| Literature DB >> 34020616 |
K Sullivan1,2, C Pease1,2, A Zwerling3, R Mallick4, D Van Dyk4, S Mulpuru1,2,3,4, C Allen4, H Alsdurf3, G G Alvarez5,6,7,8.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Prevention of TB is paramount to achieving elimination targets as recommended by the World Health Organization's action framework for low incidence countries striving to eliminate TB. Although the rates of TB in Canada are low, understanding the latent TB infection (LTBI) cascade is paramount to identifying gaps in care and treatment barriers, thereby increasing the effectiveness of preventive strategies. The purpose of this study was to examine the LTBI cascade of care and identify barriers to treatment completion in adults referred from primary care to a regional tertiary care TB clinic in Ottawa, Canada.Entities:
Keywords: Cascade of care; Latent tuberculosis infection
Year: 2021 PMID: 34020616 PMCID: PMC8140464 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-021-10733-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Demographic characteristics of patients (n = 2207 individuals) with consultation at the TB clinic between January 1, 2010 and November 30, 2016 by treatment location
| All patients ( | Patients followed by TB Clinic ( | Patients followed by Primary Care Team ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Characteristics | |||
| Males | 951 (43.1%) | 826 (42.7%) | 125 (46.0%) |
| Females | 1256 (56.9%) | 1109 (57.3%) | 147 (54.0%) |
| Age (years)a | |||
| Median | 42 (IQR 30-53) | ||
| Mean (range) | 42.5 (15-90) | 42.6 (15-90) | 42.1 (17-76) |
| <18 | 16 (0.7%) | 15 (0.8%) | 1 (0.4%) |
| 18-65 | 2002 (90.7%) | 1751 (90.5%) | 251 (92.3%) |
| >65 | 189 (8.6%) | 169 (8.7%) | 20 (7.4%) |
| Reason for referral to TB Clinic | |||
| Employment screening b | 735 (33.3%) | 634 (32.8%) | 101 (37.1%) |
| Rule out active TB diseasec | 576 (26.1%) | 516 (26.7%) | 60 (22.1%) |
| Contact tracingd | 441 (20.0%) | 388 (20.0%) | 53 (19.5%) |
| Immunosuppressive therapye | 310 (14.0%) | 255 (13.2%) | 55 (20.2%) |
| Immigration screenf | 145 (6.6%) | 142 (7.3%) | 3 (1.1%) |
aAge of the individual at the initial consultation. bRoutine TB screening required for employment or Health Science students who required LTBI screening for their program (i.e. medical students and nursing students). cIndividuals referred by another physician to rule out active TB disease. dPatient in contact with an active TB patient. eReferred before starting immunosuppressive therapy including (i.e. prior to biologics, dialysis, chemotherapy or transplant). fReferred following routine immigration screening
Fig. 1LTBI cascade of care at the Ottawa Hospital TB Clinic – January 1, 2010 to November 30, 2016. Percentages in the left-hand column represent the percentage of patients remaining in the cascade compared to the previous step in the cascade. 1Patients that started one treatment course during the study period and did not complete the course and started a second treatment course during the study period. 2Individuals who initially accepted treatment but never received a prescription and subsequently declined treatment or were lost to follow up
Reason for losses within the Ottawa latent tuberculosis cascade of care (n = 1412) with comparison between patients followed at the TB Clinic and the Primary Care Team
| Reason treatment not offered at the TB clinic | |||
| All Individuals ( | TB Clinic | Primary Care Team | |
| Discordancea | 236 (54.1%) | - | - |
| Lost to follow upb | 120 (27.5%) | - | - |
| Agec | 31 (7.1%) | - | - |
| Otherh | 26 (6.0%) | - | - |
| Did not specifyd | 12 (2.8%) | - | - |
| Comorbiditiesc | 10 (2.3%) | - | - |
| Polypharmacyc | 1 (0.2%) | - | - |
| Reason treatment not accepted | |||
| All Individuals ( | TB Clinic ( | Primary Care Team ( | |
| Did not specifyd | 275 (48.4%) | 274 (50.4%) | 1 (4.2%) |
| Lost to follow upb | 165 (29.0%) | 163 (30.0%) | 2 (8.3%) |
| Accepted but did not start treatmenti | 49 (8.6%) | 34 (6.3%) | 15 (62.5%) |
| Worried about side effects | 19 (3.3%) | 18 (3.3%) | 1 (4.2%) |
| Discordancea | 14 (2.5%) | 14 (2.6%) | - |
| Does not want to take medications | 11 (2.1%) | 11 (2.0%) | - |
| Does not believe treatment is necessary | 10 (1.9%) | 8 (1.5%) | 2 (8.3%) |
| Travelling | 8 (1.4%) | 8 (1.5%) | - |
| Drinking alcohol | 6 (1.1%) | 6 (1.1%) | - |
| Otherh | 6 (1.1%) | 3 (0.6%) | 3 (12.5%) |
| Treatment too long | 4 (0.7%) | 4 (0.7%) | - |
| Side effects + treatment too long | 1 (0.2%) | 1 (0.2%) | - |
| Reason treatment incomplete | |||
| All Individuals ( | TB Clinic ( | Primary Care Team ( | |
| Lost to follow upb | 207 (50.7%) | 155 (57.0%) | 52 (38.2%) |
| Adverse Eventf | 93 (22.8%) | 84 (30.9%) | 9 (6.6%) |
| Unknowne | 56 (13.7%) | - | 56 (41.2%) |
| Otherh | 28 (6.9%) | 13 (4.8%) | 15 (11%) |
| Did not specifyd | 10 (2.5%) | 10 (3.7%) | - |
| Pregnancy | 5 (1.1%) | 4 (1.5%) | 1 (0.7%) |
| Missed too many doses | 4 (1.2%) | 2 (0.7%) | 2 (1.5%) |
| Change in health | 3 (0.6%) | 3 (1.1%) | - |
| Elected for another LTBI Txg | 1 (0.7%) | 1 (0.4%) | - |
| Change in medication that interacts with LTBI treatment | 1 (0.7%) | - | 1 (0.7%) |
aPatients with a positive TST and negative IGRA. bPatients that: 1) required further baseline investigations prior to being offered treatment; 2) wanted another appointment prior to accepting treatment; 3) did not start treatment following accepting treatment; and 4) did not return to clinic for subsequent appointments. cRisk of side effects with treatment is high given patient age, other medications, or comorbid medical conditions. dThe clinic note did not specify why the patient did not complete that step. eUnknown if treatment started or completed due to no information received from the primary care team about the treatment course after leaving the TB Clinic. fAdverse events that was felt to be treatment related and led to the LTBI treatment being stopped at the discretion of the TB physician or the patient. gPatients who stopped their current treatment course in order to receive another regimen (i.e. patients that stopped isoniazid because they preferred to take rifampin). hOther reason for losses within the cascade of care are outlined in the appendix.iIndividuals who initially accepted treatment but never received a prescription and subsequently declined treatment or were lost to follow up
Fig. 2LTBI cascade of care at the Ottawa Hospital TB Clinic – January 1, 2010 to November 30, 2016 for the TB clinic and primary care clinics.Details about reasons for losses within the cascade of care are outlined in Table 2. Percentages represent the percentage of patients remaining in the cascade compared to the previous step in the cascade. 1The patient and the primary care team decided against treatment recommendations that were offered at the TB Clinic
Fig. 3LTBI cascade of care at the Ottawa Hospital TB Clinic – January 1, 2010 to November 30, 2016.Percentages represent the percentage of patients remaining in the cascade compared the number of individuals screened for LTBI treatment
Latent tuberculosis treatment completion rates stratified on reason for consultation at the TB clinic, gender and TB treatment selected for all individuals (n = 2207)
| Attended LTBI Consult ( | Started Treatment ( | Completed Treatment ( | % completed that started treatment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 951 | 576 | 395 | 68.6% |
| Female | 1256 | 627 | 400 | 63.8% |
| Reason for referral | ||||
| Employment and Health Science School Screen | 735 | 351 | 224 | 63.8% |
| Rule out active TB | 576 | 266 | 176 | 66.1% |
| Contact | 441 | 277 | 178 | 64.3% |
| Immunosuppressive therapy | 310 | 227 | 156 | 68.7% |
| Immigration Surveillance | 145 | 82 | 61 | 74.4% |
| LTBI Treatment | ||||
| Isoniazid | - | 685 | 407 | 59.4% |
| Rifampin | - | 511 | 384 | 75.1% |
| Moxifloxacin | - | 5 | 3 | 60.0% |
| Isoniazid and rifampin | - | 1 | 1 | 100% |
| Unknown | - | 1 | 0 | 0% |
Fig. 4Information obtained from the primary care team on LTBI Treatment (n = 272).Information from the primary care team on individuals who were offered latent tuberculosis treatment at the Ottawa TB Clinic and subsequently followed for the duration of the treatment by their primary care team. Reasons treatment was not offered, not accepted, not started and not completed is captured in the Fig. 1
Risk ratios for non-initiation of treatment by demographic and clinical characteristics among individuals seen at the TB Clinic between January 2010 to December 2016. Risk ratios marked with an asterisk (*) are statistically significant. CI= confidence interval
| Potential Risk Factors | Non-initiators/category total (%) | Unadjusted risk ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted risk ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years (per 5-year increase) | - | 1.03 (1.00-1.05) | 1.06 (1.03-1.08)* |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 213/789 (27.0%) | Reference | Reference |
| Female | 355/982 (36.2%) | 1.34 (1.16-1.54)* | 1.28 (1.11-1.47)* |
| Reason for referral | |||
| Rule out active TB | 180/446 (40.4%) | Reference | Reference |
| Employment screen | 162/430 (37.7%) | 0.93 (0.79-1.10) | 0.90 (0.76-1.06) |
| Health science school screen | 42/125 (33.6%) | 0.83 (0.63-1.09) | 0.84 (0.64-1.11) |
| Contact | 106/383 (27.7%) | 0.68 (0.56-0.85)* | 0.71 (0.59-0.86)* |
| Immunosuppressive therapy | 36/263 (13.7%) | 0.34 (0.24-0.47)* | 0.30 (0.22-0.41)* |
| Immigration surveillance | 42/124 (33.9%) | 0.84 (0.64-1.10) | 0.88 (0.68-1.15) |
| Year of consultation | |||
| 2010 | 68/259 (26.3%) | 0.64 (0.49-0.83)* | 0.66 (0.52-0.85)* |
| 2011 | 70/269 (26.0%) | 0.64 (0.49-0.82)* | 0.65 (0.51-0.84)* |
| 2012 | 76/235 (32.3%) | 0.79 (0.62-1.01) | 0.80 (0.63-1.01) |
| 2013 | 80/252 (31.7%) | 0.78 (0.61-0.99)* | 0.78 (0.62-0.98)* |
| 2014 | 101/289 (34.9%) | 0.85 (0.68-1.07) | 0.86 (0.69-1.05) |
| 2015 | 81/242 (33.5%) | 0.82 (0.65-1.04) | 0.88 (0.71-1.11) |
| 2016 | 92/225 (40.9%) | Reference | Reference |
aModel included age, sex, reason for referral to the TB clinic, and year of consultation
Risk ratios for non-completion of treatment among individuals who started treatment for latent tuberculosis infection at the TB Clinic between January 2010 to December 2016. Risk ratios marked with an asterisk (*) are statistically significant. CI= confidence interval
| Potential Risk Factors | Non-completion /category total (%) | Unadjusted risk ratio (95% CI) | Adjusted risk ratio (95% CI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age, years (per 5-year increase) | - | 0.99 (0.97-1.02) | 1.00 (0.97-1.03) |
| Sex | |||
| Male | 181/576 (31.4%) | Reference | Reference |
| Female | 227/627 (36.2% | 1.15 (0.98-1.35) | 1.13 (0.97-1.32) |
| Reason for referral | |||
| Rule out active TB | 90/266 (33.8%) | Reference | Reference |
| Employment screen | 100/268 (37.3%) | 1.10 (0.88-1.39) | 1.01 (0.81-1.26) |
| Health science school screen | 27/83 (32.5%) | 0.96 (0.67-1.37) | 0.87 (0.62-1.22) |
| Contact | 99/277 (35.7%) | 1.06 (0.84-1.33) | 1.00 (0.80-1.24) |
| Immunosuppressive therapy | 71/227 (31.3%) | 0.92 (0.71-1.19) | 0.90 (0.70-1.16) |
| Immigration surveillance | 21/82 (25.6%) | 0.76 (0.50-1.13) | 0.90 (0.60-1.35) |
| Year of consultation | |||
| 2010 | 49/191 (25.7%) | 0.71 (0.51-0.99)* | 0.84 (0.60-1.18) |
| 2011 | 57/199 (28.6%) | 0.79 (0.58-1.09) | 0.91 (0.66-1.26) |
| 2012 | 60/159 (37.7%) | 1.04 (0.77-1.41) | 1.08 (0.81-1.44) |
| 2013 | 56/172 (32.6%) | 0.90 (0.66-1.23) | 0.90 (0.67-1.22) |
| 2014 | 78/188 (41.5%) | 1.15 (0.87-1.52) | 1.10 (0.84-1.44) |
| 2015 | 60/161 (37.2%) | 1.03 (0.76-1.40) | 1.02 (0.77-1.36) |
| 2016 | 48/133 (36.1%) | Reference | Reference |
| Treatment regimen | |||
| Isoniazid (9INH) | 278/685 (40.6%) | Reference | Reference |
| Rifampin (4R) | 127/511 (24.9%) | 0.61 (0.51-0.73)* | 0.69 (0.58-0.84)* |
| Moxifloxacin | 2/5 (40.0%) | 0.98 (0.33-2.89) | 1.15 (0.38-3.45) |
| Referral back to primary care team | 136/248 (54.8%) | 1.92 (1.65-2.24)* | 1.59 (1.33-1.91)* |
aModel included age, sex, reason for referral to the TB clinic, year of consultation, treatment regimen, and referral back to primary care team for treatment completion