Screening and prevention of infectious diseases in newly arrived migrants in Europe (Special issue)

Migrants account for a large and growing proportion of tuberculosis (TB) cases in low-incidence countries in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) which are primarily due to reactivation of latent TB infection (LTBI). Addressing LTBI among migrants will be critical to achieve TB elimination. Methods: We conducted a systematic review to determine effectiveness (performance of diagnostic tests, efficacy of treatment, uptake and completion of screening and treatment) and a second systematic review on cost-effectiveness of LTBI screening programmes for migrants living in the EU/EEA. Results: We identified seven systematic reviews and 16 individual studies that addressed our aims. Tuberculin skin tests and interferon gamma release assays had high sensitivity (79%) but when positive, both tests poorly predicted the development of active TB (incidence rate ratio: 2.07 and 2.40, respectively). Different LTBI treatment regimens had low to moderate efficacy but were equivalent in preventing active TB. Rifampicin-based regimens may be preferred because of lower hepatotoxicity (risk ratio = 0.15) and higher completion rates (82% vs 69%) compared with isoniazid. Only 14.3% of migrants eligible for screening completed treatment because of losses along all steps of the LTBI care cascade. Limited economic analyses suggest that the most cost-effective approach may be targeting young migrants from high TB incidence countries. Discussion: The effectiveness of LTBI programmes is limited by the large pool of migrants with LTBI, poorly predictive tests, long treatments and a weak care cascade. Targeted LTBI programmes that ensure high screening uptake and treatment completion will have greatest individual and public health benefit.

Germany has a low tuberculosis (TB) incidence. A relevant and increasing proportion of TB cases is diagnosed among asylum seekers upon screening. Aim: We aimed to assess whether cases identified by screening asylum seekers had equally successful and completely reported treatment outcomes as cases diagnosed by passive case finding and contact tracing in the general population. Methods: We analysed characteristics and treatment outcomes of pulmonary TB cases notified in Germany between 2002 and 2014, stratified by mode of case finding. We performed three multivariable analyses with different dependent variables: Model A: successful vs all other outcomes, Model B: successful vs documented non-successful clinical outcome and Model C: known outcome vs lost to follow-up. Results: TB treatment success was highest among cases identified by contact tracing (87%; 3,139/3,591), followed by passive case finding (74%; 28,804/39,019) and by screening asylum seekers (60%; 884/1,474). Cases identified by screening asylum seekers had 2.4 times higher odds of not having a successful treatment outcome as opposed to all other outcomes (A), 1.4 times higher odds of not having a successful treatment outcome as opposed to known non-successful outcomes (B) and 2.3 times higher odds of loss to follow-up (C) than cases identified by passive case finding. Conclusion: Screened asylum seekers had poorer treatment outcomes and were more often lost to follow-up. Linking patients to treatment facilities and investigating potential barriers to treatment completion are needed to secure screening benefits for asylum seekers and communities.