National roll-out of latent tuberculosis testing and treatment for new migrants in England: a retrospective evaluation in a high-incidence area

Health and illness beliefs in adults with tuberculosis infection during the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK

Background

COVID-19 disrupted the TB prevention programme in the UK, especially for TB infection (TBI) care. We explore whether experience of the COVID-19 pandemic impacted on patients' perceptions of TBI and its treatment.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted as part of the Research to Improve Detection and Treatment of TBI (RID-TB) programme, exploring perceptual and practical barriers to TBI treatment. Nineteen people diagnosed with TBI were interviewed between August 2020 and April 2021. Recordings were transcribed and analysed using a constant comparative approach, allowing for a dynamic and iterative exploration of themes. Themes are organised using the Perceptions and Practicalities Approach.

Findings

Some participants perceived TBI as a risk factor for increased susceptibility to COVID-19, while some thought that treatment for TBI might protect against COVID-19 or mitigate its effects. Adaptations to TB services (e.g., remote follow-up) and integrated practices during the COVID-19 restrictions (e.g., medication being posted) addressed some practical barriers to TBI treatment. However, we identified beliefs about TBI and COVID-19 that are likely to act as barriers to engagement with TBI treatment, including: interpreting service delays as an indication of TBI not being serious enough for treatment and concerns about contracting COVID-19 in TB clinics.

Interpretation

COVID-19 and TBI service delays influence people's perceptions and practical barriers to TBI treatment adherence. Failure to address these beliefs may lead to people's concerns about their treatment not being fully addressed. Utilised service adaptations like remote consultations to address practical barriers may be relevant beyond COVID-19.

Funding

NIHR RID-TB Program (RP-PG-0217-20009).

Screening for latent tuberculosis in migrants-status quo and future challenges

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence that migrants from tuberculosis (TB) high-incidence countries migrating to TB low-incidence countries significantly contribute to active TB cases in the counties of destination, primarily through reactivation of latent TB.

METHODS

This is a narrative review. The different screening programs in the countries of destination are reviewed either based on screening and preventive treatment of latent TB pre or more commonly - post arrival.

RESULTS

Screening can be performed using interferon-gamma release assays (IGRA) or tuberculin skin tests (TST). Preventive treatment of latent TB is using either monotherapy with isoniazid, or in combination with rifampicin or rifapentine. We discuss the ethical issues of preventive treatment in asymptomatic individuals and how these are addressed in different screening programs.

CONCLUSION

Screening migrants from TB high endemic countries to TB low endemic countries is beneficial. There is a lack of standardization and agreement on screening protocols, follow up and treatment.

A Systematic Review on Pulmonary TB Burden and Associated Factors Among Immigrants in the UK

Background

The rapid growth of international human migration has positioned the UK in the top five countries in the world with 9.4 million immigrants in 2022. These immigrants originate from low- and middle-income countries and remain particularly at risk of developing TB. In the UK, the number of TB cases has been increasing, and the influx of immigrants could be a contributing factor.

Objective

This review aims to map the burden of pulmonary TB among immigrants in the UK and investigate associated factors. It also reviews the TB management approaches among immigrants in the UK.

Design

The study utilized PRISMA guidelines to search electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) for articles published from 2000 to 2022 on TB prevalence and factors in immigrants and explored government websites for TB management strategies.

Results

Nineteen out of 530 initially identified articles were included. The included studies reported a prevalence rate of TB among immigrants ranging from 0.04 to 52.1%, showing a decrease in the burden over time. Additionally, a higher number of TB cases were observed among immigrants from the Asian region, particularly immigrants from South Asia, followed by those from sub-Saharan Africa. Stigma, misconception about the disease, language barrier, lack of confidentiality, and unfriendly healthcare system for immigrants were the main drivers of the TB burden among immigrants. The TB management approaches in the UK include pre-entry screening for active TB, LTBI testing for a specific population group, and antibacterial therapy for 3-6 months for TB patients.

Conclusion

The UK's control and prevention efforts in reducing tuberculosis prevalence among immigrants show optimism, but challenges persist. Key improvements include healthcare delivery, TB improvement programs, and policies addressing stigma and patient confidentiality.

Mandatory, voluntary, repetitive, or one-off post-migration follow-up for tuberculosis prevention and control: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Post-migration follow-up of migrants identified to be at-risk of developing tuberculosis during the initial screening is effective, but programmes vary across countries. We aimed to review main strategies applied to design follow-up programmes and analyse the effect of key programme characteristics on reported coverage (i.e., proportion of migrants screened among those eligible for screening) or yields (i.e., proportion of active tuberculosis among those identified as eligible for follow-up screening).

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies reporting yields of follow-up screening programmes. Studies were included if they reported the rate of tuberculosis disease detected in international migrants through active case finding strategies and applied a post-migration follow-up (defined as one or more additional rounds of screening after finalising the initial round). For this, we retrieved all studies identified by Chan and colleagues for their systematic review (in their search until January 12, 2017) and included those reporting from active follow-up programmes. We then updated the search (from January 12, 2017 to September 30, 2022) using Medline and Embase via Ovid. Data were extracted on reported coverage, yields, and key programme characteristics, including eligible population, mode of screening, time intervals for screening, programme providers, and legal frameworks. Differences in follow-up programmes were tabulated and synthesised narratively. Meta-analyses in random effect models and exploratory analysis of subgroups showed high heterogeneity (I2 statistic > 95.0%). We hence refrained from pooling, and estimated yields and coverage with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs), stratified by country, legal character (mandatory versus voluntary screening), and follow-up scheme (one-off versus repetitive screening) using forest plots for comparison and synthesis. Of 1,170 articles, 24 reports on screening programmes from 7 countries were included, with considerable variation in eligible populations, time intervals of screening, and diagnostic protocols. Coverage varied, but was higher than 60% in 15 studies, and tended to be lower in voluntary compared to compulsory programmes, and higher in studies from the United States of America, Israel, and Australia. Yield varied within and between countries and ranged between 53.05 (31.94 to 82.84) in a Dutch study and 5,927.05 (4,248.29 to 8,013.71) in a study from the United States. Of 15 estimates with narrow 95% CIs for yields, 12 were below 1,500 cases per 100,000 eligible migrants. Estimates of yields in one-off follow-up programmes tended to be higher and were surrounded by less uncertainty, compared to those in repetitive follow-up programmes. Yields in voluntary and mandatory programmes were comparable in magnitude and uncertainty. The study is limited by the heterogeneity in the design of the identified screening programmes as effectiveness, coverage and yields also depend on factors often underreported or not known, such as baseline incidence in the respective population, reactivation rate, educative and administrative processes, and consequences of not complying with obligatory measures.

CONCLUSION

Programme characteristics of post-migration follow-up screening for prevention and control of tuberculosis as well as coverage and yield vary considerably. Voluntary programmes appear to have similar yields compared with mandatory programmes and repetitive screening apparently did not lead to higher yields compared with one-off screening. Screening strategies should consider marginal costs for each additional round of screening.

Systematic review of latent tuberculosis infection research to inform programmatic management in Ireland

The World Health Organisation (WHO) End Tuberculosis (TB) Strategy and the WHO Framework Towards Tuberculosis Elimination in Low Incidence Countries state that latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) screening and treatment in selected high-risk groups is a priority action to eliminate TB. The European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) advises that this should be done through high-quality programmatic management, which they describe as having six key components. The research aim was to systematically review the literature to identify what is known about the epidemiology of LTBI and the uptake and completion of LTBI screening and treatment in Ireland to inform the programmatic management of LTBI nationally. A systematic literature review was performed according to a review protocol and reported in adherence with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. Twenty-eight studies were eligible for inclusion and described LTBI screening or treatment performed in one of five contexts, pre-biologic or other immunosuppression screening, people living with HIV, TB case contacts, other vulnerable populations, or healthcare workers. The risk of bias across studies with regard to prevalence of LTBI was generally high. One study reported a complete cascade of LTBI care from screening initiation to treatment completion. This systematic review has described what published research there is on the epidemiology and cascade of LTBI care in Ireland and identified knowledge gaps. A strategy for addressing these knowledge gaps has been proposed.

A feasibility study evaluating the uptake, effectiveness and acceptability of routine screening of pregnant migrants for latent tuberculosis infection in antenatal care: a research protocol

INTRODUCTION

Globally, tuberculosis (TB) is a leading cause of death in women of reproductive age and there is high risk of reactivation of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in pregnancy. The uptake of routine screening of migrants for LTBI in the UK in primary care is low. Antenatal care is a novel setting which could improve uptake and can lend insight into the feasibility and acceptability of offering opt-out screening for LTBI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is an observational feasibility study with a nested qualitative component. The setting will be the antenatal clinics in three hospitals in East London, UK . Inclusion criteria are pregnant migrant women aged 16-35 years attending antenatal clinics who are from countries with a TB incidence of greater than 150/100 000 including sub-Saharan Africa, and who have been in the UK for less than 5 years. Participants will be offered LTBI screening with an opt-out interferon gamma release assay blood test, and be invited to complete a questionnaire. Both participants and healthcare providers will be invited to participate in semistructured interviews or focus groups to evaluate understanding, feasibility and acceptability of routine opt-out LTBI screening. The primary analysis will focus on estimating the uptake of the screening programme along with the corresponding 95% CI. Secondary analysis will focus on estimating the test positivity. Qualitative analysis will evaluate the acceptability of offering routine opt-out LTBI screening to participants and healthcare providers.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received the following approvals: Health Research Authority (IRAS 247388) and National Health Service Ethics Committee (19/LO/0557). The results will be made available locally to antenatal clinics and primary care physicians, nationally to NHS England and Public Health England and internationally through conferences and journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04098341.

Modeling the Cost-Effectiveness of Latent Tuberculosis Screening and Treatment Strategies in Recent Migrants to a Low-Incidence Setting

Many tuberculosis (TB) cases in low-incidence settings are attributed to reactivation of latent TB infection (LTBI) acquired overseas. We assessed the cost-effectiveness of community-based LTBI screening and treatment strategies in recent migrants to a low-incidence setting (Australia). A decision-analytical Markov model was developed that cycled 1 migrant cohort (≥11-year-olds) annually over a lifetime from 2020. Postmigration/onshore and offshore (screening during visa application) strategies were compared with existing policy (chest x-ray during visa application). Outcomes included TB cases averted and discounted cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained from a health-sector perspective. Most recent migrants are young adults and cost-effectiveness is limited by their relatively low LTBI prevalence, low TB mortality risks, and high emigration probability. Onshore strategies cost at least $203,188 (Australian) per QALY gained, preventing approximately 2.3%-7.0% of TB cases in the cohort. Offshore strategies (screening costs incurred by migrants) cost at least $13,907 per QALY gained, preventing 5.5%-16.9% of cases. Findings were most sensitive to the LTBI treatment quality-of-life decrement (further to severe adverse events); with a minimal decrement, all strategies caused more ill health than they prevented. Additional LTBI strategies in recent migrants could only marginally contribute to TB elimination and are unlikely to be cost-effective unless screening costs are borne by migrants and potential LTBI treatment quality-of-life decrements are ignored.

Screening for neglected tropical diseases and other infections in refugee and asylum-seeker populations in the United Kingdom

Asylum-seekers and refugees have an increased burden of infections compared with the general population. This has been widely recognised by countries welcoming those fleeing conflict and persecution; however, there are no screening standardised guidelines and regulatory processes. Identification of certain neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) and other infections is important for the health and well-being of the individual in addition to public health and biosecurity. In the United Kingdom, screening for infections at port of entry or after arrival is not mandatory. Those on refugee resettlement programmes will have infection screening as part of their pre-entry health assessment, but no such system exists for those claiming asylum in the United Kingdom. In this article, we have reviewed published, peer-reviewed articles looking at the approaches to screening for NTDs and infectious diseases in the United Kingdom. In addition to this, we have reviewed the literature looking at the acceptability, barriers and facilitators of these screening practices. We found that there is a heterogeneous approach to screening practices in the United Kingdom and a paucity of data to support a single ‘best practice’ approach. Based on our findings, we have made recommendations and consideration for NTD screening strategies and highlighted important areas for future research.

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.

A scoping review of paediatric latent tuberculosis infection care cascades: initial steps are lacking

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Identifying and treating children with latent tuberculosis infection (TB infection) is critical to prevent progression to TB disease and to eliminate TB globally. Diagnosis and treatment of TB infection requires completion of a sequence of steps, collectively termed the TB infection care cascade. There has been no systematic attempt to comprehensively summarise literature on the paediatric TB infection care cascade.

METHODS

We performed a scoping review of the paediatric TB infection care cascade. We systematically searched PubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane and Embase databases. We reviewed articles and meeting abstracts that included children and adolescents ≤21 years old who were screened for or diagnosed with TB infection, and which described completion of at least one step of the cascade. We synthesised studies to identify facilitators and barriers to retention, interventions to mitigate attrition and knowledge gaps.

RESULTS

We identified 146 studies examining steps in the paediatric TB infection care cascade; 31 included children living in low-income and middle-income countries. Most literature described the final cascade step (treatment initiation to completion). Studies identified an array of patient and caregiver-related factors associated with completion of cascade steps. Few health systems factors were evaluated as potential predictors of completion, and few interventions to improve retention were specifically tested.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified strengths and gaps in the literature describing the paediatric TB infection care cascade. Future research should examine cascade steps upstream of treatment initiation and focus on identification and testing of at-risk paediatric patients. Additionally, future studies should focus on modifiable health systems factors associated with attrition and may benefit from use of behavioural theory and implementation science methods to improve retention.

Delivering multi-disease screening to migrants for latent TB and blood-borne viruses in an emergency department setting: A feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Screening for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in migrants is important for elimination of tuberculosis in low-incidence countries, alongside the need to detect blood-borne infections to align with new guidelines on migrant screening for multiple infections in European countries. However, feasibility needs to be better understood.

METHODS

We did a feasibility study to test an innovative screening model offering combined testing for LTBI (QuantiFERON), HIV, hepatitis B/C in a UK emergency department, with two year follow-up.

RESULTS

96 economic migrants, asylum seekers and refugees from 43 countries were screened (46 [47.9%] women; mean age 35.2 years [SD 11.7; range 18-73]; mean time in the UK 4.8 years [SD 3.2; range 0-10]). 14 migrants (14.6%) tested positive for LTBI alongside HIV [1], hepatitis B [2], and hepatitis C [1] Of migrants with LTBI, 5 (35.7%) were successfully engaged in treatment. 74 (77.1%) migrants reported no previous screening since migrating to the UK.

CONCLUSION

Multi-disease screening in this setting is feasible and merits being further tested in larger-scale studies. However, greater emphasis must be placed on ensuring successful treatment outcomes. We identified major gaps in current screening provision; most migrants had been offered no prior screening despite several years since migration, which holds relevance to policy and practice in the UK and other European countries.

Protocol for a cluster randomised control trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of treatment for latent tuberculosis infection in recent migrants within primary care: the CATAPuLT trial

Background

The identification and treatment of LTBI is a key component of the WHO’s strategy to eliminate TB. Recent migrants from high TB-incidence countries are recognised to be at risk TB reactivation, and many high-income countries have focused on LTBI screening and treatment programmes for this group. However, migrants are the group least likely to complete the LTBI cascade-of-care. This pragmatic cluster-randomised, parallel group, superiority trial investigates whether a model of care based entirely within a community setting (primary care) will improve treatment completion compared with treatment in specialist TB services (secondary care).

Methods

The CATAPuLT trial (Completion and Acceptability of Treatment Across Primary Care and the community for Latent Tuberculosis) randomised 34 general practices in London, England, to evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatment for LBTI in recent migrants within primary care. GP practices were randomised to either provide management for LTBI entirely within primary care (GPs and community pharmacists) or to refer patients to secondary care. The target recruitment number for individuals is 576. The primary outcome is treatment completion (defined as taking at least 90% of antibiotic doses). The secondary outcomes assess adherence, acceptance of treatment, the incidence of adverse effects including drug-induced liver injury, the rates of active TB, patient satisfaction and cost-effectiveness of LTBI treatment. This protocol adheres to the SPIRIT Checklist.

Discussion

The CATAPuLT trial seeks to provide implementation research evidence for a patient-centred intervention to improve treatment completion for LTBI amongst recent migrants to the UK.

Trial registration

NCT03069807, March 2017, registered retrospectively.

Effectiveness of interventions for reducing TB incidence in countries with low TB incidence: a systematic review of reviews

AIMS

What is the evidence base for the effectiveness of interventions to reduce tuberculosis (TB) incidence in countries which have low TB incidence?

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of interventions for TB control and prevention relevant to low TB incidence settings (<10 cases per 100 000 population). Our analysis was stratified according to "direct" or "indirect" effects on TB incidence. Review quality was assessed using AMSTAR2 criteria. We summarised the strength of review level evidence for interventions as "sufficient", "tentative", "insufficient" or "no" using a framework based on the consistency of evidence within and between reviews.

RESULTS

We found sufficient review level evidence for direct effects on TB incidence/case prevention of vaccination and treatment of latent TB infection. We also found sufficient evidence of beneficial indirect effects attributable to drug susceptibility testing and adverse indirect effects (measured as sub-optimal treatment outcomes) in relation to use of standardised first-line drug regimens for isoniazid-resistant TB and intermittent dosing regimens. We found insufficient review level evidence for direct or indirect effects of interventions in other areas, including screening, adherence, multidrug-resistant TB, and healthcare-associated infection.

DISCUSSION

Our review has shown a need for stronger evidence to support expert opinion and country experience when formulating TB control policy.