Overall there was no statistically significant protective effect of daily isoniazid for 6 months in the prevention of tuberculosis. In the TST-positive subjects, where reactivation is likely to be the more important pathogenetic mechanism, there was some protection and some reduction in mortality, although this was not statistically significant. The small number of individuals in this subgroup made the power to detect a statistically significant difference in this subgroup low. Other influences that may have diluted the efficacy of isoniazid include a high rate of transmission of new infection and rapid progression to disease or insufficient duration of isoniazid in subjects with relatively advanced immunosuppression. The rate of drug resistance observed in subjects who received isoniazid and subsequently developed tuberculosis was low.

Background: The objective of this study was to establish 1) the performance of chest X-ray (CXR) in all suspects of tuberculosis (TB), as well as smear-negative TB suspects and 2) to compare the cost-effectiveness of the routine diagnostic pathway using Ziehl-Neelsen (ZN) sputum microscopy followed by CXR if case of negative sputum result (ZN followed by CXR) with an alternative pathway using CXR as a screening tool (CXR followed by ZN).

Undiagnosed PTB is common in this community. TB case finding needs improvement, for instance through intensified case finding with mobile smear microscopy services, rigorous HIV testing, and improved diagnosis of smear-negative TB.

BackgroundWe conducted a tuberculosis (TB) prevalence survey and evaluated the screening methods used in our survey, to assess if screening in TB prevalence surveys could be simplified, and to assess the accuracy of screening algorithms that may be applicable for active case finding.MethodsAll participants with a positive screen on either a symptom questionnaire, chest radiography (CXR) and/or sputum smear microscopy submitted sputum for culture. HIV status was obtained from prevalent cases. We estimated the accuracy of modified screening strategies with bacteriologically confirmed TB as the gold standard, and compared these with other survey reports. We also assessed whether sequential rather than parallel application of symptom, CXR and HIV screening would substantially reduce the number of participants requiring CXR and/or sputum culture.ResultsPresence of any abnormality on CXR had 94% (95%CI 88–98) sensitivity (92% in HIV-infected and 100% in HIV-uninfected) and 73% (95%CI 68–77) specificity. Symptom screening combinations had significantly lower sensitivity than CXR except for ‘any TB symptom’ which had 90% (95%CI 84–95) sensitivity (96% in HIV-infected and 82% in HIV-uninfected) and 32% (95%CI 30–34) specificity. Smear microscopy did not yield additional suspects, thus the combined symptom/CXR screen applied in the survey had 100% (95%CI 97–100) sensitivity. Specificity was 65% (95%CI 61–68). Sequential application of first a symptom screen for ‘any symptom’, followed by CXR-evaluation and different suspect criteria depending on HIV status would result in the largest reduction of the need for CXR and sputum culture, approximately 36%, but would underestimate prevalence by 11%.ConclusionCXR screening alone had higher accuracy compared to symptom screening alone. Combined CXR and symptom screening had the highest sensitivity and remains important for suspect identification in TB prevalence surveys in settings where bacteriological sputum examination of all participants is not feasible.

Acceptable CXR screening can be achieved with clinical officers. Reviewing a sample of CXRs by two experts allows an assessment of prevalence underestimation.