4.1 Article

Latent Tuberculosis in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus: Prevalence, Progression and Public Health Implications

Journal

EXPERIMENTAL AND CLINICAL ENDOCRINOLOGY & DIABETES
Volume 122, Issue 9, Pages 528-532

Publisher

JOHANN AMBROSIUS BARTH VERLAG MEDIZINVERLAGE HEIDELBERG GMBH
DOI: 10.1055/s-0034-1377044

Keywords

diabetes; diagnosis; infectious diseases; tuberculosis; screening; Prophylaxis

Funding

  1. Singapore Ministry of Health's National Medical Research Council under Individual Research Grant (IRG) funding scheme

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Diabetes mellitus (DM) confers a higher risk for tuberculosis (TB). Yet, TB screening and chemoprophylaxis for latent TB infection (LTBI) in DM remains controversial. We conducted a cross-sectional study to elucidate LTBI prevalence and longitudinal follow-up to ascertain LTBI to active TB progression rate in DM. Methods: 220 DM patients without previous TB from the outpatient diabetes clinic of the hospital were enrolled. T-Spot TB, tuberculin-skin-test (TST) and chest radiography (CXR) were performed. LTBI was defined by negative CXR with reactive T-Spot TB. Progression to active TB was confirmed by cross-checking against the TB registry. Results: The prevalence of LTBI was 28.2% (62/220) by reactive T-Spot. None progressed to active TB from 2007-2013. Multivariate analysis revealed that any co-morbidity (p = 0.016) was positively associated while metformin (p = 0.008) was negatively associated with LTBI. Conclusions: Over a quarter of DM patients harbor LTBI. While the lack of demonstrable progression to active TB within the follow-up time frame up to this point does not unequivocally support a routine TB screening policy or anti-TB chemoprophylaxis for LTBI in a diabetic population for now, this preliminary evidence needs reevaluation with longer follow-up of this enrolled cohort over the next decade.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available