BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis contact investigation identifies individuals who may be recently infected with tuberculosis and are thus at increased risk for disease. Contacts with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) are offered chemoprophylaxis to prevent active disease; however, the effectiveness of this intervention is unclear as treatment completion is generally low. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 30 561 contacts identified during investigation of 5182 cases of tuberculosis diagnosed in New York City, 1997-2003, was performed. We searched the NYC tuberculosis registry to identify contacts developing active tuberculosis within 4 years of follow-up. We estimated the following: number of contacts undergoing evaluation (ie, tuberculin skin test and/or chest radiograph) per prevalent case diagnosed; number of contacts with LTBI that need to be treated with standard chemoprophylaxis to prevent 1 active case. RESULTS: Of 30 561 contacts, 27 293 (89%) were evaluated and 268 prevalent cases were diagnosed (102 contacts evaluated per prevalent case diagnosed, 95% confidence interval [CI], 90-115). LTBI was diagnosed in 7597 contacts, including 6001 (79%) who initiated chemoprophylaxis, 3642 (61%) who later completed treatment, and 2359 (39%) who did not complete treatment. During 4 years of follow-up, active tuberculosis was diagnosed in 46 contacts with LTBI, including 22 of 6001 (0.4%) who initiated chemoprophylaxis and 24 of 1596 (1.5%) who did not initiate treatment. The absolute risk reduction afforded by chemoprophylaxis initiation was 1.1% (95% CI, .6%-1.9%), leading to an estimated 88 contacts treated to prevent 1 tuberculosis case (95% CI, 53-164). CONCLUSIONS: Contact investigation facilitates active case finding and tuberculosis prevention, even when completion rates of chemoprophylaxis are suboptimal.
BACKGROUND:Tuberculosis contact investigation identifies individuals who may be recently infected with tuberculosis and are thus at increased risk for disease. Contacts with latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) are offered chemoprophylaxis to prevent active disease; however, the effectiveness of this intervention is unclear as treatment completion is generally low. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of 30 561 contacts identified during investigation of 5182 cases of tuberculosis diagnosed in New York City, 1997-2003, was performed. We searched the NYC tuberculosis registry to identify contacts developing active tuberculosis within 4 years of follow-up. We estimated the following: number of contacts undergoing evaluation (ie, tuberculin skin test and/or chest radiograph) per prevalent case diagnosed; number of contacts with LTBI that need to be treated with standard chemoprophylaxis to prevent 1 active case. RESULTS: Of 30 561 contacts, 27 293 (89%) were evaluated and 268 prevalent cases were diagnosed (102 contacts evaluated per prevalent case diagnosed, 95% confidence interval [CI], 90-115). LTBI was diagnosed in 7597 contacts, including 6001 (79%) who initiated chemoprophylaxis, 3642 (61%) who later completed treatment, and 2359 (39%) who did not complete treatment. During 4 years of follow-up, active tuberculosis was diagnosed in 46 contacts with LTBI, including 22 of 6001 (0.4%) who initiated chemoprophylaxis and 24 of 1596 (1.5%) who did not initiate treatment. The absolute risk reduction afforded by chemoprophylaxis initiation was 1.1% (95% CI, .6%-1.9%), leading to an estimated 88 contacts treated to prevent 1 tuberculosis case (95% CI, 53-164). CONCLUSIONS: Contact investigation facilitates active case finding and tuberculosis prevention, even when completion rates of chemoprophylaxis are suboptimal.
Authors: Mary R Reichler; Awal Khan; Timothy R Sterling; Hui Zhao; Bin Chen; Yan Yuan; Joyce Moran; James McAuley; Bonita Mangura Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2020-04-10 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Prabhu P Gounder; Tiffany G Harris; Holly Anger; Lisa Trieu; Jeanne Sullivan Meissner; Betsy L Cadwell; Elena Shashkina; Shama D Ahuja Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Cláudia Di Lorenzo Oliveira; Angelita Cristine de Melo; Lílian Ruth Silva de Oliveira; Emerson Lopes Froede; Paulo Camargos Journal: J Bras Pneumol Date: 2015 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.624
Authors: Beate Kampmann; James A Seddon; James Paton; Zohreh Nademi; Denis Keane; Bhanu Williams; Amanda Williams; Sue Liebeschutz; Anna Riddell; Jolanta Bernatoniene; Sanjay Patel; Nuria Martinez; Paddy McMaster; Robindra Basu-Roy; Steven B Welch Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: R S Robbins; B R Perri; S D Ahuja; H A Anger; J Sullivan Meissner; E Shashkina; B N Kreiswirth; D C Proops Journal: Epidemiol Infect Date: 2016-11-21 Impact factor: 4.434