4.5 Review

Initiation and completion rates for latent tuberculosis infection treatment: a systematic review

Journal

BMC INFECTIOUS DISEASES
Volume 16, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12879-016-1550-y

Keywords

Tuberculosis; Latent tuberculosis; Treatment initiation; Treatment completion; Risk groups

Funding

  1. ECDC Framework [FWC/ECDC/2013/005, 1 ECD.4065]
  2. Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, and Service [ECD.5000 of OJ/02/05/2014-PROC/2014/015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Control of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is an important step towards tuberculosis elimination. Preventive treatment will prevent the development of disease in most cases diagnosed with LTBI. However, low initiation and completion rates affect the effectiveness of preventive treatment. The objective was to systematically review data on initiation rates and completion rates for LTBI treatment regimens in the general population and specific populations with LTBI. Methods: A systematic review of the literature (PubMed, Embase) published up to February 2014 was performed. Results: Forty-five studies on initiation rates and 83 studies on completion rates of LTBI treatment were found. These studies provided initiation rates (IR) and completion rates (CR) in people with LTBI among the general population (IR 26-99 %, CR 39-96 %), case contacts (IR 40-95 %, CR 48-82 %), healthcare workers (IR 47-98 %, CR 17-79 %), the homeless (IR 34-90 %, CR 23-71 %), people who inject drugs (IR 52-91 %, CR 38-89 %), HIV-infected individuals (IR 67-92 %, CR 55-95 %), inmates (IR 7-90 %, CR 4-100 %), immigrants (IR 23-97 %, CR 7-86 %), and patients with comorbidities (IR 82-93 %, CR 75-92 %). Generally, completion rates were higher for short than for long LTBI treatment regimens. Conclusion: Initiation and completion rates for LTBI treatment regimens were frequently suboptimal and varied greatly within and across different populations.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available