The latent tuberculosis cascade-of-care among people living with HIV: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis preventive therapy (TPT) reduces TB-related morbidity and mortality in people living with HIV (PLHIV). Cascade-of-care analyses help identify gaps and barriers in care and develop targeted solutions. A previous latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) cascade-of-care analysis showed only 18% of persons in at-risk populations complete TPT, but a similar analysis for TPT among PLHIV has not been completed. We conducted a meta-analysis to provide this evidence. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We first screened potential articles from a LTBI cascade-of-care systematic review published in 2016. From this study, we included cohorts that reported a minimum of 25 PLHIV. To identify new cohorts, we used a similar search strategy restricted to PLHIV. The search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Health Star, and LILACS, from January 2014 to February 2021. Two authors independently screened titles and full text and assessed risk of bias using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for cohorts and Cochrane Risk of Bias for cluster randomized trials. We meta-analyzed the proportion of PLHIV completing each step of the LTBI cascade-of-care and estimated the cumulative proportion retained. These results were stratified based on cascades-of-care that used or did not use LTBI testing to determine eligibility for TPT. We also performed a narrative synthesis of enablers and barriers of the cascade-of-care identified at different steps of the cascade. A total of 71 cohorts were included, and 70 were meta-analyzed, comprising 94,011 PLHIV. Among the PLHIV included, 35.3% (33,139/94,011) were from the Americas and 29.2% (27,460/94,011) from Africa. Overall, 49.9% (46,903/94,011) from low- and middle-income countries, median age was 38.0 [interquartile range (IQR) 34.0;43.6], and 65.9% (46,328/70,297) were men, 43.6% (29,629/67,947) were treated with antiretroviral therapy (ART), and the median CD4 count was 390 cell/mm3 (IQR 312;458). Among the cohorts that did not use LTBI tests, the cumulative proportion of PLHIV starting and completing TPT were 40.9% (95% CI: 39.3% to 42.7%) and 33.2% (95% CI: 31.6% to 34.9%). Among cohorts that used LTBI tests, the cumulative proportions of PLHIV starting and completing TPT were 60.4% (95% CI: 58.1% to 62.6%) and 41.9% (95% CI:39.6% to 44.2%), respectively. Completion of TPT was not significantly different in high- compared to low- and middle-income countries. Regardless of LTBI test use, substantial losses in the cascade-of-care occurred before treatment initiation. The integration of HIV and TB care was considered an enabler of the cascade-of-care in multiple cohorts. Key limitations of this systematic review are the observational nature of the included studies, potential selection bias in the population selection, only 14 cohorts reported all steps of the cascade-of-care, and barriers/facilitators were not systematically reported in all cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Although substantial losses were seen in multiple stages of the cascade-of-care, the cumulative proportion of PLHIV completing TPT was higher than previously reported among other at-risk populations. The use of LTBI testing in PLHIV in low- and middle-income countries was associated with higher proportion of the cohorts initiating TPT and with similar rates of completion of TPT.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".