Tuberculosis (TB) causes significant morbidity and mortality in high-income countries with foreign-born individuals bearing a disproportionate burden of the overall TB case burden in these countries. In this review of tuberculosis and migration we discuss the impact of migration on the epidemiology of TB in low burden countries, describe the various screening strategies to address this issue, review the yield and cost-effectiveness of these programs and describe the gaps in knowledge as well as possible future solutions. The reasons for the TB burden in the migrant population are likely to be the reactivation of remotely-acquired latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) following migration from low/intermediate-income high TB burden settings to high-income, low TB burden countries. TB control in high-income countries has historically focused on the early identification and treatment of active TB with accompanying contact-tracing. In the face of the TB case-load in migrant populations, however, there is ongoing discussion about how best to identify TB in migrant populations. In general, countries have generally focused on two methods: identification of active TB (either at/post-arrival or increasingly pre-arrival in countries of origin) and secondly, conditionally supported by WHO guidance, through identifying LTBI in migrants from high TB burden countries. Although health-economic analyses have shown that TB control in high income settings would benefit from providing targeted LTBI screening and treatment to certain migrants from high TB burden countries, implementation issues and barriers such as sub-optimal treatment completion will need to be addressed to ensure program efficacy.

Objectives: Tuberculosis (TB) disease adversely affects mother and child, and strategies to control TB in this group are important. The aim of this study was to analyze the epidemiology of TB in pregnancy, and to establish whether pregnancy is an independent risk factor for TB. Methods: The United Kingdom–wide cohort study was based on the General Practitioner Research Database (GPRD), enrolling all women with pregnancies between 1996 and 2008. Incidence rates and incidence rate ratios (IRRs) of TB events during pregnancy, 6 months postpartum, and outside pregnancy were calculated and compared by Poisson regression. A nested self-controlled case series compared the risk of TB in these periods, adjusting for individual and time-bound confounders. Measurements and Main Results: The crude TB rate for the combined pregnancy and postpartum period was 15.4 per 100,000 person-years, significantly higher than outside of pregnancy (9.1 per 100,000 person-years; P = 0.02). Adjusting for age, region, and socioeconomic status the postpartum TB risk was significantly higher than outside pregnancy (IRR, 1.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24–3.07), whereas there was no significant increase during pregnancy (IRR, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.82–2.03). These observations were confirmed in the self-controlled case series (IRR, 1.62; 95% CI, 1.01–2.58 and IRR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.64–1.65, respectively). Conclusions: The incidence of TB diagnosis is significantly increased postpartum. Although we did not find an increase during pregnancy, the postpartum incidence may reflect an increase during pregnancy given diagnostic, immunological and administrative delays. Clinicians’ awareness should be improved and the effectiveness of public health policy measures such as targeted screening of pregnant and postpartum women in high-risk groups should be evaluated.

Treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is an important component of tuberculosis (TB) control, and this study updates a previous network meta-analysis of the best LTBI treatment options to inform public health action and programmatic management of LTBI. To evaluate the comparative efficacy and harms of LTBI treatment regimens aimed at preventing active TB among adults and children. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science from indexing to 8 May 2017; clinical trial registries; and conference abstracts. No language restrictions were applied. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated human LTBI treatments and recorded at least 1 of 2 prespecified end points (hepatotoxicity and prevention of active TB). 2 investigators independently extracted data from eligible studies and assessed study quality according to a standard protocol. The network meta-analysis of 8 new and 53 previously included studies showed that isoniazid regimens of 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.65 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.50 to 0.83]) or 12 to 72 months (OR, 0.50 [CrI, 0.41 to 0.62]), rifampicin-only regimens (OR, 0.41 [CrI, 0.19 to 0.85]), rifampicin-isoniazid regimens of 3 to 4 months (OR, 0.53 [CrI, 0.36 to 0.78]), rifampicin-isoniazid-pyrazinamide regimens (OR, 0.35 [CrI, 0.19 to 0.61]), and rifampicin-pyrazinamide regimens (OR, 0.53 [CrI, 0.33 to 0.84]) were efficacious compared with placebo. Evidence existed for efficacy of weekly rifapentine-isoniazid regimens compared with no treatment (OR, 0.36 [CrI, 0.18 to 0.73]). No conclusive evidence showed that HIV status altered treatment efficacy. Evidence was sparse for many comparisons and hepatotoxicity outcomes, and risk of bias was high or unknown for many studies. Evidence exists for the efficacy and safety of 6-month isoniazid monotherapy, rifampicin monotherapy, and combination therapies with 3 to 4 months of isoniazid and rifampicin. U.K. National Institute for Health Research. (PROSPERO: CRD42016037871)

Effective treatment of latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) is an important component of TB elimination programs. Promising new regimens that may be more effective are being introduced. Because few regimens can be directly compared, network meta-analyses, which allow indirect comparisons to be made, strengthen conclusions. To determine the most efficacious regimen for preventing active TB with the lowest likelihood of adverse events to inform LTBI treatment policies. PubMed, EMBASE, and Web of Science up to 29 January 2014; clinical trial registries; and conference abstracts. Randomized, controlled trials that evaluated LTBI treatment in humans and recorded at least 1 of 2 prespecified end points (preventing active TB or hepatotoxicity), without language or date restrictions. Data from eligible studies were independently extracted by 2 investigators according to a standard protocol. Of the 1516 articles identified, 53 studies met the inclusion criteria. Data on 15 regimens were available; of 105 possible comparisons, 42 (40%) were compared directly. Compared with placebo, isoniazid for 6 months (odds ratio [OR], 0.64 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.48 to 0.83]) or 12 months or longer (OR, 0.52 [CrI, 0.41 to 0.66]), rifampicin for 3 to 4 months (OR, 0.41 [CrI, 0.18 to 0.86]), and rifampicin–isoniazid regimens for 3 to 4 months (OR, 0.52 [CrI, 0.34 to 0.79]) were efficacious within the network. The risk of bias was unclear for many studies across various domains. Evidence was sparse for some comparisons, particularly hepatotoxicity. Comparison of different LTBI treatment regimens showed that various therapies containing rifamycins for 3 months or more were efficacious at preventing active TB, potentially more so than isoniazid alone. Regimens containing rifamycins may be effective alternatives to isoniazid monotherapy. None.

Tuberculosis elimination in countries with a low incidence of the disease necessitates multiple interventions, including innovations in migrant screening. We examined a cohort of migrants screened for tuberculosis before entry to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland and tracked the development of disease in this group after arrival. As part of a pilot pre-entry screening programme for tuberculosis in 15 countries with a high incidence of the disease, the International Organization for Migration screened all applicants for UK visas aged 11 years or older who intended to stay for more than 6 months. Applicants underwent a chest radiograph, and any with results suggestive of tuberculosis underwent sputum testing and culture testing (when available). We tracked the development of tuberculosis in those who tested negative for the disease and subsequently migrated to England, Wales, and Northern Ireland with the Enhanced Tuberculosis Surveillance system. Primary outcomes were cases of all forms of tuberculosis (including clinically diagnosed cases), and bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis. Our study cohort was 519 955 migrants who were screened for tuberculosis before entry to the UK between Jan 1, 2006, and Dec 31, 2012. Cases notified on the Enhanced Tuberculosis Surveillance system between Jan 1, 2006, and Dec 31, 2013, were included. 1873 incident cases of all forms of tuberculosis were identified, and, on the basis of data for England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, the estimated incidence of all forms of tuberculosis in migrants screened before entry was 147 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI 140–154). The estimated incidence of bacteriologically confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis in migrants screened before entry was 49 per 100 000 person-years (95% CI 45–53). Migrants whose chest radiographs were compatible with active tuberculosis but with negative pre-entry microbiological results were at increased risk of tuberculosis compared with those with no radiographic abnormalities (incidence rate ratio 3·2, 95% CI 2·8–3·7; p<0·0001). Incidence of tuberculosis after migration increased significantly with increasing WHO-estimated prevalence of tuberculosis in migrants' countries of origin. 35 of 318 983 pre-entry screened migrants included in a secondary analysis with typing data were assumed index cases. Estimates of the rate of assumed reactivation tuberculosis ranged from 46 (95% CI 42–52) to 91 (82–102) per 100 000 population. Migrants from countries with a high incidence of tuberculosis screened before being granted entry to low-incidence countries pose a negligible risk of onward transmission but are at increased risk of tuberculosis, which could potentially be prevented through identification and treatment of latent infection in close collaboration with a pre-entry screening programme. Wellcome Trust, UK National Institute for Health Research, UK Medical Research Council, Public Health England, and Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

Migration patterns into and within Europe have changed over the last decade. In 2015, European Union (EU) countries received over 1.2 million asylum requests, more than double the number registered in the previous year. This review compares the published literature on policies for tuberculosis (TB) and latent tuberculous infection (LTBI) screening in EU and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) countries with the existing TB/LTBI screening programmes for migrants in 11 EU/EFTA countries based on a survey of policy and surveillance systems. In addition, we provide a systematic review of the literature on the yield of screening migrants for active TB and LTBI in Europe. Published studies provide limited information about screening coverage and the yield of screening evaluations in EU/EFTA countries. Furthermore, countries use different screening strategies and settings, and different definitions for coverage and yield of screening for active TB and LTBI. We recommend harmonising case definitions, reporting standards and policies for TB/LTBI screening. To achieve TB elimination targets, a European platform for multi-country data collection and analysis, sharing of countries' policies and practices, and harmonisation of migrant screening strategies is needed.