The prevalence of multimorbidity in virally suppressed HIV-positive patients in Limpopo.

Background: Non-communicable diseases (NCDs) are an emerging global public health problem. Objectives: To assess the prevalence of NCDs and their risk factors among adults on antiretroviral therapy (ART). Method: This was a cross-sectional study (July 2019 - January 2020) in Limpopo, South Africa. Patients were enrolled if they were ≥ 40 years, HIV-positive, and virologically suppressed on ART. Data were analysed descriptively, and a binomial regression model was used to identify risk factors for NCDs. Results: The majority of participants (65%; 319/488) were women. Most (83%; 405/488) were aged 40-59 years; 60% (285/472) were overweight or obese. Based on self-report, 22% (107/488) were currently smokers. Almost half (44%) 213/488) reported daily consumption of vegetables and 65% (319/488) exercised regularly and 39% (190/488) reported treatment for another chronic disease. The leading comorbid conditions were hypertension (32%; 158/488) and diabetes mellitus (5%; 24/488). Risk factors for hypertension included age 60 years and older (relative risk [RR]: 1.72; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.29-2.30) diabetes (RR: 1.42; 95% CI: 1.08-1.87), overweight (RR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.03-1.69) and obesity (RR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.32-2.17). Conclusion: There is a high prevalence, both of risk factors for NCDs and multimorbidity (> 1 chronic disease) in patients who are ≥ 40 years and virologically suppressed on ART.

Household- Versus Incentive-Based Contact Investigation for Tuberculosis in Rural South Africa: A Cluster-Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Household contact investigation for people newly diagnosed with tuberculosis (TB) is poorly implemented, particularly in low- and middle-income countries. Conditional cash incentives may improve uptake. METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, crossover trial of 2 TB contact investigation approaches (household-based and incentive-based) in 28 public primary care clinics in South Africa. Each clinic used 1 approach for 18 months, followed by a 6-month washout period, after which the opposite approach was used. Fourteen clinics were randomized to each approach. In the household-based arm, we conducted TB screening and testing of contacts at the household. In the incentive-based arm, both index patients and ≤10 of their close contacts (either within or outside the household) were given small cash incentives for presenting to study clinics for TB screening. The primary outcome was the number of people with incident TB who were diagnosed and started on treatment at study clinics. RESULTS: From July 2016 to January 2020, we randomized 28 clinics to each study arm, and enrolled 782 index TB patients and 1882 contacts in the household-based arm and 780 index patients and 1940 contacts in the incentive-based arm. A total of 1413 individuals started on TB treatment in the household-based arm and 1510 in the incentive-based arm. The adjusted incidence rate ratio of TB treatment initiation in the incentive- versus household-based arms was 1.05 (95% confidence interval: .97-1.13). CONCLUSIONS: Incentive-based contact investigation for TB has similar effectiveness to traditional household-based approaches and may be a viable alternative or complementary approach to household-based investigation.

Conditional Cash Transfers to Incentivize Tuberculosis Screening: Description of a Novel Strategy for Contact Investigation in Rural South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Providing incentives to screen close contacts for tuberculosis (TB) is an alternative to household-based contact investigation. We aimed to characterize patients and contexts where this incentive-based strategy might be preferred. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a cluster randomized trial of TB contact investigation in Limpopo District, South Africa, conducted between 2016 and 2020. Twenty-eight clinics were randomly allocated to household-based vs incentive-based contact investigation. In the incentive-based arm, index participants and contacts received transport reimbursement and incentives for TB screening and microbiological diagnosis of contacts. We estimated differences in mean number of contacts per index participant with household-based vs incentive-based contact investigation overall and within subgroups of index participants. RESULTS: A total of 3776 contacts (1903 in the incentive-based and 1873 in the household-based arm) were referred by 2501 index participants. A higher proportion of contacts in the incentive-based than household-based arm were adults (72% vs 59%), reported chronic TB symptoms (25% vs 16%) or ever smoking (23% vs 11%). Index participants who walked or bicycled to a clinic referred 1.03 more contacts per index (95% confidence interval [CI], .48 to 1.57) through incentive-based than household-based investigation. Index participants living with >5 household members referred 0.48 more contacts per index (95% CI, .03 to .94) through household-based than incentive-based investigation. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to household-based investigation, incentive-based investigation identifies contacts likely at higher risk for active TB. Incentive-based investigation may be more appropriate for index participants who can easily access clinics, versus household-based investigation for patients with large households. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT02808507.

Brief Report: Proportion and Predictors of Adult TB Contacts Accepting HIV Testing During an Active TB Case Finding Intervention in South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Many individuals at risk for HIV may be reached through active TB case finding interventions in areas with highly prevalent co-epidemics of TB/HIV. METHODS: We analyzed data from a cluster-randomized trial of 2 TB case finding strategies: facility-based screening and contact investigation of newly identified TB cases. In both arms, on-site rapid HIV testing was offered to all contacts older than 18 months who did not self-report HIV-positive status. Those who were HIV infected were referred appropriately. All contacts 15 years and older were included in this analysis. RESULTS: Among 2179 contacts identified, 50% (1092) accepted HIV testing and counselling, of whom 6.3% (68) tested HIV-positive. Contacts who were unemployed [adjusted prevalence ratio (aPR) 1.14, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.04 to 1.25], had not been to a clinic (aPR 1.09, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.18) or HIV tested (aPR 1.25, 95% CI: 1.14 to 1.39) 6 months before, and those reporting gastrointestinal symptoms (aPR 1.22, 95% CI: 0.98 to 1.52) and genitourinary symptoms (aPR 1.30, 95% CI: 1.17 to 1.45) were significantly associated with accepting HIV testing. Women [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 2.19, 95% CI: 1.26 to 3.81], individuals with a past history of tuberculosis (aOR 1.96, 95% CI: 0.93 to 4.14), and those not HIV tested 6 months before (aOR 2.20, 95% CI: 1.28 to 3.79) were significantly associated with testing HIV-positive. CONCLUSION: Offering HIV testing in the context of active tuberculosis case finding represents an opportunity to identify a large proportion of previously undiagnosed individuals with HIV in a population that might otherwise not seek testing.

Contact tracing versus facility-based screening for active TB case finding in rural South Africa: A pragmatic cluster-randomized trial (Kharitode TB).

BACKGROUND: There is a dearth of comparative effectiveness research examining the implementation of different strategies for active tuberculosis (TB) case finding, particularly in rural settings, which represent 60% of the population of sub-Saharan Africa. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a pragmatic, cluster-randomized comparative effectiveness trial of two TB case finding strategies (facility-based screening and contact tracing) in 56 public primary care clinics in two largely rural districts of Limpopo Province, South Africa. In the facility-based screening arm, sputum Xpert MTB/RIF was performed on all patients presenting (for any reason) with TB symptoms to 28 study clinics, and no contact tracing was performed. In the contact-tracing arm, contacts of patients with active TB were identified (via household tracing in 14 clinics and using small monetary incentives in the other 14 clinics), screened for TB symptoms, and offered Xpert MTB/RIF testing. The primary outcome was the number of newly identified patients with TB started on treatment. The analysis used multivariable Poisson regression adjusted for historical clinic-level TB case volumes and district. The trial was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02808507). From July 18, 2017, to January 17, 2019, a total of 3,755 individuals started TB treatment across 56 study clinics in the 18-month period. Clinic characteristics and clinic-level averages of patient characteristics were similar across the two arms: 40/56 (71%) clinics were in a rural location, 2,136/3,655 (58%) patients were male, and 2,243 (61%) were HIV positive. The treatment initiation ratio comparing the yield of TB patients started on treatment in the facility-based arm compared to that from the contact-tracing arm was 1.04 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.83-1.30, p = 0. 73). In the contact-tracing arm, 1,677 contacts of 788 new TB index patients were screened, yielding 12 new patients with TB. Prespecified subgroup analyses resulted in similar results, with estimated treatment initiation ratios of 0.96 (95% CI 0.64-1.27; p = 0.78) and 1.23 (95% CI 0.87-1.59; p = 0.29) among historically smaller and historically larger clinics, respectively. This ratio was 1.02 (95% CI 0.66-1.37; p = 0.93) and 1.08 (95% CI 0.74-1.42; p = 0.68) in the Vhembe and Waterberg districts, respectively. The estimated treatment initiation ratio was unchanged in sensitivity analyses excluding 24 records whose TB registration numbers could not be verified (1.03, 95% CI 0.82-1.29; p = 0.78) and excluding transfers-in (1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.29; p = 0.71). Study limitations include the possibility of imbalance on cluster size owing to changes in catchment population over time and the inability to distinguish the independent effects of the two contact investigation strategies. CONCLUSIONS: Contact tracing based on symptom screening and Xpert MTB/RIF testing did not increase the rate of treatment initiation for TB relative to the less resource-intensive approach of facility-based screening in this rural sub-Saharan setting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02808507.