David W Dowdy1, Sanjay Basu, Jason R Andrews. 1. Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. ddowdy@jhsph.edu
Abstract
RATIONALE: Tuberculosis (TB) is characterized by a subclinical phase (symptoms absent or not considered abnormal); prediagnostic phase (symptoms noticed but diagnosis not pursued); and clinical phase (care actively sought). Diagnostic capacity during these phases is limited. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the population-level impact of TB case-finding strategies in the presence of subclinical and prediagnostic disease. METHODS: We created a mathematical epidemic model of TB, calibrated to global incidence. We then introduced three prototypical diagnostic interventions: increased sensitivity of diagnosis in the clinical phase by 20% ("passive"); early diagnosis during the prediagnostic phase at a rate of 10% per year ("enhanced"); and population-based diagnosis of 5% of undiagnosed prevalent cases per year ("active"). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: If the subclinical phase was ignored, as in most models, the passive strategy was projected to reduce TB incidence by 18% (90% uncertainty range [UR], 11-32%) by year 10, compared with 23% (90% UR, 14-35%) for the enhanced strategy and 18% (90% UR, 11-28%) for the active strategy. After incorporating a subclinical phase into the model, consistent with population-based prevalence surveys, the active strategy still reduced 10-year TB incidence by 16% (90% UR, 11-28%), but the passive and enhanced strategies' impact was attenuated to 11% (90% UR, 8-25%) and 6% (90% UR, 4-13%), respectively. The degree of attenuation depended strongly on the transmission rate during the subclinical phase. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical disease may limit the impact of current diagnostic strategies for TB. Active detection of undiagnosed prevalent cases may achieve greater population-level TB control than increasing passive case detection.
RATIONALE: Tuberculosis (TB) is characterized by a subclinical phase (symptoms absent or not considered abnormal); prediagnostic phase (symptoms noticed but diagnosis not pursued); and clinical phase (care actively sought). Diagnostic capacity during these phases is limited. OBJECTIVES: To estimate the population-level impact of TB case-finding strategies in the presence of subclinical and prediagnostic disease. METHODS: We created a mathematical epidemic model of TB, calibrated to global incidence. We then introduced three prototypical diagnostic interventions: increased sensitivity of diagnosis in the clinical phase by 20% ("passive"); early diagnosis during the prediagnostic phase at a rate of 10% per year ("enhanced"); and population-based diagnosis of 5% of undiagnosed prevalent cases per year ("active"). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: If the subclinical phase was ignored, as in most models, the passive strategy was projected to reduce TB incidence by 18% (90% uncertainty range [UR], 11-32%) by year 10, compared with 23% (90% UR, 14-35%) for the enhanced strategy and 18% (90% UR, 11-28%) for the active strategy. After incorporating a subclinical phase into the model, consistent with population-based prevalence surveys, the active strategy still reduced 10-year TB incidence by 16% (90% UR, 11-28%), but the passive and enhanced strategies' impact was attenuated to 11% (90% UR, 8-25%) and 6% (90% UR, 4-13%), respectively. The degree of attenuation depended strongly on the transmission rate during the subclinical phase. CONCLUSIONS: Subclinical disease may limit the impact of current diagnostic strategies for TB. Active detection of undiagnosed prevalent cases may achieve greater population-level TB control than increasing passive case detection.
Authors: C Robert Horsburgh; Max O'Donnell; Sandra Chamblee; Janet L Moreland; Johnny Johnson; Bryan J Marsh; Masahiro Narita; Linda Scoles Johnson; C Fordham von Reyn Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2010-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Catharina C Boehme; Pamela Nabeta; Doris Hillemann; Mark P Nicol; Shubhada Shenai; Fiorella Krapp; Jenny Allen; Rasim Tahirli; Robert Blakemore; Roxana Rustomjee; Ana Milovic; Martin Jones; Sean M O'Brien; David H Persing; Sabine Ruesch-Gerdes; Eduardo Gotuzzo; Camilla Rodrigues; David Alland; Mark D Perkins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: U Mack; G B Migliori; M Sester; H L Rieder; S Ehlers; D Goletti; A Bossink; K Magdorf; C Hölscher; B Kampmann; S M Arend; A Detjen; G Bothamley; J P Zellweger; H Milburn; R Diel; P Ravn; F Cobelens; P J Cardona; B Kan; I Solovic; R Duarte; D M Cirillo Journal: Eur Respir J Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 16.671
Authors: Edine W Tiemersma; Marieke J van der Werf; Martien W Borgdorff; Brian G Williams; Nico J D Nagelkerke Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-04-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Amanda Y Sun; Madhukar Pai; Henrik Salje; Srinath Satyanarayana; Sarang Deo; David W Dowdy Journal: Am J Epidemiol Date: 2013-10-07 Impact factor: 4.897
Authors: Anthony T Fojo; Natalie L Stennis; Andrew S Azman; Emily A Kendall; Sourya Shrestha; Shama D Ahuja; David W Dowdy Journal: Lancet Public Health Date: 2017-07
Authors: Julian S Peters; Jason R Andrews; Mark Hatherill; Sabine Hermans; Leonardo Martinez; Erwin Schurr; Yuri van der Heijden; Robin Wood; Roxana Rustomjee; Bavesh D Kana Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Paul K Drain; Kristina L Bajema; David Dowdy; Keertan Dheda; Kogieleum Naidoo; Samuel G Schumacher; Shuyi Ma; Erin Meermeier; David M Lewinsohn; David R Sherman Journal: Clin Microbiol Rev Date: 2018-07-18 Impact factor: 26.132
Authors: Gonzalo G Alvarez; Alice A Zwerling; Carla Duncan; Christopher Pease; Deborah Van Dyk; Marcel A Behr; Robyn S Lee; Sunita Mulpuru; Smita Pakhale; D William Cameron; Shawn D Aaron; Michael Patterson; Jean Allen; Kathryn Sullivan; Anne Jolly; Meenu K Sharma; Frances B Jamieson Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2021-06-15 Impact factor: 9.079