| Literature DB >> 30908566 |
E Gurbanova1,2, R Mehdiyev2, K Blondal3, A Altraja1,4.
Abstract
AIMS: To evaluate the impact of addition of rapid tests for tuberculosis (TB) to mass screening and passive case finding on the burden of TB in high-incidence prisons of Azerbaijan.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 30908566 PMCID: PMC6463323
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Rev Esp Sanid Penit ISSN: 1575-0620
Figure 1Algorithms of TB case finding used in the correctional facilities of Azerbaijan during the whole study period, 2009-2015.
Comparisons between the period, when the rapid tests for detection of TB (Xpert MTB/RIF and liquid culture) were introduced into mass screening and into passive case finding (post-interventional period), and the preceding period (pre-interventional period) for the overall number of identified smear-positive TB cases, RIF-resistant cases and those with BMI<18.5 kg/m2 at the diagnosis and the number of identified smear-positive TB cases, RIF-resistant cases and those with BMI<18.5 kg/m2 identified by mass screening and passive case finding. The aim was to show the impact of the inclusion of the rapid tests on the TB burden in the correctional facilities (Azerbaijan, 2009-2015).
| Pre-interventional period | Post-interventional period 2 | OR (CI 95%) | aOR (CI 95%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Smear-positive TB cases | 609 (47,6) | 423 (40,9) | 0,76 (0,64-0,89) | 0,001 | 0,80 (0,68-0,96)*** | 0,014 |
| RIF-resistant TB cases | 200 (15,6) | 107 (10,3) | 0,62 (0,48-0,80) | <0,001 | 0,66 (0,51-0,85)*** | 0,001 |
| With additional resistance to second-line injectables | 12 (0,9) | 13 (1,3) | 2,16 (0,82-5,70) | 0,117 | 1,53 (0,74-3,14) | 0,246 |
| With additional resistance to fluoroquinolones | 3 (0,2) | 12 (1,2) | 13,0 (1,70-99,3) | 0,013 | 4,38 (1,59-12,00) | 0,004 |
| Extensively drug resistant TB | 2 (0,2) | 9 (0,9) | 17,1 (0,74-99,7) | 0,203 | 4,15 (0,74-23,33) | 0,105 |
| Cases with BMI<18.5 | 240 (18,8) | 161 (15,5) | 0,79 (0,64-0,99) | 0,044 | 0,83 (0,67-1,04)*** | 0,105 |
| Mass screening€ | 571 (44,6) | 469 (45,3) | - - | - - | - - | - - |
| Smear-positive TB cases | 191 (14,9) | 160 (15,5) | - - | - - | 1,04 (0,80-1,36)**** | 0,737 |
| RIF-resistant TB cases | 57 (4,4) | 43 (4,1) | - - | - - | 0,92 (0,60-1,40)**** | 0,714 |
| Cases with BMI<18.5 | 78 (6,1) | 41 (4,0) | - - | - - | 0,60 (0,40-0,90)**** | 0,015 |
| Passive case finding****** | 709 (55,4) | 445 (43,0) | - - | - - | - - | - - |
| Smear-positive TB cases | 418 (32,7) | 202 (19,5) | - - | - - | 0,61 (0,49-0,79)***** | <0,001 |
| RIF-resistant TB cases | 143 (11,2) | 54 (5,2) | - - | - - | 0,62 (0,44-0,87)***** | 0,006 |
| Cases with BMI<18.5 | 162 (12,7) | 93 (9,0) | - - | - - | 0,96 (0,73-1,05)***** | 0,156 |
Note. aOR: adjusted odds ratio; BMI: Body mass index; RIF: Rifampicin; TB: Tuberculosis; IUsed for calculation of percentages in the respective column; IIUsed for calculation of the percentages in the respective column; IIIAdjustment was made to the overall number of smear-positive cases, RIF-resistant cases and those with BMI<18.5 kg/m2 at the diagnosis; IVAdjustment was made to the number of smear-positive cases, RIF-resistant cases and those with BMI<18.5 kg/m2 diagnosed by mass screening; VAdjustment was made to the number of smear-positive cases, RIF-resistant cases and those with BMI<18.5 kg/m2 diagnosed by passive case finding; VIDuring mass screening at the pre-interventional period presumptive TB presenting any TB symptom based on standardized five-symptom questionnaire and/or any abnormality compatible with TB on chest radiography were tested with smear microscopy, while in post-interventional period smear microscopy was substituted by liquid culture. VIIPassive case finding during the pre-interventional period identified presumptive TB cases based on presence of cough continuing for longer than two weeks, while in post-interventional period presumptive TB cases were identified based on presence of cough continuing for longer than two weeks and following Xpert MTB/RIF testing. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to identify the difference between the periods for the overall number of smear-positive cases, RIF-resistant cases and those with BMI<18.5 kg/m2 at the diagnosis, as well as to identify the difference between the periods for the number of smear-positive cases, RIF-resistant cases and those, with BMI<18.5 kg/m2 detected by mass screening and passive case finding.
Figure 2Annually notified TB cases, smear-positive TB cases, RIF-resistant cases and those with body mass index (BMI) below 18.5 kg/m2 at identification in the correctional facilities of Azerbaijan between 01.01.2009 and 31.12.2015, presented as rates per 100,000 prisoners
Comparisons between the period, when the rapid tests for detection of TB (Xpert MTB/RIF and liquid culture) were introduced into mass screening and into passive case finding (post-interventional period), and the preceding period (pre-interventional period) for the overall number of cases successfully treated with FLD and SLD, as well as for the cases identified by mass screening or passive case finding and successfully treated with FLD and SLD to show the impact of the inclusion of the rapid tests on the TB burden in the correctional facilities (Azerbaijan, 2009-2014I).
| Pre-interventional period | Post-interventional period 2 | OR (CI 95%) | aOR (CI 95%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total No. of cases enrolled to the treatment with FLD | 1,159 (90,5) | 735 (88,1) | - - | - - | ||
| No. of cases successfully treated with FLD | 870 (68,0) | 650 (78,0) | 2,38 (1,86-3,05) | <0,001 | 1,93 (1,49-2,50)VII | <0,001 |
| Total No. of cases enrolled to the treatment with SLD | 121 (9,5) | 99 (11,9) | - - | - - | - - | - - |
| No. of cases successfully treated with SLD | 109 (8,5) | 80 (9,6) | 0,46 (0,21-1,00) | 0,053 | ||
| No. of cases identified by mass screeningV and successfully treated | 469 (36,6) | 356 (42,7) | - - | - - | - - | - - |
| No. of cases successfully treated with FLD | 445 (34,8) | 325 (39,0) | - - | - - | 3,60 (2,14-7,06)VII | <0,001 |
| No. of cases successfully treated with SLD | 24 (1,9) | 31 (3,7) | - - | - - | 0,22 (0,04-1,16)VII | 0,07 |
| No. of cases identified by passive case findingVI and successfully treated | 510 (39,8) | 300 (36,0) | - - | - - | ||
| No. of cases successfully treated with FLD | 425 (33,2) | 258 (30,9) | 2,60 (1,81-3,75) | <0,001 | 1,90 (1,32-2,74)VII | <0,001 |
| No. of cases successfully treated with SLD | 85 (6,6) | 42 (5,0) | 0,35 (0,14-0,86) | 0,022 | 0,41 (0,16-1,06)VIII | 0,066 |
Note. BMI: Body mass index; FLD: First-line antiTB drugs; OR: Odds ratio; RIF: Rifampicin; SLD: Second-line antiTB drugs; Successful treatment: Cured + treatment completed; TB: Tuberculosis IOutcomes of SLD treatment of patients detected in 2015 were not yet available at the time of the analyses. IIUsed for calculation of the percentages in the respective column; IIIUsed for calculation of the percentages in the respective column; IVPatients, who were enrolled to treatment with FLD in 2015 and patients, who were enrolled to treatment with SLD in 2014-2015 were still on treatment at the time of the analysis and were excluded from this analysis; VDuring mass screening at the preinterventional period presumptive TB presenting any TB symptom based on standardized five-symptom questionnaire and/or any abnormality compatible with TB on chest radiography were tested with smear microscopy, while in post-interventional period smear microscopy was substituted by liquid culture. VIPassive case finding during the pre-interventional period identified presumptive TB cases based on presence of cough continuing for longer than two weeks, while in post-interventional period presumptive TB cases were identified based on presence of cough continuing for longer than two weeks and following Xpert MTB/RIF testing. Multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to assess the difference for the overall number of cases successfully treated with FLD or SLD, as well as to assess the difference for the number of cases detected by mass screening or passive case finding and successfully treated with FLD or SLD. VIIAdjustment was made to the number of smear-positive cases, RIF-resistant cases and those with BMI<18.5 kg/m2. VIIIAdjustment was made to the number of smear-positive cases, those with BMI<18.5 kg/m2, cases resistant to Rifampicin, fluoroquinolones and second line injectables.
Comparison between the cases detected in the correctional facilities of Azerbaijan during 2009-2014II by the different types of case finding strategiesI for successfulness of the treatment with FLD and SLD separately for the period, when the rapid tests for detection of TB (Xpert MTB/RIF and liquid culture) were introduced into mass screening and passive case finding (post-interventional period) and for the preceding period (pre-interventional period).
| Pre-interventional period (2009-2011, n=979IV,V) | Post-interventional period (2012-2014, n=730IV,V) | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass screeningVI (n=469) | Passive case findingIV, (n=510) | Mass screening (n=356) | Passive case findingVII, (n=300) | Entry screening at the non-TB prison hospital (n=74) | |||||||
| n (%) | n (%) | aOR (CI 95%) | n (%) | n (%) | aOR (CI 95%) | n (%) | aOR (CI 95%) | ||||
| Cases successfully treated with FLD | 445 (45,4) | 425 (43,4) | 0,50 (0,38-0,67) | <0,001 | 325 (44,5) | 258 (35,3) | 0,31 (0,17- 0,57) | <0,001 | 67 (9,2) | 0,16 (0,08-0,33) | <0,001 |
| Cases successfully treated with SLD | 24 (2,4) | 85 (16,7) | 0,70 (0,14-3,45) | 0,670 | 31 (4,2) | 42 (5,7) | 0,56 (0,13-2,29) | 0,419 | 7 (1,0) | - | - |
Note. aOR: adjusted odds ratio; BMI: Body mass index; FLD: First-line antiTB drugs; RIF: Rifampicin; SLD: Second-line antiTB drugs; Successful treatment: Cured + treatment completed; TB: Tuberculosis; I During the pre-interventional period, the successfulness of the treatment in patients detected by passive case finding, whereas during the post-interventional period, the successfulness of treatment in patients detected by passive case finding and entry screening at the non-TB prison hospital were compared to the successfulness of the treatment among the patients detected with mass screening; II Outcomes of SLD treatment of patients detected in 2015 were not available at the time of analysis; III During mass screening at the pre-interventional period presumptive TB presenting any TB symptom based on standardized five-symptom questionnaire and/or any abnormality compatible with TB on chest radiography were tested with smear microscopy. IV Passive case finding during the pre-interventional period identified presumptive TB cases based on presence of cough continuing for longer than two weeks; V Successfully treated patients enrolled to the treatment with FLD in 2009-2014 and enrolled to the treatment with SLD in 2009-2013 were analyzed. The rest of the patients were still on treatment at the time of the analysis and were omitted; VI During mass screening at the post-interventional period presumptive TB presenting any TB symptom based on standardized five-symptom questionnaire and/or any abnormality compatible with TB on chest radiography were tested with liquid culture; VII Passive case finding during the post-interventional period identified presumptive TB cases based on presence of cough continuing for longer than two weeks and following Xpert MTB/RIF testing among all inmates, who presented to the prison healthcare units. For the pre-interventional period, multivariate binary logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the successfulness of treatment with FLD and SLD among patients detected by the passive case finding compared to the successfulness of the treatment with FLD and SLD among patients detected with the mass screening. For the post-interventional period, multivariate multinomial logistic regression analysis was used to evaluate the successfulness of treatment with FLD and SLD among patients detected by the passive case finding and those, who were detected by the entry screening at the non-TB prison hospital compared to the successfulness of the treatment with FLD and SLD among patients detected with the mass screening. In all settings, the independent variables were adjusted for smear positivity, RIF-resistance and BMI<18.5 kg/m2.