Incidence of self-reported tuberculosis treatment with community-wide universal testing and treatment for HIV and tuberculosis screening in Zambia and South Africa: A planned analysis of the HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster-randomised trial.

IF 15.8 1区 医学 Q1 Medicine PLoS Medicine Pub Date : 2024-05-31 eCollection Date: 2024-05-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004393
L Telisinghe, S Floyd, D MacLeod, A Schaap, R Dunbar, J Bwalya, N Bell-Mandla, E Piwowar-Manning, D Donnell, K Shaunaube, P Bock, S Fidler, R J Hayes, H M Ayles
{"title":"Incidence of self-reported tuberculosis treatment with community-wide universal testing and treatment for HIV and tuberculosis screening in Zambia and South Africa: A planned analysis of the HPTN 071 (PopART) cluster-randomised trial.","authors":"L Telisinghe, S Floyd, D MacLeod, A Schaap, R Dunbar, J Bwalya, N Bell-Mandla, E Piwowar-Manning, D Donnell, K Shaunaube, P Bock, S Fidler, R J Hayes, H M Ayles","doi":"10.1371/journal.pmed.1004393","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>HIV is a potent risk factor for tuberculosis (TB). Therefore, community-wide universal testing and treatment for HIV (UTT) could contribute to TB control, but evidence for this is limited. Community-wide TB screening can decrease population-level TB prevalence. Combining UTT with TB screening could therefore significantly impact TB control in sub-Saharan Africa, but to our knowledge there is no evidence for this combined approach.</p><p><strong>Methods and findings: </strong>HPTN 071 (PopART) was a community-randomised trial conducted between November 2013 to July 2018; 21 Zambian and South African communities (with a total population of approximately 1 million individuals) were randomised to arms A (community-wide UTT and TB screening), B (community-wide universal HIV testing with treatment following national guidelines and TB screening), or C (standard-of-care). In a cohort of randomly selected adults (18 to 44 years) enrolled between 2013 and 2015 from all 21 communities (total size 38,474; 27,139 [71%] female; 8,004 [21%] HIV positive) and followed-up annually for 36 months to measure the population-level impact of the interventions, data on self-reported TB treatment in the previous 12 months (self-reported TB) were collected by trained research assistants and recorded using a structured questionnaire at each study visit. In this prespecified analysis of the trial, self-reported TB incidence rates were measured by calendar year between 2014 and 2017/2018. A p-value ≤0.05 on hypothesis testing was defined as reaching statistical significance. Between January 2014 and July 2018, 38,287 individuals were followed-up: 494 self-reported TB during 104,877 person-years. Overall incidence rates were similar across all arms in 2014 and 2015 (0.33 to 0.46/100 person-years). In 2016 incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C overall (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.48 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.28 to 0.81; p = 0.01]), with statistical significance reached. In 2017/2018, while incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C, statistical significance was not reached (aRR 0.58 [95% CI 0.27 to 1.22; p = 0.13]). Among people living with HIV (PLHIV) incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C in 2016 (RR 0.56 [95% CI 0.29 to 1.08; p = 0.08]) and 2017/2018 (RR 0.50 [95% CI 0.26 to 0.95; p = 0.04]); statistical significance was only reached in 2017/2018. Incidence rates in arms B and C were similar, overall and among PLHIV. Among HIV-negative individuals, there were too few events for cross-arm comparisons. Study limitations include the use of self-report which may have been subject to under-reporting, limited covariate adjustment due to the small number of events, and high losses to follow-up over time.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In this study, community-wide UTT and TB screening resulted in substantially lower TB incidence among PLHIV at population-level, compared to standard-of-care, with statistical significance reached in the final study year. There was also some evidence this translated to a decrease in self-reported TB incidence overall in the population. Reduction in arm A but not B suggests UTT drove the observed effect. Our data support the role of UTT in TB control, in addition to HIV control, in high TB/HIV burden settings.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01900977.</p>","PeriodicalId":49008,"journal":{"name":"PLoS Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":15.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11142425/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLoS Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1004393","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: HIV is a potent risk factor for tuberculosis (TB). Therefore, community-wide universal testing and treatment for HIV (UTT) could contribute to TB control, but evidence for this is limited. Community-wide TB screening can decrease population-level TB prevalence. Combining UTT with TB screening could therefore significantly impact TB control in sub-Saharan Africa, but to our knowledge there is no evidence for this combined approach.

Methods and findings: HPTN 071 (PopART) was a community-randomised trial conducted between November 2013 to July 2018; 21 Zambian and South African communities (with a total population of approximately 1 million individuals) were randomised to arms A (community-wide UTT and TB screening), B (community-wide universal HIV testing with treatment following national guidelines and TB screening), or C (standard-of-care). In a cohort of randomly selected adults (18 to 44 years) enrolled between 2013 and 2015 from all 21 communities (total size 38,474; 27,139 [71%] female; 8,004 [21%] HIV positive) and followed-up annually for 36 months to measure the population-level impact of the interventions, data on self-reported TB treatment in the previous 12 months (self-reported TB) were collected by trained research assistants and recorded using a structured questionnaire at each study visit. In this prespecified analysis of the trial, self-reported TB incidence rates were measured by calendar year between 2014 and 2017/2018. A p-value ≤0.05 on hypothesis testing was defined as reaching statistical significance. Between January 2014 and July 2018, 38,287 individuals were followed-up: 494 self-reported TB during 104,877 person-years. Overall incidence rates were similar across all arms in 2014 and 2015 (0.33 to 0.46/100 person-years). In 2016 incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C overall (adjusted rate ratio [aRR] 0.48 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.28 to 0.81; p = 0.01]), with statistical significance reached. In 2017/2018, while incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C, statistical significance was not reached (aRR 0.58 [95% CI 0.27 to 1.22; p = 0.13]). Among people living with HIV (PLHIV) incidence rates were lower in arm A compared to C in 2016 (RR 0.56 [95% CI 0.29 to 1.08; p = 0.08]) and 2017/2018 (RR 0.50 [95% CI 0.26 to 0.95; p = 0.04]); statistical significance was only reached in 2017/2018. Incidence rates in arms B and C were similar, overall and among PLHIV. Among HIV-negative individuals, there were too few events for cross-arm comparisons. Study limitations include the use of self-report which may have been subject to under-reporting, limited covariate adjustment due to the small number of events, and high losses to follow-up over time.

Conclusions: In this study, community-wide UTT and TB screening resulted in substantially lower TB incidence among PLHIV at population-level, compared to standard-of-care, with statistical significance reached in the final study year. There was also some evidence this translated to a decrease in self-reported TB incidence overall in the population. Reduction in arm A but not B suggests UTT drove the observed effect. Our data support the role of UTT in TB control, in addition to HIV control, in high TB/HIV burden settings.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01900977.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在赞比亚和南非,通过在社区范围内普及艾滋病毒检测和治疗以及结核病筛查,自我报告的结核病治疗发生率:HPTN 071(PopART)分组随机试验的计划分析。
背景:艾滋病毒是结核病(TB)的一个潜在风险因素。因此,在全社区普及艾滋病毒检测和治疗(UTT)有助于结核病的控制,但这方面的证据有限。全社区范围内的结核病筛查可以降低人群结核病患病率。因此,将 UTT 与结核病筛查结合起来,可对撒哈拉以南非洲地区的结核病控制产生重大影响,但据我们所知,目前还没有证据表明这种结合方法可行:HPTN 071(PopART)是一项社区随机试验,在 2013 年 11 月至 2018 年 7 月期间进行;21 个赞比亚和南非社区(总人口约 100 万)被随机分配到 A 组(全社区UTT 和结核病筛查)、B 组(全社区普遍进行 HIV 检测,并按照国家指南进行治疗和结核病筛查)或 C 组(标准护理)。在 2013 年至 2015 年期间从所有 21 个社区(总人数为 38,474 人;女性 27,139 人 [71%];HIV 阳性 8,004 人 [21%])随机选取的成人(18 至 44 岁)组成的队列中,每年进行为期 36 个月的随访,以衡量干预措施对人群的影响。在这项预设的试验分析中,2014 年至 2017/2018 年期间的自报肺结核发病率按日历年进行测量。假设检验的 p 值≤0.05 即为达到统计学意义。2014 年 1 月至 2018 年 7 月期间,共对 38287 人进行了随访:在 104,877 人年中,494 人自我报告了结核病。2014 年和 2015 年,所有治疗组的总体发病率相似(0.33 至 0.46/100 人年)。2016 年,与 C 组相比,A 组的总体发病率较低(调整率比 [aRR] 0.48 [95% 置信区间 (95% CI) 0.28 至 0.81; p = 0.01]),达到统计学意义。在 2017/2018 年,虽然 A 组的发病率低于 C 组,但未达到统计学意义(aRR 0.58 [95% CI 0.27 至 1.22;p = 0.13])。在艾滋病毒感染者(PLHIV)中,2016 年(RR 0.56 [95% CI 0.29 至 1.08; p = 0.08])和 2017/2018 年(RR 0.50 [95% CI 0.26 至 0.95; p = 0.04])A 组的发病率低于 C 组;仅在 2017/2018 年达到统计学意义。B 组和 C 组的总体发病率和艾滋病毒感染者的发病率相似。在艾滋病毒阴性者中,由于事件太少,无法进行交叉臂比较。研究的局限性包括:采用自我报告,可能存在报告不足的情况;由于事件数量较少,协变量调整有限;随访损失率较高:在这项研究中,与标准护理相比,社区范围内的UTT和肺结核筛查大大降低了艾滋病毒感染者在人群中的肺结核发病率,并在研究的最后一年达到了统计学意义。还有一些证据表明,这也导致了人群中自我报告的结核病发病率整体下降。A 组而非 B 组的减少表明,UTT 推动了观察到的效果。我们的数据支持UTT在结核病/艾滋病毒高负担环境中除控制艾滋病毒外,还在结核病控制中发挥作用:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov:试验注册:ClinicalTrials.gov:NCT01900977。
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 去求助
来源期刊
PLoS Medicine
PLoS Medicine MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
17.60
自引率
0.60%
发文量
227
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: PLOS Medicine is a prominent platform for discussing and researching global health challenges. The journal covers a wide range of topics, including biomedical, environmental, social, and political factors affecting health. It prioritizes articles that contribute to clinical practice, health policy, or a better understanding of pathophysiology, ultimately aiming to improve health outcomes across different settings. The journal is unwavering in its commitment to uphold the highest ethical standards in medical publishing. This includes actively managing and disclosing any conflicts of interest related to reporting, reviewing, and publishing. PLOS Medicine promotes transparency in the entire review and publication process. The journal also encourages data sharing and encourages the reuse of published work. Additionally, authors retain copyright for their work, and the publication is made accessible through Open Access with no restrictions on availability and dissemination. PLOS Medicine takes measures to avoid conflicts of interest associated with advertising drugs and medical devices or engaging in the exclusive sale of reprints.
期刊最新文献
A comprehensive assessment of care competence and maternal experience of first antenatal care visits in Mexico: Insights from the baseline survey of an observational cohort study. Variability in performance of genetic-enhanced DXA-BMD prediction models across diverse ethnic and geographic populations: A risk prediction study. Comparison of oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation using the UK clinical practice research Datalink Aurum: A reference trial (ARISTOTLE) emulation study. Using real-world evidence to complement evidence from randomized controlled trials on oral anticoagulants for stroke prevention. Antenatal care quality and detection of risk among pregnant women: An observational study in Ethiopia, India, Kenya, and South Africa.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1