1887
  1. Home
  2. Eurosurveillance
  3. Volume 26, Issue 45, 11/Nov/2021
  4. Article
Surveillance Open Access
Like 0
Download

Abstract

Background

In low tuberculosis (TB) incidence countries, contact investigation (CI) requires not missing contacts with TB infection or disease without unnecessarily evaluating non-infected contacts.

Aim

We assessed whether updated guidelines for the stone-in-the-pond principle and their promotion improved CI practices.

Methods

This retrospective study used surveillance data to compare CI outcomes before (2011–2013) and after (2014–2016) the guideline update and promotion. Using negative binomial regression and logistic regression models, we compared the number of contacts invited for CI per index patient, the number of CI scaled-up according to the stone-in-the-pond principle, the TB and latent TB infection (LTBI) testing coverage, and yield.

Results

Pre and post update, 1,703 and 1,489 index patients were reported, 27,187 and 21,056 contacts were eligible for CI, 86% and 89% were tested for TB, and 0.70% and 0.73% were identified with active TB, respectively. Post update, the number of casual contacts invited per index patient decreased statistically significantly (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79–0.98), TB testing coverage increased (OR = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2–1.7), and TB yield increased (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.0–3.9). The total LTBI yield increased from 8.8% to 9.8%, with statistically significant increases for casual (OR = 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0–1.5) and community contacts (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.6–3.2). The proportion of CIs appropriately scaled-up to community contacts increased statistically significantly (RR = 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3–2.6).

Conclusion

This study shows that promoting evidence-based CI guidelines strengthen the efficiency of CIs without jeopardising effectiveness. These findings support CI is an effective TB elimination intervention.

© Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.45.2001828
2021-11-11
2024-11-19
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.45.2001828
Loading
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/eurosurveillance/26/45/eurosurv-26-45-4.html?itemId=/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.45.2001828&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM). Tuberculose in Nederland 2018. [Tuberculosis in the Netherlands]. Bilthoven: RIVM. 2019. Dutch. Available from: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2019-0188.pdf
  2. Erkens CGM, Kamphorst M, Abubakar I, Bothamley GH, Chemtob D, Haas W, et al. Tuberculosis contact investigation in low prevalence countries: a European consensus. Eur Respir J. 2010;36(4):925-49.  https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00201609  PMID: 20889463 
  3. Lönnroth K, Migliori GB, Abubakar I, D’Ambrosio L, de Vries G, Diel R, et al. Towards tuberculosis elimination: an action framework for low-incidence countries. Eur Respir J. 2015;45(4):928-52.  https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00214014  PMID: 25792630 
  4. World Health Organization (WHO). Recommendations for investigating contacts of persons with infectious tuberculosis in low- and middle-income countries. Geneva: WHO. 2012. Available from: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/77741
  5. Migliori GB, Zellweger JP, Abubakar I, Ibraim E, Caminero JA, De Vries G, et al. European Union standards for tuberculosis care. Eur Respir J. 2012;39(4):807-19.  https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00203811  PMID: 22467723 
  6. Commissie voor Praktische Tuberculosebestrijding. KNCV Tuberculosefonds (KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation). Richtlijn - Tuberculose bron- en contactonderzoek. [Guidelines: Tuberculosis source and contact investigation]. The Hague: KNCV. 2013. Dutch.
  7. Veen J. Microepidemics of tuberculosis: the stone-in-the-pond principle. Tuber Lung Dis. 1992;73(2):73-6.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0962-8479(92)90058-R  PMID: 1643300 
  8. Tuberculosefonds KNCV. (KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation). Evaluatie bron- en contactonderzoek bij tuberculosepatiënten in Nederland, 2006-2010. [Evaluation of source and contact investigation of tuberculosis patients in the Netherlands, 2006-2010]. The Hague: KNCV. 2014. Dutch. Available from: https://www.kncvtbc.org/uploaded/2016/01/bco_report_2006-2010.pdf
  9. Mulder C, Harting J, Jansen N, Borgdorff MW, van Leth F. Adherence by Dutch public health nurses to the national guidelines for tuberculosis contact investigation. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49649.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049649  PMID: 23166738 
  10. Fox GJ, Barry SE, Britton WJ, Marks GB. Contact investigation for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2013;41(1):140-56.  https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00070812  PMID: 22936710 
  11. Cavany SM, Sumner T, Vynnycky E, Flach C, White RG, Thomas HL, et al. An evaluation of tuberculosis contact investigations against national standards. Thorax. 2017;72(8):736-45.  https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2016-209677 
  12. Borraccino A, Migliore E, Piccioni P, Baussano I, Carosso A, Bugiani M. Yield of tuberculosis contact investigation in a low-incidence country. J Infect. 2014;68(5):448-54.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jinf.2013.12.005  PMID: 24418415 
  13. National Tuberculosis Controllers AssociationCenters for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Guidelines for the Investigation of Contacts of Persons with Infectious Tuberculosis. Recommendations from the National Tuberculosis Controllers Association and CDC. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005;54(RR-15):1-47.
  14. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Tuberculosis Prevention, diagnosis, management and service organisation. NICE NG33 Methods, evidence and recommendations. London: NICE; Jan 2016. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng33/evidence/full-guideline-80851860868
  15. Moyo N, Tay EL, Denholm JT. Evaluation of tuberculin skin testing in tuberculosis contacts in Victoria, Australia, 2005-2013. Public Health Action. 2015;5(3):188-93.  https://doi.org/10.5588/pha.15.0018  PMID: 26399290 
  16. Fox GJ, Barry SE, Britton WJ, Marks GB. Contact investigation for tuberculosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Respir J. 2013;41(1).  https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00070812 
  17. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM). Tuberculose in Nederland 2015. Surveillancerapport. [Tuberculosis in the Netherlands 2015. Surveillance report]. Bilthoven: RIVM. 2016. Dutch. Available from: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2016-0140.pdf
  18. Tuberculosefonds KNCV. (KNCV Tuberculosis Foundation). Tuberculose in Nederland 2011. Surveillancerapport. [Tuberculosis in the Netherlands 2011. Surveillance report].The Hague: KNCV; Dec 2012. Dutch. Available from: https://www.kncvtbc.org/uploaded/2015/09/tin_2011_surveillancerapport.pdf
  19. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM). Tuberculose in Nederland 2013. Surveillancerapport. [Tuberculosis in the Netherlands 2013. Surveillance report]. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2014. Dutch. Available from: https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/2014-0106.pdf
  20. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM). Tuberculose in Nederland 2014. Surveillancerapport. [Tuberculosis in the Netherlands 2014. Surveillance report]. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2015. Dutch. Available from: https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2018-11/TiN%202014%20surveillancerapport.pdf
  21. Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu (RIVM). Tuberculose in Nederland 2012. Surveillancerapport. [Tuberculosis in the Netherlands 2012. Surveillance report]. Bilthoven: RIVM; 2014. Dutch. Available from: https://www.rivm.nl/sites/default/files/2018-11/TiN%202012%20surveillancerapport%20juni.pdf
  22. Erkens CG, Kamphorst M, Abubakar I, Bothamley GH, Chemtob D, Haas W, et al. Tuberculosis contact investigation in low prevalence countries: a European consensus. Eur Respir J. 2010;36(4):925-49.  https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00201609  PMID: 20889463 
Tuberculosis contact investigation following the stone-in-the-pond principle in the Netherlands – Did adjusted guidelines improve efficiency?
<p class="citation"> <span>Citation style for this article:</span> <span class="meta-value authors"> <a href="/search?value1=Sarah+van+de+Berg&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">van de Berg Sarah</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Connie+Erkens&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Erkens Connie</a>, <a href="/search?value1=Christiaan+Mulder&option1=author&noRedirect=true" class="nonDisambigAuthorLink">Mulder Christiaan</a></span>. Tuberculosis contact investigation following the stone-in-the-pond principle in the Netherlands – Did adjusted guidelines improve efficiency?. <a href="/content/ecdc">Euro Surveill.</a> 2021;26(45):pii=2001828. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.45.2001828" title="doi link" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.45.2001828</a> <span class="ES_Article_citation"> <span class="generated">Received</span>: 16 Oct 2020;&nbsp;&nbsp; <span class="generated">Accepted</span>: 11 May 2021 </span> </p>
/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.45.2001828
/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.45.2001828
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary data

Submit comment
Close
Comment moderation successfully completed
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error