| Literature DB >> 31467622 |
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Household contacts of patients with tuberculosis (TB) are at great risk of TB infection. The aim of this study was to develop a predictive model of TB transmission among household contacts.Entities:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31467622 PMCID: PMC6701319 DOI: 10.1155/2019/5214124
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol ISSN: 1712-9532 Impact factor: 2.471
Demographic data of index TB patients.
| Characteristic | Index patients ( |
|---|---|
| Mean age, (years) | 33 |
| Male, | 273 (39.0) |
| Alcohol use (≥one unit/day), | 79 (11.3) |
| Tobacco use (any cigarettes/week), | 108 (15.4) |
| Previous TB history, | 130 (18.6) |
| HIV positive, | 38 (5.4) |
| Coexisting diabetes, | 40 (5.7) |
| Socioeconomic status | |
| 1 | 288 (41.1) |
| 2 | 210 (30.0) |
| 3 | 202 (28.9) |
| Completed secondary education, | 417 (59.6) |
| Employment status, | |
| Unemployed | 378 (54.0) |
| Working | 235 (33.6) |
| Student | 84 (12.0) |
| Unknown | 3 (0.4) |
| Spoligotype family (SpolDB4 database), | |
| Haarlem | 143 (20.4) |
| Beijing | 72 (10.3) |
| Latin American Mediterranean | 92 (13.2) |
| | 143 (20.4) |
| Other Euro-American | 61 (8.7) |
| Orphan/no family | 75 (10.7) |
| Unknown (no data) | 114 (16.3) |
| Mean cough duration (weeks) | 6.3 |
| History of hospitalization, | 89 (12.7) |
| Any side effects of treatment, | 351 (50.1) |
| Sputum smear grade, | |
| 0 | 67 (9.6) |
| 1 | 197 (28.1) |
| 2 | 180 (25.7) |
| 3 | 234 (33.4) |
| Unknown | 22 (3.2) |
| MDRTB patient, | 213 (30.4) |
Divided into three levels based on the scoring system used in the Peruvian National Census; “Other Euro-American” includes strains from the S family, the X family, and strains that were present in the SpolDB4 database but had not been assigned a family yet [3]. TB, tuberculosis; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; MDRTB, multidrug-resistant tuberculosis.
Demographic data of household contacts.
| Characteristic | Household contacts ( |
|---|---|
| Age stratum (years), | |
| 0–10 | 500 (14.6) |
| 10–20 | 625 (18.3) |
| 20–30 | 602 (17.6) |
| 30–40 | 673 (19.7) |
| 40–50 | 385 (11.3) |
| 50–60 | 329 (9.6) |
| 60–70 | 174 (5.1) |
| >70 | 118 (3.5) |
| Unknown | 11 (0.2) |
| Male, | 1698 (49.7) |
| Previous TB history, | 583 (17.1) |
| HIV positive, | 20 (0.6) |
| Coexisting diabetes, | 41 (1.2) |
| Completed secondary education, | 1540 (45.1) |
| Employment status, | |
| Unemployed | 825 (24.1) |
| Working | 1348 (39.4) |
| Student | 883 (25.9) |
| Unknown | 361 (10.6) |
| Index-contact case sleeping in the same room, | 640 (18.7) |
| Second cases of TB, | 149 (4.4) |
TB, tuberculosis; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus.
Figure 1Selection of predictors using the LASSO regression analysis with 10-fold cross-validation. (a) Tuning parameter (lambda) selection of deviance in the LASSO regression based on the minimum criteria (left dotted line) and the 1-SE criteria (right dotted line). (b) A coefficient profile plot was produced against the log (lambda) sequence. In the present study, predictor's selection was according to the 1-SE criteria (right dotted line), where 11 nonzero coefficients were selected. SE, standard error.
Figure 2The receiver operating characteristic of the model and in the internal validation cohort. (a) AUC of the predictive model (representative the discriminatory ability of the model) and (b) AUC of the internal validation (bootstrap resampling = 500). The dotted vertical lines represent 95% confidence interval. AUC, area under the curve.
Figure 3Nomogram for TB transmission in households exposed to TB patients and its algorithm. First, find point for each variable of a contact on the uppermost rule; then add all scores together and find the total point on the “Total points” rule. At last, the corresponding predicted probability of TB could be found on the lowest rule. Codes annotation: contact gender: 0, female; 1, male. Contact age (years): 1, 0 < and ≤ 10; 2 : 10 < and ≤ 20; 3, 20 < and ≤ 30; 4, 30 < and ≤ 40; 5, 40 < and ≤ 50; 6, 50 < and ≤ 60; 7, 60 < and ≤ 70; 8, age > 70; 9, unknown. Contact previous TB history: 0, no; 1, yes. Contact diabetes: 0, no; 1, yes. Contact HIV status: 0, no; 1, yes. Index patient diabetes: 0, no; 1, yes. Index patient drug resistance: 0, no; 1, yes. Index patient socioeconomic status (based on a scoring system used in the Peruvian National Census) [3]: 1, lower tertile; 2, middle tertile; 3, upper tertile. Spoligotype: 1, Haarlem; 2, Beijing; 3, Latin American Mediterranean; 4, T strain; 5, other Euro-American strains; 6, orphan or no family; 7, unknown. Index-contact sleeping in the same room: 0, no; 1, yes.
Figure 4Calibration curves of the predictive model. It shows the degree of consistency between the predicted risks of TB transmission in households exposed to TB patients and observed outcomes. The shadow line represents a perfect prediction by an ideal model, and the dotted line shows the performance of the model. The Hosmer–Lemeshow test yielded a P value of 0.754, Emax of 0.078, and Eavg of 0.004. E, difference in predicted and calibrated probabilities between calibration and area under the curve.
Figure 5Decision curve analysis of the predictive model. The dotted line represents the model. Area among the dotted line, the solid line, and the dashed line represents the net benefit from applying this model for prediction of TB transmission in households exposed to TB patients. The decision curve shows that when the threshold probability of a patient is <30%, application of this mode adds more benefit than either the treat-all or the treat-none strategies.