David P Bui1, Eyal Oren2, Denise J Roe1, Heidi E Brown1, Robin B Harris1, Gwenan M Knight3, Robert H Gilman4,5, Louis Grandjean3,4. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Mel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, The University of Arizona, Tucson. 2. School of Public Health, San Diego State University, California. 3. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, United Kingdom. 4. Universidad Peruana Cayetano Heredia, Lima, Peru. 5. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The majority of tuberculosis transmission occurs in community settings. Our primary aim in this study was to assess the association between exposure to community venues and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis. Our secondary aim was to describe the social networks of MDR tuberculosis cases and controls. METHODS: We recruited laboratory-confirmed MDR tuberculosis cases and community controls that were matched on age and sex. Whole-genome sequencing was used to identify genetically clustered cases. Venue tracing interviews (nonblinded) were conducted to enumerate community venues frequented by participants. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between MDR tuberculosis and person-time spent in community venues. A location-based social network was constructed, with respondents connected if they reported frequenting the same venue, and an exponential random graph model (ERGM) was fitted to model the network. RESULTS: We enrolled 59 cases and 65 controls. Participants reported 729 unique venues. The mean number of venues reported was similar in both groups (P = .92). Person-time in healthcare venues (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.67, P = .01), schools (aOR = 1.53, P < .01), and transportation venues (aOR = 1.25, P = .03) was associated with MDR tuberculosis. Healthcare venues, markets, cinemas, and transportation venues were commonly shared among clustered cases. The ERGM indicated significant community segregation between cases and controls. Case networks were more densely connected. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to healthcare venues, schools, and transportation venues was associated with MDR tuberculosis. Intervention across the segregated network of case venues may be necessary to effectively stem transmission.
BACKGROUND: The majority of tuberculosis transmission occurs in community settings. Our primary aim in this study was to assess the association between exposure to community venues and multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis. Our secondary aim was to describe the social networks of MDR tuberculosis cases and controls. METHODS: We recruited laboratory-confirmed MDR tuberculosis cases and community controls that were matched on age and sex. Whole-genome sequencing was used to identify genetically clustered cases. Venue tracing interviews (nonblinded) were conducted to enumerate community venues frequented by participants. Logistic regression was used to assess the association between MDR tuberculosis and person-time spent in community venues. A location-based social network was constructed, with respondents connected if they reported frequenting the same venue, and an exponential random graph model (ERGM) was fitted to model the network. RESULTS: We enrolled 59 cases and 65 controls. Participants reported 729 unique venues. The mean number of venues reported was similar in both groups (P = .92). Person-time in healthcare venues (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.67, P = .01), schools (aOR = 1.53, P < .01), and transportation venues (aOR = 1.25, P = .03) was associated with MDR tuberculosis. Healthcare venues, markets, cinemas, and transportation venues were commonly shared among clustered cases. The ERGM indicated significant community segregation between cases and controls. Case networks were more densely connected. CONCLUSIONS: Exposure to healthcare venues, schools, and transportation venues was associated with MDR tuberculosis. Intervention across the segregated network of case venues may be necessary to effectively stem transmission.
Authors: Jonathan L Zelner; Megan B Murray; Mercedes C Becerra; Jerome Galea; Leonid Lecca; Roger Calderon; Rosa Yataco; Carmen Contreras; Zibiao Zhang; Justin Manjourides; Bryan T Grenfell; Ted Cohen Journal: J Infect Dis Date: 2015-07-14 Impact factor: 5.226
Authors: Gabriel Chamie; Bonnie Wandera; Carina Marquez; Midori Kato-Maeda; Moses R Kamya; Diane V Havlir; Edwin D Charlebois Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2015-02-04 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: C N Classen; R Warren; M Richardson; J H Hauman; R P Gie; J H Ellis; P D van Helden; N Beyers Journal: Thorax Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Tom A Yates; Palwasha Y Khan; Gwenan M Knight; Jonathon G Taylor; Timothy D McHugh; Marc Lipman; Richard G White; Ted Cohen; Frank G Cobelens; Robin Wood; David A J Moore; Ibrahim Abubakar Journal: Lancet Infect Dis Date: 2016-01-26 Impact factor: 25.071
Authors: Larissa Otero; Fiorella Krapp; Cristina Tomatis; Carlos Zamudio; Francine Matthys; Eduardo Gotuzzo; Patrick Van der Stuyft; Carlos Seas Journal: PLoS One Date: 2011-10-27 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: David P Bui; Shruthi S Chandran; Eyal Oren; Heidi E Brown; Robin B Harris; Gwenan M Knight; Louis Grandjean Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2021-03-18 Impact factor: 3.090
Authors: Weijun Yu; Cheryll Alipio; Jia'an Wan; Heran Mane; Quynh C Nguyen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-06-21 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Courtney M Yuen; Meredith B Brooks; Ana Karina Millones; Diana Acosta; Erika Del Águila-Rojas; Hortencia Campos; Sheyla Farroñay; Giannina Morales; Judith Ramirez-Sandoval; Tim C Nichols; Judith Jimenez; Helen E Jenkins; Leonid Lecca Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 4.996