Neighbourhood prevalence-to-notification ratios for adult bacteriologically-confirmed tuberculosis reveals hotspots of underdiagnosis in Blantyre, Malawi.

Local information is needed to guide targeted interventions for respiratory infections such as tuberculosis (TB). Case notification rates (CNRs) are readily available, but systematically underestimate true disease burden in neighbourhoods with high diagnostic access barriers. We explored a novel approach, adjusting CNRs for under-notification (P:N ratio) using neighbourhood-level predictors of TB prevalence-to-notification ratios. We analysed data from 1) a citywide routine TB surveillance system including geolocation, confirmatory mycobacteriology, and clinical and demographic characteristics of all registering TB patients in Blantyre, Malawi during 2015-19, and 2) an adult TB prevalence survey done in 2019. In the prevalence survey, consenting adults from randomly selected households in 72 neighbourhoods had symptom-plus-chest X-ray screening, confirmed with sputum smear microscopy, Xpert MTB/Rif and culture. Bayesian multilevel models were used to estimate adjusted neighbourhood prevalence-to-notification ratios, based on summarised posterior draws from fitted adult bacteriologically-confirmed TB CNRs and prevalence. From 2015-19, adult bacteriologically-confirmed CNRs were 131 (479/371,834), 134 (539/415,226), 114 (519/463,707), 56 (283/517,860) and 46 (258/578,377) per 100,000 adults per annum, and 2019 bacteriologically-confirmed prevalence was 215 (29/13,490) per 100,000 adults. Lower educational achievement by household head and neighbourhood distance to TB clinic was negatively associated with CNRs. The mean neighbourhood P:N ratio was 4.49 (95% credible interval [CrI]: 0.98-11.91), consistent with underdiagnosis of TB, and was most pronounced in informal peri-urban neighbourhoods. Here we have demonstrated a method for the identification of neighbourhoods with high levels of under-diagnosis of TB without the requirement for a prevalence survey; this is important since prevalence surveys are expensive and logistically challenging. If confirmed, this approach may support more efficient and effective targeting of intensified TB and HIV case-finding interventions aiming to accelerate elimination of urban TB.

Variation in colon cancer survival for patients living and receiving care in London, 2006-2013: does where you live matter?

BACKGROUND: Marked geographical disparities in survival from colon cancer have been consistently described in England. Similar patterns have been observed within London, almost mimicking a microcosm of the country's survival patterns. This evidence has suggested that the area of residence plays an important role in the survival from cancer. METHODS: We analysed the survival from colon cancer of patients diagnosed in 2006-2013, in a pre-pandemic period, living in London at their diagnosis and received care in a London hospital. We examined the patterns of patient pathways between the area of residence and the hospital of care using flow maps, and we investigated whether geographical variations in survival from colon cancer are associated with the hospital of care. To estimate survival, we applied a Bayesian excess hazard model which accounts for the hierarchical structure of the data. RESULTS: Geographical disparities in colon cancer survival disappeared once controlled for hospitals, and the disparities seemed to be augmented between hospitals. However, close examination of patient pathways revealed that the poorer survival observed in some hospitals was mostly associated with higher proportions of emergency diagnosis, while their performance was generally as expected for patients diagnosed through non-emergency routes. DISCUSSION: This study highlights the need to better coordinate primary and secondary care sectors in some areas of London to improve timely access to specialised clinicians and diagnostic tests. This challenge remains crucially relevant after the recent successive regroupings of Clinical Commissioning Groups (which grouped struggling areas together) and the observed exacerbation of disparities during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Treatment estimands in clinical trials of patients hospitalised for COVID-19: ensuring trials ask the right questions.

When designing a clinical trial, explicitly defining the treatment estimands of interest (that which is to be estimated) can help to clarify trial objectives and ensure the questions being addressed by the trial are clinically meaningful. There are several challenges when defining estimands. Here, we discuss a number of these in the context of trials of treatments for patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and make suggestions for how estimands should be defined for key outcomes. We suggest that treatment effects should usually be measured as differences in proportions (or risk or odds ratios) for outcomes such as death and requirement for ventilation, and differences in means for outcomes such as the number of days ventilated. We further recommend that truncation due to death should be handled differently depending on whether a patient- or resource-focused perspective is taken; for the former, a composite approach should be used, while for the latter, a while-alive approach is preferred. Finally, we suggest that discontinuation of randomised treatment should be handled from a treatment policy perspective, where non-adherence is ignored in the analysis (i.e. intention to treat).

A four-step strategy for handling missing outcome data in randomised trials affected by a pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus pandemic (Covid-19) presents a variety of challenges for ongoing clinical trials, including an inevitably higher rate of missing outcome data, with new and non-standard reasons for missingness. International drug trial guidelines recommend trialists review plans for handling missing data in the conduct and statistical analysis, but clear recommendations are lacking. METHODS: We present a four-step strategy for handling missing outcome data in the analysis of randomised trials that are ongoing during a pandemic. We consider handling missing data arising due to (i) participant infection, (ii) treatment disruptions and (iii) loss to follow-up. We consider both settings where treatment effects for a 'pandemic-free world' and 'world including a pandemic' are of interest. RESULTS: In any trial, investigators should; (1) Clarify the treatment estimand of interest with respect to the occurrence of the pandemic; (2) Establish what data are missing for the chosen estimand; (3) Perform primary analysis under the most plausible missing data assumptions followed by; (4) Sensitivity analysis under alternative plausible assumptions. To obtain an estimate of the treatment effect in a 'pandemic-free world', participant data that are clinically affected by the pandemic (directly due to infection or indirectly via treatment disruptions) are not relevant and can be set to missing. For primary analysis, a missing-at-random assumption that conditions on all observed data that are expected to be associated with both the outcome and missingness may be most plausible. For the treatment effect in the 'world including a pandemic', all participant data is relevant and should be included in the analysis. For primary analysis, a missing-at-random assumption - potentially incorporating a pandemic time-period indicator and participant infection status - or a missing-not-at-random assumption with a poorer response may be most relevant, depending on the setting. In all scenarios, sensitivity analysis under credible missing-not-at-random assumptions should be used to evaluate the robustness of results. We highlight controlled multiple imputation as an accessible tool for conducting sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: Missing data problems will be exacerbated for trials active during the Covid-19 pandemic. This four-step strategy will facilitate clear thinking about the appropriate analysis for relevant questions of interest.