Risk of tuberculosis and uptake rates of latent tuberculosis infection screening among clinical risk groups in South Korea: A nationwide population-based cohort study

INTRODUCTION

Approximately a quarter of population in the world is presumed to be infected with tuberculosis (TB)[1]. For TB elimination, strategies to tackle the large TB reservoir are essential[2]. However, current diagnostic tools for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) have low predictive values[3], which can result in high numbers needed treat to prevent a TB case. Several conditions raising TB risk have been investigated[4]. Previous guidelines on LTBI have commonly specified two key groups: TB contacts and clinical risk groups[5-8].

TB incidence in South Korea has continuously decreased since 2000. TB incidence was 96.3 cases per 100,000 population in 2000 and 44.6 cases per 100,000 population in 2021[9]. With a decrease in TB incidence, strategy to prevent reactivation has been underscored as in other low-incidence countries[10,11]. However, in contrast to contact investigation which is managed by the government[12], LTBI screening in clinical risk group is usually performed in private sector, which accounts for more than 90% healthcare facilities in South Korea[13]. Although clinical risk groups have been specified in Korean guidelines since amendment in 2014[14], actual TB risk and uptake rate of LTBI screening in these groups have not been evaluated before.

Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate the actual TB risk among high-risk groups specified in Korean guidelines for TB and uptake rate of LTBI screening in each group. Additionally, proportions of potentially preventable TB by implementing LTBI screening in these risk groups were calculated among total nationwide TB burden.

METHODS

RESULTS

Numbers of finally included patients in prevalence and incidence cohorts are presented in Figure 1. Demographic features of enrolled patients in each group were demonstrated in S2 Table. Among eight prevalence cohorts, Group 4 showed the highest TB incidence (487.4 per 100,000 person-years) and mortality rate (9592.9 per 100,000 person-year). Similarly, among incidence cohorts, TB incidence (1117.4 per 100,000 person-years) and mortality (19619.5 per 100,000 person-years) were the highest in Group 4 (Table 1). In every group, TB incidence was higher in the incidence cohort than in the prevalence cohort. Mortality was higher in the incidence cohort than in the prevalence cohort for all groups except for Group 8.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Fig 1.

Flow diagram.

DISCUSSION

In this study, well-known high TB risk diseases showed high SIRs as expected. Patients with ESRD showed TB risk comparable to those with high TB risk diseases. TB risk was relatively low in patients who underwent gastrectomy and patients with DM among groups with moderate TB risk. However, patients with uncontrolled DM status showed a relatively high TB risk. The uptake rate of LTBI screening in these clinical risk group was still suboptimal in all groups except for patients who used TNF inhibitors.

Previous LTBI guidelines did not specify when to treat in detail[5-8,15]. We demonstrated that TB risk of patients who developed the disease newly was higher than that of those who were diagnosed several years ago. This might be attributable to a decreased immunity of patients with an uncontrolled status of disease around the date of diagnosis. Considering that in South Korea, diagnosis rate of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was still suboptimal[16]. Many patients presented low CD4+ cell levels at diagnosis[17], which might have increased their vulnerability to TB at diagnosis as shown in a previous study[18]. Uncontrolled naïve DM and uremic status of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) initiating dialysis might have also contributed to the high TB incidence at diagnosis. Additionally, intensive immunosuppressive treatment following solid organ or hematopoietic stem cell transplantation and consecutive use of TNF inhibitors could increase TB risk. Among patients with malignancy, it was presumed that immunosuppressive states might be temporary during a session of anticancer treatments such as chemotherapy just after the diagnosis of cancer, which was demonstrated by decreasing SIR of TB with increasing time after cancer diagnosis[19].

Our findings underscored that LTBI screening should be focused on incident groups. However, most of incident groups showed higher mortality as well as higher TB incidence than prevalent groups. Among patients who were newly diagnosed as ESRD, 33.0% (3617/10977) of patients died during the follow-up period. Considering adverse effects of LTBI treatment such as gastrointestinal trouble and hepatotoxicity[20], we speculate that providing LTBI treatment to these critically ill patients might be unfeasible in many cases. Moreover, in patients newly diagnosed as malignancy, preventing TB would not be a medical priority. In a previous study, TB incidence was higher among patients with malignancy such as esophageal, lung, pancreatic cancer, and multiple myeloma, showing a relatively low 5-year survival[21]. We expect that the acceptance rate for LTBI treatment among these patients with limited life expectancy would be low. Low LTBI screening uptake rate in patients with malignancy (Groups 5, 6, 7) might be related to this reason.

However, Groups 2 and 3 showed relatively high uptake rates for LTBI screening (60.4% and 92.7%, respectively). This might be because LTBI screening and treatment are more feasible in these groups than in other groups. Mortality rate of Group 3 was the lowest among all incident groups. This finding suggests that LTBI screening would be more feasible when they are scheduled to be a high-risk group, than when they had already become. Relatively low uptake rate of LTBI screening rate among PLHIV (41.3%) who were specified as the highest TB risk group could be explained by this hypothesis considering a low diagnosis rate of HIV and a low CD4+ cell count at diagnosis suggesting delayed diagnosis of HIV in South Korea[16,17]. We presume that diagnosis of HIV in earlier course of the disease would enhance the LTBI screening uptake rate. Further studies are needed to verify this hypothesis.

ESRD showed high SIR as other diseases with high TB risk, although it was specified as a disease with moderate TB risk in South Korea[15]. Additionally, it showed the highest SIR among all prevalent groups, suggesting that immunosuppression state could last for a longer period than other groups. Therefore, it should be reclassified as a disease with a high TB risk. However, LTBI screening is not widely performed for those with ESRD. We speculate that screening LTBI at earlier stage in chronic kidney disease (CKD) could be an alternative option for increasing the uptake rate of LTBI screening, like that for PLHIV. However, potential nephrotoxicity of anti-TB medication, especially rifampicin, is a concern[22], which might lower the uptake rate of LTBI treatment among patients with pre-dialysis CKD. LTBI regimen without potential risk of nephrotoxicity should be investigated.

DM is a known risk factor for TB[23]. However, in our study, TB risk was relatively low among diseases with moderate TB risk. Instead, uncontrolled DM status rather than disease itself contributed to TB development, as reported in a previous study[24]. By focusing on patients with uncontrolled DM, the cost of LTBI screening could be reduced while the effectiveness of TB prevention is increased. However, mortality rate of this group was quite high – more than 10 times as high as that of the total DM group. This suggests that there might be other serious comorbidities among them. As in patients with ESRD and those with malignancy, comorbidities might limit the feasibility of LTBI screening.

Besides feasibility, strategy targeting these clinical risk groups has other limitations. First, these clinical risk groups accounted for only small proportion of nationwide TB patients – less than 1.5% for each group except for patients with DM. Similarly to our results, Ronald et al. have demonstrated that application of WHO’s LTBI guideline targeting only for TB contacts and clinical risk group can only minimally impact the national TB incidence of Canada[25]. Only 4.5% of active TB cases were preventable with this strategy. This suggests that covering clinical risk group is essential but insufficient to reduce TB burden. Identification of additional high-risk groups is required[26]. Second, when compared to SIR in younger generation, SIR in elderly population was much lower in most groups. This suggests that identifying diseases with a high TB risk could be a useful tool for risk stratification among younger generation whereas it is less useful in elderly population. The low SIR in elderly population is attributable to a high TB incidence among general elderly population in South Korea[27]. Other comorbidities not specified in current guidelines, waning immunity derived from aging, and malnutrition might also contribute to this[28]. In addition, we demonstrated that proportions of high TB risk diseases among elderly TB patients were extremely low, and lower than other age groups, implying LTBI screening strategy targeting for high TB risk diseases is less efficient in elderly population, than in other age groups.

In the previous Canadian study, covering immigrants from high TB burden countries potentially prevented 37.1% of total TB cases[25]. However, in South Korea, the proportion of foreign-born residents among total population was 3.4% in 2020, which was lower than average (14.7%) of other high-income countries[29]. Instead, native elderly TB patients are a key group in South Korea. In 2021, TB patients who aged 65 years or above accounted for approximately 51.0% of total TB cases[9]. LTBI screening and treatment among elderly population are not routinely recommended due to low predictive values of diagnostic tools such as IGRA and TST and higher incidence of adverse effects during LTBI treatment[20]. Recently, the necessity of expanding LTBI screening to elderly population has been suggested[30] and the feasibility of LTBI treatment among high-risk elderly population has been reported[31]. Further studies identifying high-risk elderly population should be implemented.

This study has a strength of linking two databases covering the entire South Korean population. Thus, many study subjects were included. We compared several diseases with high or moderate TB risk simultaneously at nationwide level within the same study period. However, our study had a limitation in that the LTBI status of each patient was unavailable. SIR among patients with LTBI might reflect more accurate TB risk. However, considering that most diseases did not affect LTBI prevalence[5] and that age was the most significant factor associated with LTBI prevalence[32], we assumed that LTBI prevalence in each group and general population were not quite different, and that age-adjusted SIR would be sufficient for estimating the actual TB risk. Another limitation was that the number of patients with LTBI was not known. Thus, calculation of further cascade of care such as initiation of LTBI treatment was unfeasible.

In conclusion, LTBI screening in certain clinical risk groups such as patients with ESRD and patients with uncontrolled DM should be reinforced. Ideally, LTBI screening should be provided around the date of the disease diagnosis. However, feasibility of LTBI treatment at that period remains a problem. Beyond the current guideline, identification of additional high-risk groups, especially among elderly population, is required.