Around 40% of the world’s 11 million annual tuberculosis cases go undiagnosed, and the disease still kills 1.6 million people each year. Current control strategies rely on sick people seeking care, which can leave them infectious for months. This project uses mathematical modelling and data from four randomised trials to understand why some community-wide active case finding (ACF) programmes slash TB transmission while others show no effect. One trial cut childhood infection—a proxy for transmission—by 50%, but less intensive approaches failed. The researchers focus on three understudied factors that may explain the gap: whether past screening changes future participation, why men are screened less despite having more TB, and whether people who accept screening were already close to seeking care anyway. If the model can identify which ACF designs reliably reduce transmission at lower cost, it could help countries like South Africa, Uganda, and India—which are already scaling up ACF—spend limited resources more effectively. The work is applied, not fundamental: its goal is to make a specific public health intervention work better, not to explore a general biological principle.
View original technical description
Around 11 million people developed tuberculosis (TB) in 2021, and 1.6 million died from the disease. Current control strategies are insufficient, with global TB incidence falling by only 2% per year. One reason for the slow decline may be widespread reliance on passive case detection - requiring people with TB to present to healthcare services with symptoms. This means that people can be infectious for months or years before diagnosis, and an estimated 40% of incident TB was not diagnosed in 2021. Active case finding (ACF) - the systematic screening of high-risk groups or populations - is one way to find people with TB earlier, leading to reductions in transmission. The World Health Organization recommends ACF in areas with a high prevalence of TB. Recent National Strategic Plans from countries as diverse as South Africa, Uganda, and India contain plans to scale-up ACF in high risk populations. Despite the scaling up of ACF activities, considerable uncertainty remains as to their likely impact, and how it varies between approaches and settings. Three randomised control trials (RCTs) estimating the impact of ACF on transmission have been conducted. One trial achieved an impressive 50% (95% CI 22-68%) reduction in the prevalence of infection in children (a proxy for transmission), demonstrating that community ACF can be a highly effective in reducing transmission. The other trials used less intensive intervention approaches, and found no evidence for reductions in transmission. A fourth RCT found a reduction in TB prevalence, but did not estimate reductions in transmission. Mathematical modelling suggests that the differences between the trial results cannot be explained by differences in the tests used or numbers of cases detected. There is a need to understand factors that affect the reductions in TB incidence achieved through ACF, and to identify less intensive and expensive ACF approaches that can lead to reductions in transmission. Mathematical modelling can be used to predict the impact of ACF on TB incidence. However, assumptions typically made in models may not be correct, and models of ACF have rarely been validated using empirical data. In particular, we have identified three factors that may alter the impact of ACF on TB incidence: A) People who have been screened in previous rounds may be more or less likely to seek or accept screening. B) Coverage tends to be lower in men than in women, despite higher TB prevalences in men. C) The probability of participating in ACF may be higher for people who were closer to seeking care and receiving a diagnosis passively. The impact of these factors may vary by intervention design and setting.
Plain English summaries and category classifications on this site are generated by AI and may not perfectly reflect the original research.
Is something wrong? Let us know