Evaluating the yield of systematic screening for tuberculosis among three priority groups in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam.
Active case finding
Case detection
Tuberculosis
Urban
Viet nam
Journal
Infectious diseases of poverty
ISSN: 2049-9957
Titre abrégé: Infect Dis Poverty
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101606645
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Dec 2020
09 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
14
08
2020
accepted:
15
10
2020
entrez:
9
12
2020
pubmed:
10
12
2020
medline:
16
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
In order to end tuberculosis (TB), it is necessary to expand coverage of TB care services, including systematic screening initiatives. However, more evidence is needed for groups among whom systematic screening is only conditionally recommended by the World Health Organization. This study evaluated concurrent screening in multiple target groups using community health workers (CHW). In our two-year intervention study lasting from October 2017 to September 2019, CHWs in six districts of Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam verbally screened three urban priority groups: (1) household TB contacts; (2) close TB contacts; and (3) residents of urban priority areas without clear documented exposure to TB including hotspots, boarding homes and urban slums. Eligible persons were referred for further screening with chest radiography and follow-on testing with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay. Symptomatic individuals with normal or without radiography results were tested on smear microscopy. We described the TB care cascade and characteristics for each priority group, and calculated yield and number needed to screen. Subsequently, we fitted a mixed-effect logistic regression to identify the association of these target groups and secondary patient covariates with TB treatment initiation. We verbally screened 321 020 people including 24 232 household contacts, 3182 social and close contacts and 293 606 residents of urban priority areas. This resulted in 1138 persons treated for TB, of whom 85 were household contacts, 39 were close contacts and 1014 belonged to urban priority area residents. The yield of active TB in these groups was 351, 1226 and 345 per 100 000, respectively, corresponding to numbers needed to screen of 285, 82 and 290. The fitted model showed that close contacts [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.38-3.11; P < 0.001] and urban priority area residents (aOR = 2.18; 95% CI: 1.69-2.79; P < 0.001) had a greater risk of active TB than household contacts. The study detected a large number of unreached persons with TB, but most of them were not among persons in contact with an index patient. Therefore, while programs should continue to optimize screening in contacts, to close the detection gap in high TB burden settings such as Viet Nam, coverage must be expanded to persons without documented exposure such as residents in hotspots, boarding homes and urban slums.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
In order to end tuberculosis (TB), it is necessary to expand coverage of TB care services, including systematic screening initiatives. However, more evidence is needed for groups among whom systematic screening is only conditionally recommended by the World Health Organization. This study evaluated concurrent screening in multiple target groups using community health workers (CHW).
METHODS
METHODS
In our two-year intervention study lasting from October 2017 to September 2019, CHWs in six districts of Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam verbally screened three urban priority groups: (1) household TB contacts; (2) close TB contacts; and (3) residents of urban priority areas without clear documented exposure to TB including hotspots, boarding homes and urban slums. Eligible persons were referred for further screening with chest radiography and follow-on testing with the Xpert MTB/RIF assay. Symptomatic individuals with normal or without radiography results were tested on smear microscopy. We described the TB care cascade and characteristics for each priority group, and calculated yield and number needed to screen. Subsequently, we fitted a mixed-effect logistic regression to identify the association of these target groups and secondary patient covariates with TB treatment initiation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We verbally screened 321 020 people including 24 232 household contacts, 3182 social and close contacts and 293 606 residents of urban priority areas. This resulted in 1138 persons treated for TB, of whom 85 were household contacts, 39 were close contacts and 1014 belonged to urban priority area residents. The yield of active TB in these groups was 351, 1226 and 345 per 100 000, respectively, corresponding to numbers needed to screen of 285, 82 and 290. The fitted model showed that close contacts [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.38-3.11; P < 0.001] and urban priority area residents (aOR = 2.18; 95% CI: 1.69-2.79; P < 0.001) had a greater risk of active TB than household contacts.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The study detected a large number of unreached persons with TB, but most of them were not among persons in contact with an index patient. Therefore, while programs should continue to optimize screening in contacts, to close the detection gap in high TB burden settings such as Viet Nam, coverage must be expanded to persons without documented exposure such as residents in hotspots, boarding homes and urban slums.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33292638
doi: 10.1186/s40249-020-00766-4
pii: 10.1186/s40249-020-00766-4
pmc: PMC7724701
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
166Subventions
Organisme : H2020 European Research Council
ID : 733174
Organisme : Stop TB Partnership
ID : W5_VNM_CDT2_NTP
Références
Soc Sci Med. 2005 Sep;61(5):931-42
pubmed: 15896894
Bull World Health Organ. 2014 Feb 1;92(2):126-38
pubmed: 24623906
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 18;378(3):221-229
pubmed: 29342390
Am J Public Health. 2006 Jan;96(1):14-6
pubmed: 16317206
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 18;13(12):e0209290
pubmed: 30562401
PLoS One. 2017 Jun 8;12(6):e0176581
pubmed: 28594824
Sci Rep. 2015 Jul 27;5:12215
pubmed: 26212560
Annu Rev Med. 1985;36:229-39
pubmed: 3994324
J Clin Tuberc Other Mycobact Dis. 2018 Nov 28;14:1-6
pubmed: 31720409
PLoS One. 2016 Aug 02;11(8):e0160514
pubmed: 27483160
Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2014 May;90(5):866-872
pubmed: 24615134
BMC Infect Dis. 2020 Feb 12;20(1):134
pubmed: 32050913
Bull World Health Organ. 2010 Apr;88(4):273-80
pubmed: 20431791
Health Policy. 2000 May;52(1):33-51
pubmed: 10899643
Soc Sci Med. 1996 Oct;43(7):1049-56
pubmed: 8890405
Global Health. 2020 Jul 25;16(1):67
pubmed: 32711553
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2007 May;11(5):567-70
pubmed: 17439683
Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2016 Mar;110(3):153-4
pubmed: 26884492
Biosci Trends. 2011 Dec;5(6):226-30
pubmed: 22281535
BMC Public Health. 2020 Jun 15;20(1):934
pubmed: 32539700
Lancet. 2015 Dec 5;386(10010):2334-43
pubmed: 26515675
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 16;15(7):e0236532
pubmed: 32673361
BMJ Open. 2019 Dec 11;9(12):e031284
pubmed: 31831535
PLoS One. 2013 Dec 05;8(12):e82440
pubmed: 24349284
West J Med. 1985 Mar;142(3):409-12
pubmed: 3993022
Soc Sci Med. 1999 Sep;49(6):815-22
pubmed: 10459892