ArticleThe Lancet. Global health2020
Risk-benefit analysis of tuberculosis infection testing for household contact management in high-burden countries: a mathematical modelling study.
Article in The Lancet. Global health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of preventive treatment among different age groups and Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection status: a systematic review and individual-participant data meta-analysis of contact tracing studies.The Lancet. Respiratory medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Heterogeneity in Mycobacterium tuberculosis immunoreactivity in young children in Blantyre, Malawi: A community-based survey.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- Article
- Impact and cost-effectiveness of short-course tuberculosis preventive treatment for household contacts and people with HIV in 29 high-incidence countries: a modelling analysis.The Lancet. Global health · 2023Article
- Effect of pregnancy versus postpartum maternal isoniazid preventive therapy on infant growth in HIV-exposed uninfected infants: a post-hoc analysis of the TB APPRISE trial.EClinicalMedicine · 2023Article
- Community-based tuberculosis contact management: Caregiver experience and factors promoting adherence to preventive therapy.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
- Testing and Scaling Interventions to Improve the Tuberculosis Infection Care Cascade.Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society · 2022Review
- Latent Tuberculosis Cascade of Care Among Healthcare Workers: A Nationwide Cohort Analysis in Korea Between 2017 and 2018.Journal of Korean medical science · 2022Article
- Provision of Decentralized TB Care Services: A Detect-Treat-Prevent Strategy for Children and Adolescents Affected by TB.Pathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Scaling up tuberculosis preventive therapy for contacts in high transmission settings.The Lancet. Global health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPreventive therapy for tuberculosis reduces the risk of disease in people who have been infected but who are not sick. Countries with a high burden of tuberculosis that are expanding preventive therapy use must decide how tuberculosis infection testing should be used for risk stratification among household contacts of patients with tuberculosis.
methodsWe modelled the risks of tuberculosis disease and severe adverse events, comparing the following two preventive therapy strategies: preventive therapy for all household contacts, or preventive therapy for only household contacts with a positive tuberculin skin test (TST) result. We used data from clinical trials and literature on tuberculosis natural history to model outcomes, assuming different preventive therapy regimens, ages, and TST positivity prevalence.
findingsAssuming 25% prevalence of TST positivity among 1000 household contacts aged 0-17 years, a treat-all approach with isoniazid and rifapentine compared with a treat-TST-only approach led to 13 fewer incident tuberculosis cases (IQR -5 to -18) and four additional severe adverse events (2 to 6). With rifampicin, the difference was 11 fewer incident tuberculosis cases (-3 to -17) and two additional severe adverse events (1 to 3). For adults, a treat-all approach led to fewer incident tuberculosis cases, and additional adverse events increased with age. Assuming 25% prevalence of TST positivity among adult contacts, a treat-all approach would lead to around two fewer tuberculosis cases per 1000 contacts for all regimens; the number of additional severe adverse events ranged from seven (IQR 5 to 8) for 18 to 34-year-olds treated with rifampicin to 63 (50 to 74) for people older than 64 years treated with isoniazid and rifapentine. A rifampicin-only regimen was associated with the fewest additional severe adverse events (seven [IQR 5 to 8] per 1000 adults aged 18-34 years and 35-64 years, and 17 [9 to 23] per 1000 adults older than 64 years).
interpretationBased on the available data, giving preventive therapy to all household contacts would probably reduce the incidence of tuberculosis cases in high-burden settings. Adverse events could be minimised by using non-isoniazid regimens and, in adults older than 18 years, focusing treatment on individuals with a positive infection test.
fundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation, UK Medical Research Council, and UK Department for International Development.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.