, and how to effectively implement these strategies in these settings, will be crucial questions facing ministries of health and justice. In this Viewpoint, we review the evidence base for tuberculosis screening and diagnostic strategies in prisons, highlighting promising approaches and knowledge gaps. Drawing upon past experiences of implementing active case-finding and care programmes in settings with a high tuberculosis burden, we discuss challenges and opportunities for improving the tuberculosis diagnosis and treatment cascade in these settings. We argue that improved transparency in reporting of tuberculosis notifications and outcomes in prisons and renewed focus and resourcing from WHO and other stakeholders will be crucial for building the commitment and investments needed from countries to address the continued crisis of tuberculosis in prisons

Community-based active case-finding interventions for tuberculosis : a systematic review

This work was made possible through grants provided by the WHO Global TB Programme. RMB, ELC, and PM hold Wellcome fellowships: 203905/Z/16/Z (RMB), 200901/Z/16/Z (ELC), and 206575/Z/17/Z (PM). MR, LT, and HA are funded by part of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership 2 programme supported by the EU (grant number RIA2016S-1632-TREATS). AES is supported by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant K23AI140918.Background Community-based active case-finding interventions might identify and treat more people with tuberculosis disease than standard case detection. We aimed to assess whether active case-finding interventions can affect tuberculosis epidemiology in the wider community. Methods We did a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for studies that compared tuberculosis case notification rates, tuberculosis disease prevalence, or tuberculosis infection prevalence or incidence in children, between populations exposed and unexposed to active case-finding interventions. We included studies published in English between Jan 1, 1980, and April 13, 2020. Studies of active case-finding in the general population, in populations perceived to be at high risk for tuberculosis, and in closed settings were included, whereas studies of tuberculosis screening at health-care facilities, among household contacts, or among children only, and studies that screened fewer than 1000 people were excluded. To estimate effectiveness, we extracted or calculated case notification rates, prevalence of tuberculosis disease, and incidence or prevalence of tuberculosis infection in children, and compared ratios of these outcomes between groups that were exposed or not exposed to active case-finding interventions. Results 27 883 abstracts were screened and 988 articles underwent full text review. 28 studies contributed data for analysis of tuberculosis case notifications, nine for prevalence of tuberculosis disease, and two for incidence or prevalence of tuberculosis infection in children. In one cluster-randomised trial in South Africa and Zambia, an active case-finding intervention based on community mobilisation and sputum drop-off did not affect tuberculosis prevalence, whereas, in a cluster-randomised trial in Vietnam, an active case-finding intervention based on sputum tuberculosis tests for everyone reduced tuberculosis prevalence in the community. We found inconsistent, low-quality evidence that active case-finding might increase the number of cases of tuberculosis notified in populations with structural risk factors for tuberculosis. Interpretation Community-based active case-finding for tuberculosis might be effective in changing tuberculosis epidemiology and thereby improving population health if delivered with high coverage and intensity. If possible, active case-finding projects should incorporate a well designed, robust evaluation to contribute to the evidence base and help elucidate which delivery methods and diagnostic strategies are most effective. Funding WHO Global TB Programme.Peer reviewe

The Diagnostic Accuracy of Urine Lipoarabinomannan Test for Tuberculosis Screening in a South African Correctional Facility.

CAPRISA, 2015.Abstract available in pdf

Prioritizing persons deprived of liberty in global guidelines for tuberculosis preventive treatment

In this Policy Forum piece, Aditya Narayan and colleagues discuss the challenges and opportunities for tuberculosis preventive treatment in carceral settings

Do community-based active case-finding interventions have indirect impacts on wider TB case detection and determinants of subsequent TB testing behaviour? A systematic review

Funding: This work was made possible through grants provided by the WHO Global TB Programme. RMB, ELC, and PM hold Wellcome fellowships: 203905/Z/16/Z (RMB), 200901/Z/16/Z (ELC), and 206575/Z/17/Z (PM). MR, LT, and HA are funded by part of the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership 2 programme supported by the EU (grant number RIA2016S-1632-TREATS). AES is supported by a National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant K23AI140918. WHO facilitated discussions among authors at the design stage and contributed to this manuscript but had no role in the conduct or writing of the WHO review.Community-based active case-finding (ACF) may have important impacts on routine TB case-detection and subsequent patient-initiated diagnosis pathways, contributing “indirectly” to infectious diseases prevention and care. We investigated the impact of ACF beyond directly diagnosed patients for TB, using routine case-notification rate (CNR) ratios as a measure of indirect effect. We systematically searched for publications 01-Jan-1980 to 13-Apr-2020 reporting on community-based ACF interventions compared to a comparison group, together with review of linked manuscripts reporting knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) outcomes or qualitative data on TB testing behaviour. We calculated CNR ratios of routine case-notifications (i.e. excluding cases identified directly through ACF) and compared proxy behavioural outcomes for both ACF and comparator communities. Full text manuscripts from 988 of 23,883 abstracts were screened for inclusion; 36 were eligible. Of these, 12 reported routine notification rates separately from ACF intervention-attributed rates, and one reported any proxy behavioural outcomes. Two further studies were identified from screening 1121 abstracts for linked KAP/qualitative manuscripts. 8/12 case-notification studies were considered at critical or serious risk of bias. 8/11 non-randomised studies reported bacteriologically-confirmed CNR ratios between 0.47 (95% CI:0.41–0.53) and 0.96 (95% CI:0.94–0.97), with 7/11 reporting all-form CNR ratios between 0.96 (95% CI:0.88–1.05) and 1.09 (95% CI:1.02–1.16). One high-quality randomised-controlled trial reported a ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 0.91–1.43). KAP/qualitative manuscripts provided insufficient evidence to establish the impact of ACF on subsequent TB testing behaviour. ACF interventions with routine CNR ratios >1 suggest an indirect effect on wider TB case-detection, potentially due to impact on subsequent TB testing behaviour through follow-up after a negative ACF test or increased TB knowledge. However, data on this type of impact are rarely collected. Evaluation of routine case-notification, testing and proxy behavioural outcomes in intervention and comparator communities should be included as standard methodology in future ACF campaign study designs.Peer reviewe

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

Community-based active case-finding interventions for tuberculosis: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Community-based active case-finding interventions might identify and treat more people with tuberculosis disease than standard case detection. We aimed to assess whether active case-finding interventions can affect tuberculosis epidemiology in the wider community. METHODS: We did a systematic review by searching PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Library for studies that compared tuberculosis case notification rates, tuberculosis disease prevalence, or tuberculosis infection prevalence or incidence in children, between populations exposed and unexposed to active case-finding interventions. We included studies published in English between Jan 1, 1980, and April 13, 2020. Studies of active case-finding in the general population, in populations perceived to be at high risk for tuberculosis, and in closed settings were included, whereas studies of tuberculosis screening at health-care facilities, among household contacts, or among children only, and studies that screened fewer than 1000 people were excluded. To estimate effectiveness, we extracted or calculated case notification rates, prevalence of tuberculosis disease, and incidence or prevalence of tuberculosis infection in children, and compared ratios of these outcomes between groups that were exposed or not exposed to active case-finding interventions. RESULTS: 27 883 abstracts were screened and 988 articles underwent full text review. 28 studies contributed data for analysis of tuberculosis case notifications, nine for prevalence of tuberculosis disease, and two for incidence or prevalence of tuberculosis infection in children. In one cluster-randomised trial in South Africa and Zambia, an active case-finding intervention based on community mobilisation and sputum drop-off did not affect tuberculosis prevalence, whereas, in a cluster-randomised trial in Vietnam, an active case-finding intervention based on sputum tuberculosis tests for everyone reduced tuberculosis prevalence in the community. We found inconsistent, low-quality evidence that active case-finding might increase the number of cases of tuberculosis notified in populations with structural risk factors for tuberculosis. INTERPRETATION: Community-based active case-finding for tuberculosis might be effective in changing tuberculosis epidemiology and thereby improving population health if delivered with high coverage and intensity. If possible, active case-finding projects should incorporate a well designed, robust evaluation to contribute to the evidence base and help elucidate which delivery methods and diagnostic strategies are most effective. FUNDING: WHO Global TB Programme

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

Do community-based active case-finding interventions have indirect impacts on wider TB case detection and determinants of subsequent TB testing behaviour? A systematic review

Community-based active case-finding (ACF) may have important impacts on routine TB case-detection and subsequent patient-initiated diagnosis pathways, contributing “indirectly” to infectious diseases prevention and care. We investigated the impact of ACF beyond directly diagnosed patients for TB, using routine case-notification rate (CNR) ratios as a measure of indirect effect. We systematically searched for publications 01-Jan-1980 to 13-Apr-2020 reporting on community-based ACF interventions compared to a comparison group, together with review of linked manuscripts reporting knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) outcomes or qualitative data on TB testing behaviour. We calculated CNR ratios of routine case-notifications (i.e. excluding cases identified directly through ACF) and compared proxy behavioural outcomes for both ACF and comparator communities. Full text manuscripts from 988 of 23,883 abstracts were screened for inclusion; 36 were eligible. Of these, 12 reported routine notification rates separately from ACF intervention-attributed rates, and one reported any proxy behavioural outcomes. Two further studies were identified from screening 1121 abstracts for linked KAP/qualitative manuscripts. 8/12 case-notification studies were considered at critical or serious risk of bias. 8/11 non-randomised studies reported bacteriologically-confirmed CNR ratios between 0.47 (95% CI:0.41–0.53) and 0.96 (95% CI:0.94–0.97), with 7/11 reporting all-form CNR ratios between 0.96 (95% CI:0.88–1.05) and 1.09 (95% CI:1.02–1.16). One high-quality randomised-controlled trial reported a ratio of 1.14 (95% CI 0.91–1.43). KAP/qualitative manuscripts provided insufficient evidence to establish the impact of ACF on subsequent TB testing behaviour. ACF interventions with routine CNR ratios &gt;1 suggest an indirect effect on wider TB case-detection, potentially due to impact on subsequent TB testing behaviour through follow-up after a negative ACF test or increased TB knowledge. However, data on this type of impact are rarely collected. Evaluation of routine case-notification, testing and proxy behavioural outcomes in intervention and comparator communities should be included as standard methodology in future ACF campaign study designs.</jats:p