부산대학교 도서관

Background: The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends systematic symptom screening for tuberculosis (TB). However, TB prevalence surveys suggest that this strategy does not identify millions of TB patients, globally. Undiagnosed or delayed diagnosis of TB contribute to TB transmission and exacerbate morbidity and mortality. We conducted a cluster-randomized trial of large urban and rural primary healthcare clinics in 3 provinces of South Africa to evaluate whether a novel intervention of targeted universal testing for TB (TUTT) in high-risk groups diagnosed more patients with TB per month compared to current standard of care (SoC) symptom-directed TB testing. Methods and findings: Sixty-two clinics were randomized; with initiation of the intervention clinics over 6 months from March 2019. The study was prematurely stopped in March 2020 due to clinics restricting access to patients, and then a week later due to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) national lockdown; by then, we had accrued a similar number of TB diagnoses to that of the power estimates and permanently stopped the trial. In intervention clinics, attendees living with HIV, those self-reporting a recent close contact with TB, or a prior episode of TB were all offered a sputum test for TB, irrespective of whether they reported symptoms of TB. We analyzed data abstracted from the national public sector laboratory database using Poisson regression models and compared the mean number of TB patients diagnosed per clinic per month between the study arms. Intervention clinics diagnosed 6,777 patients with TB, 20.7 patients with TB per clinic month (95% CI 16.7, 24.8) versus 6,750, 18.8 patients with TB per clinic month (95% CI 15.3, 22.2) in control clinics during study months. A direct comparison, adjusting for province and clinic TB case volume strata, did not show a significant difference in the number of TB cases between the 2 arms, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.14 (95% CI 0.94, 1.38, p = 0.46). However, prespecified difference-in-differences analyses showed that while the rate of TB diagnoses in control clinics decreased over time, intervention clinics had a 17% relative increase in TB patients diagnosed per month compared to the prior year, interaction IRR 1.17 (95% CI 1.14, 1.19, p < 0.001). Trial limitations were the premature stop due to COVID-19 lockdowns and the absence of between-arm comparisons of initiation and outcomes of TB treatment in those diagnosed with TB. Conclusions: Our trial suggests that the implementation of TUTT in these 3 groups at extreme risk of TB identified more TB patients than SoC and could assist in reducing undiagnosed TB patients in settings of high TB prevalence. Trial registration: South African National Clinical Trials Registry DOH-27-092021-4901. In a cluster randomised trial of primary care clinics in South Africa, Neil Martinson and colleagues, investigate the value of targeted testing for Tuberculosis in those at highest risk. Author summary: Why was this study done?: Tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis is made by laboratory sputum testing usually prompted by the presence of at least 1 symptom of TB (cough, fever or night sweats, loss of weight). The World Health Organization promotes screening of entire groups of people at high risk of TB irrespective of symptoms. In South Africa, high-risk groups include people living with HIV, those who report being a close contact of someone with TB, and those who have had a recent episode of TB. There is little data on the usefulness of diagnostic assays as screening tests. Our trial assessed if targeted sputum testing of people at high risk without TB symptoms helped to identify undiagnosed TB. What did the researchers do and find?: A total of 62 large primary care clinics in South Africa were randomized to either our intervention—TB testing of sputum of all people in high-risk groups, or our control—to continue symptom directed testing for TB (the standard of care). The total number of TB cases diagnosed each month in all clinics was recorded. Comparisons were made between intervention and control clinics. In trial intervention clinics, 6,777 people were diagnosed with TB, an average of 20.7 patients per clinic month versus 6,750 in control clinics, an average of 18.8 patients with TB per clinic month. After adjusting for clustering, province, and the strata of average number of TB patients diagnosed per month in the last quarter of 2017, intervention clinics diagnosed 14% more patients with TB than control clinics, but this did not reach statistical significance. Secondary analyses, including data from the year prior to the intervention, demonstrated a statistically significant increase in TB diagnoses per month, reported as a 17% relative increase. What do these findings mean?: A strategy targeting high-risk groups for universal testing for TB (TUTT) may help to improve diagnostic rates of TB in areas where prevalence is high. Universal testing strategies could be be implemented in low-resource settings provided costs of testing were addressed, and other locally relevant high-risk groups for TB could be targeted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]