Assessing the quality of tuberculosis care using routine surveillance data: a process evaluation employing the Zero TB Indicator Framework in Mongolia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the feasibility of the Zero TB Indicator Framework as a tool for assessing the quality of tuberculosis (TB) case-finding, treatment and prevention services in Mongolia. SETTING: Primary health centres, TB dispensaries, and surrounding communities in four districts of Mongolia. DESIGN: Three retrospective cross-sectional cohort studies, and two longitudinal studies each individually nested in one of the cohort studies. PARTICIPANTS: 15 947 community members from high TB-risk populations; 8518 patients screened for TB in primary health centres and referred to dispensaries; 857 patients with index TB and 2352 household contacts. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: 14 indicators of the quality of TB care defined by the Zero TB Indicator Framework and organised into three care cascades, evaluating community-based active case-finding, passive case-finding in health facilities and TB screening and prevention among close contacts; individual and health-system predictors of these indicators. RESULTS: The cumulative proportions of participants receiving guideline-adherent care varied widely, from 96% for community-based active case-finding, to 79% for TB preventive therapy among household contacts, to only 67% for passive case-finding in primary health centres and TB dispensaries (range: 29%-80% across districts). The odds of patients completing active TB treatment decreased substantially with increasing age (aOR: 0.76 per decade, 95% CI: 0.71 to 0.83, p<0.001) and among men (aOR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.36 to 0.88, p=0.013). Contacts of older index patients also had lower odds of initiating and completing of TB preventive therapy (aOR: 0.60 per decade, 95% CI: 0.38 to 0.93, p=0.022). CONCLUSIONS: The Zero TB Framework provided a feasible and adaptable approach for using routine surveillance data to evaluate the quality of TB care and identify associated individual and health system factors. Future research should evaluate strategies for collecting process indicators more efficiently; gather qualitative data on explanations for low-quality care; and deploy quality improvement interventions.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: a systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections (ARIs) revealed a protective effect of this intervention. We aimed to examine the link between vitamin D supplementation and prevention of ARIs in an updated meta-analysis. METHODS: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry for studies listed from database inception to May 1, 2020. Double-blind RCTs of vitamin D3, vitamin D2, or 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) supplementation for any duration, with a placebo or low-dose vitamin D control, were eligible if they had been approved by a research ethics committee, and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and prespecified as an efficacy outcome. Studies reporting results of long-term follow-up of primary RCTs were excluded. Aggregated study-level data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration and age, were obtained from study authors. Using the proportion of participants in each trial who had one or more ARIs, we did a random-effects meta-analysis to obtain pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs to estimate the effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs (primary outcome) compared with placebo. Subgroup analyses were done to estimate whether the effects of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25(OH)D concentration (<25 nmol/L vs 25·0-49·9 nmol/L vs 50·0-74·9 nmol/L vs >75·0 nmol/L), vitamin D dose (daily equivalent of <400 international units [IU] vs 400-1000 IU vs 1001-2000 IU vs >2000 IU), dosing frequency (daily vs weekly vs once per month to once every 3 months), trial duration (≤12 months vs >12 months), age at enrolment (<1·00 years vs 1·00-15·99 years vs 16·00-64·99 years vs ≥65·00 years), and presence versus absence of airway disease (ie, asthma only, COPD only, or unrestricted). Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration Risk of Bias Tool. The study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42020190633. FINDINGS: We identified 1528 articles, of which 46 RCTs (75 541 participants) were eligible. Data for the primary outcome were obtained for 48 488 (98·1%) of 49 419 participants (aged 0-95 years) in 43 studies. A significantly lower proportion of participants in the vitamin D supplementation group had one or more ARIs (14 332 [61·3%] of 23 364 participants) than in the placebo group (14 217 [62·3%] of 22 802 participants), with an OR of 0·92 (95% CI 0·86-0·99; 37 studies; I2=35·6%, pheterogeneity=0·018). No significant effect of vitamin D supplementation on the risk of having one or more ARIs was observed for any of the subgroups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects of supplementation were observed in trials in which vitamin D was given in a daily dosing regimen (OR 0·78 [95% CI 0·65-0·94]; 19 studies; I2=53·5%, pheterogeneity=0·003), at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (0·70 [0·55-0·89]; ten studies; I2=31·2%, pheterogeneity=0·16), for a duration of 12 months or less (0·82 [0·72-0·93]; 29 studies; I2=38·1%, pheterogeneity=0·021), and to participants aged 1·00-15·99 years at enrolment (0·71 [0·57-0·90]; 15 studies; I2=46·0%, pheterogeneity=0·027). No significant interaction between allocation to the vitamin D supplementation group versus the placebo group and dose, dose frequency, study duration, or age was observed. In addition, no significant difference in the proportion of participants who had at least one serious adverse event in the vitamin supplementation group compared with the placebo group was observed (0·97 [0·86-1·07]; 36 studies; I2=0·0%, pheterogeneity=0·99). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. INTERPRETATION: Despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials, vitamin D supplementation was safe and overall reduced the risk of ARI compared with placebo, although the risk reduction was small. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU for up to 12 months, and age at enrolment of 1·00-15·99 years. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires further investigation. FUNDING: None.

Vitamin D supplementation to prevent acute respiratory infections: systematic review and meta-analysis of aggregate data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: A 2017 meta-analysis of data from 25 randomised controlled trials of vitamin D supplementation for the prevention of acute respiratory infections revealed a protective effect of the intervention. Since then, 20 new RCTs have been completed. METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analysis of data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of vitamin D for ARI prevention using a random effects model. Pre-specified sub-group analyses were done to determine whether effects of vitamin D on risk of ARI varied according to baseline 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH]D) concentration or dosing regimen. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science and the ClinicalTrials.gov registry from inception to 1st May 2020. Double-blind RCTs of supplementation with vitamin D or calcidiol, of any duration, were eligible if they were approved by a Research Ethics Committee and if ARI incidence was collected prospectively and pre-specified as an efficacy outcome. Aggregate data, stratified by baseline 25(OH)D concentration, were obtained from study authors. The study was registered with PROSPERO (no. CRD42020190633). FINDINGS: We identified 45 eligible RCTs (total 73,384 participants). Data were obtained for 46,331 (98.0%) of 47,262 participants in 42 studies, aged 0 to 95 years. For the primary comparison of vitamin D supplementation vs. placebo, the intervention reduced risk of ARI overall (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.84 to 0.99; P for heterogeneity 0.01). No statistically significant effect of vitamin D was seen for any of the sub-groups defined by baseline 25(OH)D concentration. However, protective effects were seen for trials in which vitamin D was given using a daily dosing regimen (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.93); at daily dose equivalents of 400-1000 IU (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.89); and for a duration of ≤12 months (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.72 to 0.93). No significant interaction was seen between allocation to vitamin D vs. placebo and dose frequency, dose size, or study duration. Vitamin D did not influence the proportion of participants experiencing at least one serious adverse event (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.09). Risk of bias within individual studies was assessed as being low for all but three trials. A funnel plot showed left-sided asymmetry (P=0.008, Egger's test). INTERPRETATION: Vitamin D supplementation was safe and reduced risk of ARI, despite evidence of significant heterogeneity across trials. Protection was associated with administration of daily doses of 400-1000 IU vitamin D for up to 12 months. The relevance of these findings to COVID-19 is not known and requires investigation. FUNDING: None.

The vitamin D for COVID-19 (VIVID) trial: A pragmatic cluster-randomized design.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of vitamin D supplementation on disease progression and post-exposure prophylaxis for COVID-19 infection. We hypothesize that high-dose vitamin D3 supplementation will reduce risk of hospitalization/death among those with recently diagnosed COVID-19 infection and will reduce risk of COVID-19 infection among their close household contacts. METHODS: We report the rationale and design of a planned pragmatic, cluster randomized, double-blinded trial (N = 2700 in total nationwide), with 1500 newly diagnosed individuals with COVID-19 infection, together with up to one close household contact each (~1200 contacts), randomized to either vitamin D3 (loading dose, then 3200 IU/day) or placebo in a 1:1 ratio and a household cluster design. The study duration is 4 weeks. The primary outcome for newly diagnosed individuals is the occurrence of hospitalization and/or mortality. Key secondary outcomes include symptom severity scores among cases and changes in the infection (seroconversion) status for their close household contacts. Changes in vitamin D 25(OH)D levels will be assessed and their relation to study outcomes will be explored. CONCLUSIONS: The proposed pragmatic trial will allow parallel testing of vitamin D3 supplementation for early treatment and post-exposure prophylaxis of COVID-19. The household cluster design provides a cost-efficient approach to testing an intervention for reducing rates of hospitalization and/or mortality in newly diagnosed cases and preventing infection among their close household contacts.