Tuberculosis (TB)

The EUSeqMyTB project, conducted in 2020, used whole genome sequencing (WGS) for surveillance of drug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis in the European Union/European Economic Area (EU/EEA) and identified 56 internationally clustered multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) clones.

We aimed to define and establish a rapid and computationally simple screening method to identify probable members of the main cross-border MDR-TB clusters in WGS data to facilitate their identification and track their future spread.

We screened 34 of the larger cross-border clusters identified in the EuSeqMyTB pilot study (2017–19) for characteristic single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) signatures that could identify and define members of each cluster. We also linked this analysis with published clusters identified in previous studies and identified more distant genetic relationships between some of the current clusters.

A panel of 30 characteristic SNPs is presented that can be used as an initial (routine) screen for members of each cluster. For four of the clusters, no unique defining SNP could be identified; three of these are closely related (within approximately 20 SNPs) to one or more other clusters and likely represent a single established MDR-TB clade composed of multiple recent subclusters derived from the previously described ECDC0002 cluster.

The identified SNP signatures can be integrated into routine pipelines and contribute to the more effective monitoring, rapid and widespread screening for TB. This SNP panel will also support accurate communication between laboratories about previously identified internationally transmitted MDR-TB genotypes.

European-specific policies for tuberculosis (TB) elimination require identification of key populations that benefit from TB screening.

We aimed to identify groups of foreign-born individuals residing in European countries that benefit most from targeted TB prevention screening.

The Tuberculosis Network European Trials group collected, by cross-sectional survey, numbers of foreign-born TB patients residing in European Union (EU) countries, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and the United Kingdom (UK) in 2020 from the 10 highest ranked countries of origin in terms of TB cases in each country of residence. Tuberculosis incidence rates (IRs) in countries of residence were compared with countries of origin.

Data on 9,116 foreign-born TB patients in 30 countries of residence were collected. Main countries of origin were Eritrea, India, Pakistan, Morocco, Romania and Somalia. Tuberculosis IRs were highest in patients of Eritrean and Somali origin in Greece and Malta (both > 1,000/100,000) and lowest among Ukrainian patients in Poland (3.6/100,000). They were mainly lower in countries of residence than countries of origin. However, IRs among Eritreans and Somalis in Greece and Malta were five times higher than in Eritrea and Somalia. Similarly, IRs among Eritreans in Germany, the Netherlands and the UK were four times higher than in Eritrea.

Country of origin TB IR is an insufficient indicator when targeting foreign-born populations for active case finding or TB prevention policies in the countries covered here. Elimination strategies should be informed by regularly collected country-specific data to address rapidly changing epidemiology and associated risks.

Migrants in low tuberculosis (TB) incidence countries in the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) are an at-risk group for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and are increasingly included in LTBI screening programmes.

To investigate current approaches and implement LTBI screening in recently arrived migrants in the EU/EEA and Switzerland.

At least one TB expert working at a national level from the EU/EEA and one TB expert from Switzerland completed an electronic questionnaire. We used descriptive analyses to calculate percentages, and framework analysis to synthesise free-text responses.

Experts from 32 countries were invited to participate (30 countries responded): 15 experts reported an LTBI screening programme targeting migrants in their country; five reported plans to implement one in the near future; and 10 reported having no programme. LTBI screening was predominantly for asylum seekers (n = 12) and refugees (n = 11). Twelve countries use ‘country of origin’ as the main eligibility criteria. The countries took similar approaches to diagnosis and treatment but different approaches to follow-up. Six experts reported that drop-out rates in migrants were higher compared with non-migrant groups. Most of the experts (n = 22) called for a renewed focus on expanding efforts to screen for LTBI in migrants arriving in low-incidence countries.

We found a range of approaches to LTBI screening of migrants in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. Findings suggest a renewed focus is needed to expand and strengthen efforts to meaningfully include migrants in these programmes, in order to meet regional and global elimination targets for TB.

Not all treated tuberculosis (TB) patients achieve long-term recovery and reactivation rates reflect effectiveness of TB treatment.

We aimed to estimate rates and risk factors of TB reactivation and reinfection in patients treated in the Netherlands, after completed or interrupted treatment.

Retrospective cohort study of TB patients with available DNA fingerprint data, registered in the Netherlands Tuberculosis register (NTR) between 1993 and 2016. Reactivation was defined as an identical, and reinfection as a non-identical Mycobacterium tuberculosis strain in sequential episodes.

Reactivation rate was 55/100,000 person-years (py) for patients who completed, and 318/100,000 py for patients who interrupted treatment. The risk of reactivation was highest in the first 5 years after treatment in both groups. The incidence rate of reactivation was 228/100,000 py in the first 2 years and 57/100,000 py 2–5 years after completed treatment. The overall rate of reinfection was 16/100,000 py. Among those who completed treatment, patients with male sex, mono or poly rifampicin-resistant TB and a previous TB episode had significantly higher risk of reactivation. Extrapulmonary TB was associated with a lower risk. Among patients who interrupted treatment, directly observed treatment (DOT) and being an undocumented migrant or people experiencing homelessness were associated with a higher risk of reactivation.

Both patients who completed or interrupted TB treatment should be considered as risk groups for reactivation for at least 2–5 years after treatment. They patients should be monitored and guidelines should be in place to enhance early detection of recurrent TB.

In low tuberculosis (TB) incidence countries, contact investigation (CI) requires not missing contacts with TB infection or disease without unnecessarily evaluating non-infected contacts.

We assessed whether updated guidelines for the stone-in-the-pond principle and their promotion improved CI practices.

This retrospective study used surveillance data to compare CI outcomes before (2011–2013) and after (2014–2016) the guideline update and promotion. Using negative binomial regression and logistic regression models, we compared the number of contacts invited for CI per index patient, the number of CI scaled-up according to the stone-in-the-pond principle, the TB and latent TB infection (LTBI) testing coverage, and yield.

Pre and post update, 1,703 and 1,489 index patients were reported, 27,187 and 21,056 contacts were eligible for CI, 86% and 89% were tested for TB, and 0.70% and 0.73% were identified with active TB, respectively. Post update, the number of casual contacts invited per index patient decreased statistically significantly (RR = 0.88; 95% CI: 0.79–0.98), TB testing coverage increased (OR = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.2–1.7), and TB yield increased (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.0–3.9). The total LTBI yield increased from 8.8% to 9.8%, with statistically significant increases for casual (OR = 1.2; 95% CI: 1.0–1.5) and community contacts (OR = 2.0; 95% CI: 1.6–3.2). The proportion of CIs appropriately scaled-up to community contacts increased statistically significantly (RR = 1.8; 95% CI: 1.3–2.6).

This study shows that promoting evidence-based CI guidelines strengthen the efficiency of CIs without jeopardising effectiveness. These findings support CI is an effective TB elimination intervention.