Dataset Information

Yield and Coverage of Active Case Finding Interventions for Tuberculosis Control:A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Active case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) is a key strategy to reduce diagnostic delays, expedite treatment, and prevent transmission.

Objective

Our objective was to identify the populations, settings, screening and diagnostic approaches that optimize coverage (proportion of those targeted who were screened) and yield (proportion of those screened who had active TB) in ACF programs.

Methods

We performed a comprehensive search to identify studies published from 1980-2016 that reported the coverage and yield of different ACF approaches. For each outcome, we conducted meta-analyses of single proportions to produce estimates across studies, followed by meta-regression to identify predictors. Findings. Of 3,972 publications identified, 224 met criteria after full-text review. Most individuals who were targeted successfully completed screening, for a pooled coverage estimate of 93.5%. The pooled yield of active TB across studies was 3.2%. Settings with the highest yield were internally-displaced persons camps (15.6%) and healthcare facilities (6.9%). When compared to symptom screening as the reference standard, studies that screened individuals regardless of symptoms using microscopy, culture, or GeneXpert®MTB/RIF (Xpert) had 3.7% higher case yield. In particular, microbiological screening (usually microscopy) as the initial test, followed by culture or Xpert for diagnosis had 3.6% higher yield than symptom screening followed by microscopy for diagnosis. In a model adjusted for use of Xpert testing, approaches targeting persons living with HIV (PLWH) had a 4.9% higher yield than those targeting the general population. In all models, studies targeting children had higher yield (4.8%-5.7%) than those targeting adults.

Conclusion

ACF activities can be implemented successfully in various populations and settings. Screening yield was highest in internally-displaced person and healthcare settings, and among PLWH and children. In high-prevalence settings, ACF approaches that screen individuals with laboratory tests regardless of symptoms have higher yield than approaches focused on symptomatic individuals.

SUBMITTER: Deya RW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9274229 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCommunity-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.MethodsWe 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.Results27 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.InterpretationCommunity-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.FundingWHO Global TB Programme.

Project description:BackgroundActive case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) is the cornerstone case-finding strategy in India's national TB policy. However, ACF strategies are highly diverse and pose implementation challenges in routine programming. We reviewed the literature to characterise ACF in India; assess the yield of ACF for different risk groups, screening locations, and screening criteria; and estimate losses to follow-up (LTFU) in screening and diagnosis.MethodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and the Cochrane library to identify studies with ACF for TB in India from November 2010 to December 2020. We calculated 1) weighted mean number needed to screen (NNS) stratified by risk group, screening location, and screening strategy; and 2) the proportion of screening and pre-diagnostic LTFU. We assessed risk of bias using the AXIS tool for cross-sectional studies.FindingsOf 27,416 abstracts screened, we included 45 studies conducted in India. Most studies were from southern and western India and aimed to diagnose pulmonary TB at the primary health level in the public sector after screening. There was considerable heterogeneity in risk groups screened and ACF methodology across studies. Of the 17 risk groups identified, the lowest weighted mean NNS was seen in people with HIV (21, range 3-89, n=5), tribal populations (50, range 40-286, n=3), household contacts of people with TB (50, range 3-undefined, n=12), people with diabetes (65, range 21-undefined, n=3), and rural populations (131, range 23-737, n=5). ACF at facility-based screening (60, range 3-undefined, n=19) had lower weighted mean NNS than at other screening locations. Using the WHO symptom screen (135, 3-undefined, n=20) had lower weighted mean NNS than using criteria of abnormal chest x-ray or any symptom. Median screening and pre-diagnosis loss-to-follow-up was 6% (IQR 4.1%, 11.3%, range 0-32.5%, n=12) and 9.5% (IQR 2.4%, 34.4%, range 0-86.9%, n=27), respectively.InterpretationFor ACF to be impactful in India, its design must be based on contextual understanding. The narrow evidence base available currently is insufficient for effectively targeting ACF programming in a large and diverse country. Achieving case-finding targets in India requires evidence-based ACF implementation.FundingWHO Global TB Programme.

Project description:BackgroundIn sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), most prisons are overcrowded with poor ventilation and put prisoners disproportionally at risk of exposure to Mycobacterium tuberculosis (TB) and developing TB infection but are mostly missed due to poor access to healthcare. Active case-finding (ACF) of TB in prisons facilitates early diagnosis and treatment of inmates and prevent the spread. We explored literature and described evidence on TB ACF interventions and approaches for prisoners in SSA prisons.MethodsGuided by the Arksey and O'Malley framework, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, SCOPUS, Academic search complete, CINAHL and MEDLINE with full text via EBSCOhost for articles on prisoners and ACF from 2000 to May 2019 with no language restriction. Two investigators independently screened the articles at the abstract and full-text stages in parallel guided by the eligibility criteria as well as performed the methodological quality appraisal of the included studies using the latest mixed-method appraisal tool. We extracted all relevant data, organized them into themes and sub-themes, and presented a narrative summary of the results.ResultsOf the 391 eligible articles found, 31 met the inclusion criteria. All 31 articles were published between 2006 and 2019 with the highest six (19.4%) in 2015. We found evidence in 11 countries. That is, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Coˆte d'Ivoire, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia with most 41.9% (13/31) recorded in Ethiopia. These intervention studies were conducted in 134 prisons between 2001 and 2018 using either a single or combination of mass, facility-led, entry, peer educators for routine screening, and exit ACF approaches. The majority (74%) of the studies utilized only a mass screening approach. The most (68%) reported study outcome was smear-positive TB cases only (68%). We found no evidence in 16 SSA countries although they are classified among the three high-burden country lists for TB TB/HIV and Multidrug resistant-TB group.ConclusionOur review highlights a dearth of evidence on TB ACF interventions in most SSA countries prisons. Hence, there is the need to scaling-up ACF interventions in SSA prisons, particularly countries included in the three high-burden country lists for TB, TB/HIV, and MDR-TB.

Project description:BackgroundThere is a need to identify scalable tuberculosis screening strategies among high burden populations. The WHO has identified a non-sputum-based triage test as a development priority.MethodsWe performed a diagnostic case-control study of point-of-care C-reactive protein (CRP) and Prototype-Xpert-MTB-Host-Response (Xpert-MTB-HR) assays in the context of a mass screening program for tuberculosis in two prisons in Brazil. All incarcerated individuals irrespective of symptoms were screened by sputum Xpert MTB/RIF and sputum culture. Among consecutive, Xpert MTB/RIF or culture-confirmed cases and Xpert MTB/RIF and culture-negative controls, CRP was quantified in serum by a point-of-care assay (iChroma-II) and a 3-gene expression score was quantified from whole blood using the Xpert-MTB-HR cartridge. We evaluated receiver operating characteristic area under the curve (AUC) and assessed specificity at 90% sensitivity and sensitivity at 70% specificity, consistent with WHO target product profile (TPP) benchmarks.FindingsTwo hundred controls (no TB) and 100 culture- or Xpert MTB/RIF-positive tuberculosis cases were included. Half of tuberculosis cases and 11% of controls reported any tuberculosis symptoms. AUC for CRP was 0·79 (95% CI: 0·73-0·84) and for Xpert-MTB-HR was 0·84 (95% CI: 0·79-0·89). At 90% sensitivity, Xpert-MTB-HR had significantly higher specificity (53·0%, 95% CI: 45·0-69·0%) than CRP (28·1%, 95% CI: 20·2-41·8%) (p = 0·003), both well below the TPP benchmark of 70%. Among individuals with medium or high sputum Xpert MTB/RIF semi-quantitative load, sensitivity (at 70% specificity) of CRP (90·3%, 95% CI: 74·2-98·0) and Xpert-MTB-HR (96·8%, 95% CI: 83·3-99·9%) was higher.InterpretationFor active case finding in this high tuberculosis-burden setting, CRP and Xpert-MTB-HR did not meet TPP benchmarks for a triage test. However, Xpert-MTB-HR was highly sensitive in detecting individuals with medium or high sputum bacillary burden.FundingNational Institutes of Health (R01 AI130058 and R01 AI149620) and Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq-404182/2019-4).

Project description:PurposeInterventions that can help streamline and reduce gaps in the tuberculosis (TB) care cascade can play crucial roles in TB prevention and care, but are often operationally complex and resource intensive, given the heterogenous settings in which they are implemented. In this study, we present a comparative analysis on cost-effectiveness of TB REACH Wave 5 projects with diverse programmatic objectives to inform future decisions regarding funding, strategic adoption, and scale-up.MethodsWe comprehensively reviewed project reports and financial statements from TB REACH Wave 5, a funding mechanism for interventions that aimed to strengthen the TB care cascade in diverse settings. Two independent reviewers abstracted cost (in 2017 US dollars) and key programmatic data, including project type (case-finding only; case-finding and linkage-to-care; or case-finding, linkage-to-care and patient support), operational setting (urban or rural), and project outputs (numbers of people with TB diagnosed, started on treatment, and successfully completing treatment). Cost-effectiveness ratios for each project were calculated as ratios of apportioned programmatic expenditures to corresponding project outputs.ResultsOf 32 case finding and patient support projects funded through TB REACH Wave 5, 29 were included for analysis (11 case-finding only; 9 case-finding and linkage-to-care; and 9 case-finding, linkage-to-care and patient support). 21 projects (72%) were implemented in either Africa or Southeast Asia, and 19 (66%) focused on serving urban areas. Average cost-effectiveness was $184 per case diagnosed (range: $30-$10,497), $332 per diagnosis and treatment initiation ($123-$10,608), and $40 per patient treatment supported ($8-$160). Cost per case diagnosed was lower for case-finding-only projects ($132) than projects including linkage-to-care ($342) or linkage-to-care and patient support ($254), and generally increased with the corresponding country's per-capita GDP ($543 per $1000 increase, 95% confidence interval: -$53, $1138).ConclusionThe costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions to strengthen the TB care cascade were heterogenous, reflecting differences in context and programmatic objective. Nevertheless, many such interventions are likely to offer good value for money. Systematic collection and analysis of cost-effectiveness data can help improve comparability, monitoring, and evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundPart of tuberculosis (TB) patients were missed if symptomatic screening was based on the main TB likely symptoms. This study conducted to compare the yield and relative costs of different TB screening algorithms in active case-finding in the whole population in China.MethodsThe study population was screened based on the TB likely symptoms through a face-to-face interview in selected 27 communities from 10 counties of 10 provinces in China. If the individuals had any of the enhanced TB likely symptoms, both chest X-ray and sputum tests were carried out for them furtherly. We used the McNemar test to analyze the difference in TB detection among four algorithms in active case-finding. Of four algorithms, two were from WHO recommendations including 1a/1c, one from China National Tuberculosis Program, and one from this study with the enhanced TB likely symptoms. Furthermore, a two-way ANOVA analysis was performed to analyze the cost difference in the performance of active case-finding adjusted by different demographic and health characteristics among different algorithms.ResultsAlgorithm with the enhanced TB likely symptoms defined in this study could increase the yield of TB detection in active case-finding, compared with algorithms recommended by WHO (p < 0.01, Kappa 95% CI: 0. 93-0.99) and China NTP (p = 0.03, Kappa 95% CI: 0.96-1.00). There was a significant difference in the total costs among different three algorithms WHO 1c/2/3 (F = 59.13, p < 0.01). No significant difference in the average costs for one active TB case screened and diagnosed through the process among Algorithms 1c/2/3 was evident (F = 2.78, p = 0.07). The average costs for one bacteriological positive case through algorithm WHO 1a was about two times as much as the costs for one active TB case through algorithms WHO 1c/2/3.ConclusionsActive case-finding based on the enhanced symptom screening is meaningful for TB case-finding and it could identify more active TB cases in time. The findings indicated that this enhanced screening approach cost more compared to algorithms recommend by WHO and China NTP, but the increased yield resulted in comparative costs per patient. And it cost much more that only smear/bacteriological-positive TB cases are screened in active case-finding.