4.6 Article

Tuberculosis among asylum seekers in Milan, Italy: epidemiological analysis and evaluation of interventions

期刊

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY JOURNAL
卷 54, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00896-2019

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In countries of the European Union, tuberculosis (TB) mainly affects marginalised people, including asylum seekers. Migratory flows from high-incidence countries to Italy have increased up to 2017, posing challenges to the national health system. This study sought to assess TB and latent TB infection (LTBI) prevalence among asylum seekers in Milan during the biennium 2016-2017 and to evaluate interventions in place. A two-level active surveillance and screening system was developed for both TB and LTBI. Asylum seekers underwent an initial screening with a tuberculin skin test (TST) and a questionnaire at the receiving sites. At the Regional TB Reference Centre, those with a positive result underwent chest radiography. People aged <35 years with negative chest radiography results underwent further testing by interferon-gamma release assay. If results of the assay were positive, LTBI treatment was offered. TB and LTBI prevalence were compared with literature data. A total of 5324 asylum seekers, mostly young (10-39 years; 98%), male (84%) and from sub-Saharan Africa (69%), were enrolled in the study. 69 active TB cases were diagnosed and 863 LTBI-positive individuals were detected. TB prevalence was high (1236 per 100 000 population) and LTBI prevalence was 28%. Despite losses (41%) during the transition from initial screening sites and the diagnostic centre, a good TB cure rate (84%) and optimal LTBI treatment completion (94%) were achieved. Our study shows that TB incidence is high among asylum seekers in Milan and that well-coordinated screening measures are critical for early diagnosis and treatment. It also proves that rolling out successful at-scale interventions for both prophylaxis and disease management is feasible.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据