Effectiveness of tuberculosis preventive treatment on disease incidence among people living with HIV/AIDS: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical trials have shown the protective efficacy of tuberculosis preventive treatment (TPT) for averting disease and death from tuberculosis among people living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV). TPT has been recommended for PLHIV since the 1980s. However, tuberculosis is still the first cause of death in PLHIV. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to summarize the evidence related to the real-world effectiveness of TPT on tuberculosis incidence among PLHIV. METHOD: This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational cohort studies. The search was carried out in PubMed (via MEDLINE), Embase, LILACS, Scopus and Web of Science databases. Free and controlled vocabulary was used for the searches, with no restrictions on language or publication period. Studies reporting hazard ratios (HR) for tuberculosis incidence among PLHIV who received TPT were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis models. Meta-regression was performed to assess whether study-level characteristics accounted for heterogeneity, as evaluated by Cochran's I² statistic. Study quality was appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. This study was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42024586273). RESULTS: Among 8,330 screened studies, 34 were included, with nine contributing to the meta-analysis. TPT was associated with a 63% reduction in tuberculosis incidence risk (HR = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.28-0.48; I² = 43%). Children exhibited consistent stronger protection (82% risk reduction, HR = 0.18, 0.09-0.37; I² = 0%) than adults (56% reduction, HR = 0.44, 0.37-0.53; I² = 21%). CONCLUSION: In real world conditions, TPT significantly and substantially reduces tuberculosis incidence in PLHIV, with consistent evidence of stronger protective effects in children. Despite some heterogeneity among adult studies, the pooled evidence confirms the protective effectiveness previously observed in clinical trials. These findings reinforce the global recommendation for broad implementation of TPT among PLHIV.
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 | 0.017 | 0.037 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.046 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".