Pre-immigration screening for pulmonary tuberculosis

Mor, Z; Lerman, Yehuda; Leventhal, Alex

doi:10.1183/09031936.00149908

Cited by 4 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Migrant screening approaches in low TB incidence areas vary widely in Western Europe, and heterogeneity exists in screening location, including pre-departure screening, 15 , 16 on arrival port of entry screening or post-entry screening, 17 selection criteria for which immigrant subgroups are screened, and screening methods used. 9 , 18 , 19 Among migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are often targeted as a high priority group for screening, as being recognized as having higher risk for TB.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active Tuberculosis Case Finding Interventions among Immigrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Italy

Schepisi

Gualano

Piselli

et al. 2016

Infectious Disease Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Italy tuberculosis (TB) is largely concentrated in vulnerable groups such as migrants and in urban settings. We analyzed three TB case finding interventions conducted at primary centers and mobile clinics for regular/irregular immigrants and refugees/asylum seekers performed over a four-year period (November 2009-March 2014) at five different sites in Rome and one site in Milan, Italy. TB history and presence of symptoms suggestive of active TB were investigated by verbal screening through a structured questionnaire in migrants presenting for any medical condition to out-patient and mobile clinics. Individuals reporting TB history or symptoms were referred to a TB clinic for diagnostic workup. Among 6347 migrants enrolled, 891 (14.0%) reported TB history or symptoms suggestive of active TB and 546 (61.3%) were referred to the TB clinic. Of them, 254 (46.5%) did not present for diagnostic evaluation. TB was diagnosed in 11 individuals representing 0.17% of those screened and 3.76% of those evaluated. The overall yield of this intervention was in the range reported for other TB screening programs for migrants, although we recorded an unsatisfactory adherence to diagnostic workup. Possible advantages of this intervention include low cost and reduced burden of medical procedures for the screened population.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Active Tuberculosis Case Finding Interventions among Immigrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers in Italy

Schepisi

Gualano

Piselli

et al. 2016

Infectious Disease Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many industrialised countries have put in place control strategies that have been mainly focused on screening new immigrants from countries with high rates of tuberculosis either before departure from the country of origin, or at entry into the host country [4-6]. More recently, interventions for migrants already resident in low incidence countries have been proposed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tuberculosis case finding based on symptom screening among immigrants, refugees and asylum seekers in Rome

Schepisi¹,

Gualano²,

Fellus

et al. 2013

BMC Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn Italy the proportion of cases of tuberculosis in persons originating from high-prevalence countries has been increasing in the last decade. We designed a study to assess adherence to and yield of a tuberculosis screening programme based on symptom screening conducted at primary care centres for regular and irregular immigrants and refugees/asylum seekers.MethodsPresence of symptoms suggestive of active tuberculosis was investigated by verbal screening in migrants presenting for any medical condition to 3 free primary care centres in the province of Rome. Individuals reporting at least one symptom were referred to a tuberculosis clinic for diagnostic workup.ResultsAmong 2142 migrants enrolled, 254 (11.9%) reported at least one symptom suggestive of active tuberculosis and 176 were referred to the tuberculosis clinic. Of them, 80 (45.4%) did not present for diagnostic evaluation. Tuberculosis was diagnosed in 7 individuals representing 0.33% of those screened and 7.3% of those evaluated for tuberculosis.ConclusionThe overall yield of this intervention was in the range reported for other tuberculosis screening programmes for migrants, although we recorded an unsatisfactory adherence to diagnostic workup. Possible advantages of this intervention include low cost and reduced burden of medical procedures for the screened population. Further evaluation of this approach appears to be warranted.

show abstract