在巴基斯坦城市使用Xpert MTB/RIF在指数结核病患者半径50米范围内扩大接触筛查:是否影响治疗结果?

Mahboob Ul Haq, Sven G Hinderaker, Razia Fatima, Hemant Deepak Shewade, Einar Heldal, Abdullah Latif, Ajay M V Kumar
{"title":"在巴基斯坦城市使用Xpert MTB/RIF在指数结核病患者半径50米范围内扩大接触筛查:是否影响治疗结果?","authors":"Mahboob Ul Haq,&nbsp;Sven G Hinderaker,&nbsp;Razia Fatima,&nbsp;Hemant Deepak Shewade,&nbsp;Einar Heldal,&nbsp;Abdullah Latif,&nbsp;Ajay M V Kumar","doi":"10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pakistan implemented initiatives to detect tuberculosis (TB) patients through extended contact screening (ECS); it improved case detection but treatment outcomes need assessment.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare treatment outcomes of pulmonary TB (PTB) patients detected by ECS with those detected by routine passive case finding (PCF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cohort study using secondary program data conducted in Lahore, Faisalabad and Rawalpindi districts and Islamabad in 2013-15. We used log binomial regression models to assess if ECS was associated with unfavorable treatment outcomes (death, loss-to-follow-up, failure, not evaluated) after adjusting for potential confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 79,431 people with PTB; 4604 (5.8%) were detected by ECS with 4052 (88%) bacteriologically confirmed. In all PTB patients the proportion with unfavorable outcomes was not significantly different in ECS group (9.6%) compared to PCF (9.9%), however, among bacteriologically confirmed patients unfavorable outcomes were significantly lower in ECS (9.9%) than PCF group (11.6%, P = 0.001). ECS was associated with a lower risk of unfavorable outcomes (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.90; 95% CI 0.82-0.99) among 'all PTB' patients and bacteriologically confirmed PTB patients (aRR 0.91; 95% CI 0.82-1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In PTB patients detected by ECS the treatment outcomes were not inferior to those detected by PCF.</p>","PeriodicalId":505767,"journal":{"name":"International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases","volume":" ","pages":"634-640"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.054","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Extending contact screening within a 50-m radius of an index tuberculosis patient using Xpert MTB/RIF in urban Pakistan: Did it impact treatment outcomes?\",\"authors\":\"Mahboob Ul Haq,&nbsp;Sven G Hinderaker,&nbsp;Razia Fatima,&nbsp;Hemant Deepak Shewade,&nbsp;Einar Heldal,&nbsp;Abdullah Latif,&nbsp;Ajay M V Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pakistan implemented initiatives to detect tuberculosis (TB) patients through extended contact screening (ECS); it improved case detection but treatment outcomes need assessment.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare treatment outcomes of pulmonary TB (PTB) patients detected by ECS with those detected by routine passive case finding (PCF).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cohort study using secondary program data conducted in Lahore, Faisalabad and Rawalpindi districts and Islamabad in 2013-15. We used log binomial regression models to assess if ECS was associated with unfavorable treatment outcomes (death, loss-to-follow-up, failure, not evaluated) after adjusting for potential confounders.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 79,431 people with PTB; 4604 (5.8%) were detected by ECS with 4052 (88%) bacteriologically confirmed. In all PTB patients the proportion with unfavorable outcomes was not significantly different in ECS group (9.6%) compared to PCF (9.9%), however, among bacteriologically confirmed patients unfavorable outcomes were significantly lower in ECS (9.9%) than PCF group (11.6%, P = 0.001). ECS was associated with a lower risk of unfavorable outcomes (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.90; 95% CI 0.82-0.99) among 'all PTB' patients and bacteriologically confirmed PTB patients (aRR 0.91; 95% CI 0.82-1.00).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In PTB patients detected by ECS the treatment outcomes were not inferior to those detected by PCF.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":505767,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"634-640\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.054\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.054\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of infectious diseases : IJID : official publication of the International Society for Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2021.01.054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

背景:巴基斯坦实施了通过扩大接触者筛查(ECS)检测结核病患者的举措;它改善了病例发现,但治疗结果需要评估。目的:比较ECS检测肺结核(PTB)患者与常规被动病例发现(PCF)患者的治疗结果。方法:采用2013- 2015年在拉合尔、费萨拉巴德和拉瓦尔品第地区以及伊斯兰堡开展的二级项目数据进行队列研究。在调整潜在混杂因素后,我们使用对数二项回归模型来评估ECS是否与不良治疗结果(死亡、随访失败、失败、未评估)相关。结果:我们纳入了79431例肺结核患者;ECS检出4604例(5.8%),细菌学证实4052例(88%)。在所有PTB患者中,ECS组不良结局的比例(9.6%)与PCF组(9.9%)没有显著差异,然而,在细菌学证实的患者中,ECS组不良结局的比例(9.9%)显著低于PCF组(11.6%,P = 0.001)。ECS与不良结局的风险较低相关(调整相对风险(aRR) 0.90;95% CI 0.82-0.99),在“所有肺结核”患者和细菌学证实的肺结核患者中(aRR 0.91;95% ci 0.82-1.00)。结论:ECS检测的肺结核患者治疗效果不低于PCF检测的肺结核患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Extending contact screening within a 50-m radius of an index tuberculosis patient using Xpert MTB/RIF in urban Pakistan: Did it impact treatment outcomes?

Background: Pakistan implemented initiatives to detect tuberculosis (TB) patients through extended contact screening (ECS); it improved case detection but treatment outcomes need assessment.

Objectives: To compare treatment outcomes of pulmonary TB (PTB) patients detected by ECS with those detected by routine passive case finding (PCF).

Methods: A cohort study using secondary program data conducted in Lahore, Faisalabad and Rawalpindi districts and Islamabad in 2013-15. We used log binomial regression models to assess if ECS was associated with unfavorable treatment outcomes (death, loss-to-follow-up, failure, not evaluated) after adjusting for potential confounders.

Results: We included 79,431 people with PTB; 4604 (5.8%) were detected by ECS with 4052 (88%) bacteriologically confirmed. In all PTB patients the proportion with unfavorable outcomes was not significantly different in ECS group (9.6%) compared to PCF (9.9%), however, among bacteriologically confirmed patients unfavorable outcomes were significantly lower in ECS (9.9%) than PCF group (11.6%, P = 0.001). ECS was associated with a lower risk of unfavorable outcomes (adjusted relative risk (aRR) 0.90; 95% CI 0.82-0.99) among 'all PTB' patients and bacteriologically confirmed PTB patients (aRR 0.91; 95% CI 0.82-1.00).

Conclusion: In PTB patients detected by ECS the treatment outcomes were not inferior to those detected by PCF.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信