13
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      What Patient Factors Predict Physicians’ Decision Not to Treat Latent Tuberculosis Infection in Tuberculosis Contacts?

      research-article
      1 , 2 , * , 2 , 1 , 2
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Objective

          The study aimed to determine factors that are associated with physicians’ decision to offer treatment for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) in contacts of patients with tuberculosis.

          Methods

          We performed a nested case-control study in a cohort of contacts of patients with pulmonary tuberculosis who had a tuberculin skin test (TST) ≥ 10 mm. Cases were those who were offered treatment for LTBI. Controls were randomly selected from those who were not offered treatment for LTBI by the reviewing physician. Odds ratios were estimated by multivariate logistic regression.

          Results

          There were 195 cases and 279 controls. The following factors were significantly (positively or negatively) associated with being offered LTBI treatment in the multivariate analysis: female gender (OR 2.9; 95% CI 1.6–5.5), TST conversion (OR 3.9; 2.0–7.9), TST > 20 mm (OR 4.1; 1.8–9.1, for TST of 21–30 mm and OR 7.9; 2.6–23.8, for TST >30 mm), sputum smear positive index case (OR 12.7; 4.5–36.1), being overseas-born and immigration more than 2 years ago (OR 0.1; 0.06–0.3), being a health care worker (OR 0.2; 0.1–0.6), being a non-household contact of the TB index case (OR 0.3; 0.2–0.6) and age >35 years (OR 0.2; 0.1–0.5 for age 35 to 54.9 years and OR 0.04; 0.01–0.2 for age ≥55 years). Previous BCG vaccine and chest x-ray findings were not significantly associated with physicians’ decision to offer treatment for LTBI.

          Conclusions

          Most factors that influenced physicians’ decisions on treatment for LTBI were based on evidence of an association with risk of developing TB or risk of having an adverse reaction to treatment for LTBI. However, the decreased likelihood of offering treatment for LTBI to people born overseas, men and health care workers, was apparently not based on any evidence of risk. Efforts should be made to ensure that these groups are given access to treatment for LTBI.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Efficacy of BCG vaccine in the prevention of tuberculosis. Meta-analysis of the published literature.

          To quantify the efficacy of BCG vaccine against tuberculosis (TB). MEDLINE with index terms BCG vaccine, tuberculosis, and human. Experts from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization, among others, provided lists of all known studies. A total of 1264 articles or abstracts were reviewed for details on BCG vaccination, concurrent vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, and TB outcome; 70 articles were reviewed in depth for method of vaccine allocation used to create comparable groups, equal surveillance and follow-up for recipient and concurrent control groups, and outcome measures of TB cases and/or deaths. Fourteen prospective trials and 12 case-control studies were included in the analysis. We recorded study design, age range of study population, number of patients enrolled, efficacy of vaccine, and items to assess the potential for bias in study design and diagnosis. At least two readers independently extracted data and evaluated validity. The relative risk (RR) or odds ratio (OR) of TB provided the measure of vaccine efficacy that we analyzed. The protective effect was then computed by 1-RR or 1-OR. A random-effects model estimated a weighted average RR or OR from those provided by the trials or case-control studies. In the trials, the RR of TB was 0.49 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.34 to 0.70) for vaccine recipients compared with nonrecipients (protective effect of 51%). In the case-control studies, the OR for TB was 0.50 (95% CI, 0.39 to 0.64), or a 50% protective effect. Seven trials reporting tuberculous deaths showed a protective effect from BCG vaccine of 71% (RR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.16 to 0.53), and five studies reporting on meningitis showed a protective effect from BCG vaccine of 64% (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.18 to 0.70). Geographic latitude of the study site and study validity score explained 66% of the heterogeneity among trials in a random-effects regression model. On average, BCG vaccine significantly reduces the risk of TB by 50%. Protection is observed across many populations, study designs, and forms of TB. Age at vaccination did not enhance predictiveness of BCG efficacy. Protection against tuberculous death, meningitis, and disseminated disease is higher than for total TB cases, although this result may reflect reduced error in disease classification rather than greater BCG efficacy.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Targeted tuberculin testing and treatment of latent tuberculosis infection. This official statement of the American Thoracic Society was adopted by the ATS Board of Directors, July 1999. This is a Joint Statement of the American Thoracic Society (ATS) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). This statement was endorsed by the Council of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. (IDSA), September 1999, and the sections of this statement.

            (2000)
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

              Interpretation of repeated tuberculin tests. Boosting, conversion, and reversion.

              D. Menzies (1998)
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS One
                PLoS ONE
                plos
                plosone
                PLoS ONE
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1932-6203
                2013
                30 September 2013
                : 8
                : 9
                : e76552
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Woolcock Institute of Medical Research and Central Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
                [2 ]Department of Respiratory Medicine, Liverpool Hospital, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
                Wadsworth Center, United States of America
                Author notes

                Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Analyzed the data: CCD GBM QL. Wrote the paper: CCD. Study concept and design: CCD GBM. Acquired data: CCD QL. Performed the statistical analysis: CCD. Revised the manuscript for important content: CCD GBM QL. Approved the final manuscript: CCD GBM QL.

                Article
                PONE-D-13-16519
                10.1371/journal.pone.0076552
                3786986
                9a8d7c3a-bec1-443c-a7e0-04f21ebcbb62
                Copyright @ 2013

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 24 April 2013
                : 27 August 2013
                Page count
                Pages: 6
                Funding
                CCD is supported by a University of Sydney Postgraduate Award Scholarship. There was no other study funding. The funders of the research scholarship had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article

                Uncategorized
                Uncategorized

                Comments

                Comment on this article