A position statement and practical guide to the use of particulate filtering facepiece respirators (N95, FFP2, or equivalent) for South African health workers exposed to respiratory pathogens including Mycobacterium tuberculosis and SARS-CoV-2

SUMMARY

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted mainly by aerosol in particles <10 µm that can remain suspended for hours before being inhaled. Because particulate filtering facepiece respirators ('respirators'; e.g. N95 masks) are more effective than surgical masks against bio-aerosols, many international organisations now recommend that health workers (HWs) wear a respirator when caring for individuals who may have COVID-19. In South Africa (SA), however, surgical masks are still recommended for the routine care of individuals with possible or confirmed COVID-19, with respirators reserved for so-called aerosol-generating procedures. In contrast, SA guidelines do recommend respirators for routine care of individuals with possible or confirmed tuberculosis (TB), which is also transmitted via aerosol. In health facilities in SA, distinguishing between TB and COVID-19 is challenging without examination and investigation, both of which may expose HWs to potentially infectious individuals. Symptom-based triage has limited utility in defining risk. Indeed, significant proportions of individuals with COVID-19 and/or pulmonary TB may not have symptoms and/or test negative. The prevalence of undiagnosed respiratory disease is therefore likely significant in many general clinical areas (e.g. waiting areas). Moreover, a proportion of HWs are HIV-positive and are at increased risk of severe COVID-19 and death.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Sustained improvements in infection prevention and control (IPC) require reorganisation of systems to prioritise HW and patient safety. While this will take time, it is unacceptable to leave HWs exposed until such changes are made. We propose that the SA health system adopts a target of 'zero harm', aiming to eliminate transmission of respiratory pathogens to all individuals in every healthcare setting. Accordingly, we recommend: the use of respirators by all staff (clinical and non-clinical) during activities that involve contact or sharing air in indoor spaces with individuals who: (i) have not yet been clinically evaluated; or (ii) are thought or known to have TB and/or COVID-19 or other potentially harmful respiratory infections;the use of respirators that meet national and international manufacturing standards;evaluation of all respirators, at the least, by qualitative fit testing; andthe use of respirators as part of a 'package of care' in line with international IPC recommendations. We recognise that this will be challenging, not least due to global and national shortages of personal protective equipment (PPE). SA national policy around respiratory protective equipment enables a robust framework for manufacture and quality control and has been supported by local manufacturers and the Department of Trade, Industry and Competition. Respirator manufacturers should explore adaptations to improve comfort and reduce barriers to communication. Structural changes are needed urgently to improve the safety of health facilities: persistent advocacy and research around potential systems change remain essential.

Determinants of non-adherence to anti-TB treatment in high income, low TB incidence settings: a scoping review

BACKGROUND: Improving adherence to anti-TB treatment is a public health priority in high-income, low incidence (HILI) regions. We conducted a scoping review to identify reported determinants of non-adherence in HILI settings.METHODS: Key terms related to TB, treatment and adherence were used to search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO and CINAHL in June 2019. Quantitative studies examining determinants (demographic, clinical, health systems or psychosocial) of non-adherence to anti-TB treatment in HILI settings were included.RESULTS: From 10,801 results, we identified 24 relevant studies from 10 countries. Definitions and methods of assessing adherence were highly variable, as were documented levels of non-adherence (0.9-89%). Demographic factors were assessed in all studies and clinical factors were frequently assessed (23/24). Determinants commonly associated with non-adherence were homelessness, incarceration, and alcohol or drug misuse. Health system (8/24) and psychosocial factors (6/24) were less commonly evaluated.CONCLUSION: Our review identified some key factors associated with non-adherence to anti-TB treatment in HILI settings. Modifiable determinants such as psychosocial factors are under-evidenced and should be further explored, as these may be better targeted by adherence support. There is an urgent need to standardise definitions and measurement of adherence to more accurately identify the strongest determinants.

Tuberculosis from transmission in clinics in high HIV settings may be far higher than contact data suggest

BACKGROUND: In South Africa, it is generally estimated that only 0.5-0.6% of people's contacts occur in clinics. Both people with infectious tuberculosis and people with increased susceptibility to disease progression may spend more time in clinics, however, increasing the importance of clinic-based transmission to overall disease incidence.METHODS: We developed an illustrative mathematical model of Mycobacterium tuberculosis transmission in clinics and other settings. We assumed that 1% of contact time occurs in clinics. We varied the ratio of clinic contact time of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive people compared to HIV-negative people, and of people with infectious TB compared to people without TB, while keeping the overall proportion of contact time occurring in clinics, and each person's total contact time, constant.RESULTS: With clinic contact rates respectively 10 and 5 times higher in HIV-positive people and people with TB, 10.7% (plausible range 8.5-13.4%) of TB resulted from transmission in clinics. With contact rates in HIV-positive people and people with TB respectively 5 and 2 times higher, 5.3% (plausible range 4.3-6.3%) of all TB was due to transmission in clinics.CONCLUSION: The small amount of contact time that generally occurs in clinics may greatly underestimate their contribution to TB disease in high TB-HIV burden settings.

Lessons learnt conducting minimally invasive autopsies in private mortuaries as part of HIV and tuberculosis research in South Africa

Current estimates of the burden of tuberculosis (TB) disease and cause-specific mortality in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive people rely heavily on indirect methods that are less reliable for ascertaining individual-level causes of death and on mathematical models. Minimally invasive autopsy (MIA) is useful for diagnosing infectious diseases, provides a reasonable proxy for the gold standard in cause of death ascertainment (complete diagnostic autopsy) and, used routinely, could improve cause-specific mortality estimates. From our experience in performing MIAs in HIV-positive adults in private mortuaries in South Africa (during the Lesedi Kamoso Study), we describe the challenges we faced and make recommendations for the conduct of MIA in future studies or surveillance programmes, including strategies for effective communication, approaches to obtaining informed consent, risk management for staff and efficient preparation for the procedure.

Cost of point-of-care lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan antigen testing in HIV-positive adults in South Africa

INTRODUCTION:

The World Health Organization recommends point-of-care (POC) lateral flow urine lipoarabinomannan (LF-LAM) for tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis in selected human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) positive people. South Africa had 438 000 new TB episodes in 2016, 58.9% of which were contributed by HIV-positive people. LF-LAM is being considered for scale-up in South Africa.

METHODS:

We estimated the costs of using LF-LAM in HIV-positive adults with CD4 counts ⩽ 150 cells/μl enrolled in the TB Fast Track Trial in South Africa. We also estimated costs of POC haemoglobin (Hb), as this was used in the study algorithm. Data on clinic-level (10 intervention clinics) and above-clinic-level costs were collected.

RESULTS:

A total of 1307 LF-LAM tests were performed at 10 clinics over 24 months. The mean clinic-level costs were US$12.80 per patient for LF-LAM and POC Hb; LF-LAM costs were US$11.49 per patient. The mean above-clinic-level unit costs for LF-LAM were US$12.06 for clinic preparation, training, coordination and mentoring. The mean total cost of LF-LAM was US$23.55 per patient.

CONCLUSION:

At clinic level, the cost of LF-LAM was comparable to other TB diagnostics in South Africa. It is important to consider above-clinic-level costs for POC tests, as these may be required to support roll-out and ensure successful implementation.