Effectiveness of preventive treatment among different age groups and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection status: a systematic review and individual-participant data meta-analysis of contact tracing studies.

IF 38.7 1区 医学 Q1 CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE
Lancet Respiratory Medicine Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-05-08 DOI:10.1016/S2213-2600(24)00083-3
Leonardo Martinez, James A Seddon, C Robert Horsburgh, Christoph Lange, Anna M Mandalakas
{"title":"Effectiveness of preventive treatment among different age groups and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection status: a systematic review and individual-participant data meta-analysis of contact tracing studies.","authors":"Leonardo Martinez, James A Seddon, C Robert Horsburgh, Christoph Lange, Anna M Mandalakas","doi":"10.1016/S2213-2600(24)00083-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Tuberculosis is a preventable disease. However, there is debate regarding which individuals would benefit most from tuberculosis preventive treatment and whether these benefits vary in settings with a high burden and low burden of tuberculosis. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of tuberculosis preventive treatment in exposed individuals of differing ages and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection status while considering tuberculosis burden of the settings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic review and individual-participant meta-analysis, we investigated the development of incident tuberculosis in people closely exposed to individuals with tuberculosis. We searched for studies published between Jan 1, 1998, and April 6, 2018, in MEDLINE, Web of Science, BIOSIS, and Embase. We restricted our search to cohort studies; case-control studies and outbreak reports were excluded. Two reviewers evaluated titles, abstracts, and full text articles for eligibility. At each stage, two reviewers discussed discrepancies and re-evaluated articles until a consensus was reached. Individual-participant data and a pre-specified list of variables, including characteristics of the exposed contact, the index patient, and environmental characteristics, were requested from authors of all eligible studies; contacts exposed to a drug-resistant tuberculosis index patient were excluded. The primary study outcome was incident tuberculosis. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for incident tuberculosis with mixed-effects Cox regression models with a study-level random effect. We estimated the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent one person developing tuberculosis. Propensity score matching procedures were used in all analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018087022).</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>After screening 25 358 records for eligibility, 439 644 participants from 32 cohort studies were included in the individual-participant data meta-analysis. Participants were followed for 1 396 413 person-years (median of 2·7 years [IQR 1·3-4.4]), during which 2496 people were diagnosed with incident tuberculosis. Overall, effectiveness of preventive treatment was 49% (aHR 0·51 [95% CI 0·44-0·60]). Participants with a positive tuberculin-skin-test (TST) or IFNγ release assay (IGRA) result at baseline benefitted from greater protection, regardless of age (0·09 [0·05-0·17] in children younger than 5 years, 0·20 [0·15-0·28] in individuals aged 5-17 years, and 0·17 [0·13-0·22] in adults aged 18 years and older). The effectiveness of preventive treatment was greater in high-burden (0·31 [0·23-0·40]) versus low-burden (0·58 [0·47-0·72]) settings. The NNT ranged from 9 to 34 depending on age among participants with a positive TST or IGRA in both high-burden and low-burden settings; among all contacts (regardless of TST or IGRA test result), the NNT ranged from 29 to 43 in high-burden settings and 213 to 455 in low-burden settings.</p><p><strong>Interpretation: </strong>Our findings suggest that a risk-targeted strategy prioritising contacts with evidence of M tuberculosis infection might be indicated in low-burden settings, and a broad approach including all contacts should be considered in high-burden settings. Preventive treatment was similarly effective among contacts of all ages.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":51307,"journal":{"name":"Lancet Respiratory Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"633-641"},"PeriodicalIF":38.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Lancet Respiratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(24)00083-3","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Tuberculosis is a preventable disease. However, there is debate regarding which individuals would benefit most from tuberculosis preventive treatment and whether these benefits vary in settings with a high burden and low burden of tuberculosis. We aimed to compare the effectiveness of tuberculosis preventive treatment in exposed individuals of differing ages and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection status while considering tuberculosis burden of the settings.

Methods: In this systematic review and individual-participant meta-analysis, we investigated the development of incident tuberculosis in people closely exposed to individuals with tuberculosis. We searched for studies published between Jan 1, 1998, and April 6, 2018, in MEDLINE, Web of Science, BIOSIS, and Embase. We restricted our search to cohort studies; case-control studies and outbreak reports were excluded. Two reviewers evaluated titles, abstracts, and full text articles for eligibility. At each stage, two reviewers discussed discrepancies and re-evaluated articles until a consensus was reached. Individual-participant data and a pre-specified list of variables, including characteristics of the exposed contact, the index patient, and environmental characteristics, were requested from authors of all eligible studies; contacts exposed to a drug-resistant tuberculosis index patient were excluded. The primary study outcome was incident tuberculosis. We estimated adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for incident tuberculosis with mixed-effects Cox regression models with a study-level random effect. We estimated the number-needed-to-treat (NNT) to prevent one person developing tuberculosis. Propensity score matching procedures were used in all analyses. This study is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018087022).

Findings: After screening 25 358 records for eligibility, 439 644 participants from 32 cohort studies were included in the individual-participant data meta-analysis. Participants were followed for 1 396 413 person-years (median of 2·7 years [IQR 1·3-4.4]), during which 2496 people were diagnosed with incident tuberculosis. Overall, effectiveness of preventive treatment was 49% (aHR 0·51 [95% CI 0·44-0·60]). Participants with a positive tuberculin-skin-test (TST) or IFNγ release assay (IGRA) result at baseline benefitted from greater protection, regardless of age (0·09 [0·05-0·17] in children younger than 5 years, 0·20 [0·15-0·28] in individuals aged 5-17 years, and 0·17 [0·13-0·22] in adults aged 18 years and older). The effectiveness of preventive treatment was greater in high-burden (0·31 [0·23-0·40]) versus low-burden (0·58 [0·47-0·72]) settings. The NNT ranged from 9 to 34 depending on age among participants with a positive TST or IGRA in both high-burden and low-burden settings; among all contacts (regardless of TST or IGRA test result), the NNT ranged from 29 to 43 in high-burden settings and 213 to 455 in low-burden settings.

Interpretation: Our findings suggest that a risk-targeted strategy prioritising contacts with evidence of M tuberculosis infection might be indicated in low-burden settings, and a broad approach including all contacts should be considered in high-burden settings. Preventive treatment was similarly effective among contacts of all ages.

Funding: None.

不同年龄组和结核分枝杆菌感染状况下的预防性治疗效果:接触追踪研究的系统回顾和个人参与者数据荟萃分析。
背景介绍结核病是一种可预防的疾病。然而,对于哪些人从结核病预防治疗中获益最多,以及在结核病负担重和负担轻的环境中获益是否不同,人们还存在争议。我们的目的是比较结核病预防性治疗对不同年龄和结核分枝杆菌感染状况的暴露者的效果,同时考虑到环境中的结核病负担:在这项系统回顾和个人参与者荟萃分析中,我们调查了与结核病患者密切接触的人群中发生结核病的情况。我们在 MEDLINE、Web of Science、BIOSIS 和 Embase 中检索了 1998 年 1 月 1 日至 2018 年 4 月 6 日期间发表的研究。我们的搜索仅限于队列研究;病例对照研究和疫情报告被排除在外。两名审稿人对文章的标题、摘要和全文进行了资格评估。在每个阶段,两名审稿人都会讨论差异并重新评估文章,直到达成共识。我们要求所有符合条件的研究的作者提供个人参与者数据和一份预先指定的变量清单,其中包括接触者特征、指标患者特征和环境特征;接触耐药结核病指标患者的接触者被排除在外。研究的主要结果是偶发结核病。我们使用带有研究水平随机效应的混合效应 Cox 回归模型估算了肺结核发病的调整危险比 (aHR)。我们估算了预防一人罹患肺结核所需的治疗人数(NNT)。所有分析均采用倾向得分匹配程序。本研究已在 PROSPERO 注册(CRD42018087022):在对 25 358 份记录进行资格筛选后,32 项队列研究中的 439 644 名参与者被纳入个人-参与者数据荟萃分析。对参与者进行了 1 396 413 人年(中位数为 2-7 年 [IQR 1-3-4.4])的随访,其间有 2496 人被诊断出患有结核病。总体而言,预防性治疗的有效率为 49%(aHR 0-51 [95% CI 0-44-0-60])。基线结核菌素皮肤试验(TST)或 IFNγ 释放测定(IGRA)结果呈阳性的参与者,无论年龄如何,都能获得更多保护(5 岁以下儿童为 0-09 [0-05-0-17] ,5-17 岁为 0-20 [0-15-0-28] ,18 岁及以上成人为 0-17 [0-13-0-22])。在高负担(0-31 [0-23-0-40])与低负担(0-58 [0-47-0-72])环境下,预防性治疗的有效性更高。在高负担和低负担环境中,TST 或 IGRA 检测结果呈阳性的参与者中,根据年龄不同,NNT 从 9 到 34 不等;在所有接触者中(无论 TST 或 IGRA 检测结果如何),高负担环境中的 NNT 从 29 到 43 不等,低负担环境中的 NNT 从 213 到 455 不等:我们的研究结果表明,在低负担环境中,可采取风险目标策略,优先考虑有证据表明感染了 M 型结核病的接触者,而在高负担环境中,则应考虑采取包括所有接触者在内的广泛方法。预防性治疗对所有年龄段的接触者都同样有效:无。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Lancet Respiratory Medicine
Lancet Respiratory Medicine RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
CiteScore
87.10
自引率
0.70%
发文量
572
期刊介绍: The Lancet Respiratory Medicine is a renowned journal specializing in respiratory medicine and critical care. Our publication features original research that aims to advocate for change or shed light on clinical practices in the field. Additionally, we provide informative reviews on various topics related to respiratory medicine and critical care, ensuring a comprehensive coverage of the subject. The journal covers a wide range of topics including but not limited to asthma, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), tobacco control, intensive care medicine, lung cancer, cystic fibrosis, pneumonia, sarcoidosis, sepsis, mesothelioma, sleep medicine, thoracic and reconstructive surgery, tuberculosis, palliative medicine, influenza, pulmonary hypertension, pulmonary vascular disease, and respiratory infections. By encompassing such a broad spectrum of subjects, we strive to address the diverse needs and interests of our readership.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信