No abstract

Rates of migration to Europe, and within Europe, have increased in recent years, with considerable implications for health systems. Migrants in Europe face a disproportionate burden of tuberculosis, HIV, and hepatitis B and C, yet experience a large number of barriers to accessing statutory health care on arrival. A better understanding of how to deliver effective and cost-effective screening, vaccination, and health services to this group is now crucial. We did a systematic review to document and assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of approaches used for infectious diseases screening, and to explore facilitators and barriers experienced by migrants to accessing screening programmes. Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched Embase, PubMed, PsychINFO, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (1989 to July 1, 2015, updated on Jan 1, 2018), with no language restrictions, and systematically approached experts across the European Union (EU) for grey literature. Inclusion criteria were primary research studies assessing screening interventions for any infectious disease in the migrant (foreign-born) population residing in EU or European Economic Area (EEA) countries. Primary outcomes were the following effectiveness indicators: uptake of screening, coverage, infections detected, and treatment outcomes. Of 4112 unique records, 47 studies met our inclusion criteria, from ten European countries (Belgium, Denmark, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, and the UK) encompassing 248 402 migrants. We found that most European countries screening migrants focus on single diseases only-predominantly active or latent tuberculosis infection-and specifically target asylum seekers and refugees, with 22 studies reporting on other infections (including HIV and hepatitis B and C). An infection was detected in 3·74% (range 0·00-95·16) of migrants. Latent tuberculosis had the highest prevalence across all infections (median 15·02% [0·35-31·81]). Uptake of screening by migrants was high (median 79·50% [18·62-100·00]), particularly in primary health-care settings (uptake 96·77% [76·00-100·00]). However, in 24·62% (0·12-78·99) of migrants screening was not completed and a final diagnosis was not made. Pooled data highlight high treatment completion in migrants (83·79%, range 0·00-100·00), yet data were highly heterogeneous for this outcome, masking important disparities between studies and infections, with only 54·45% (35·71-72·27) of migrants with latent tuberculosis ultimately completing treatment after screening. Coverage of the migrant population in Europe is low (39·29% [14·53-92·50]). Data on cost-effectiveness were scarce, but suggest moderate to high cost-effectiveness of migrant screening programmes depending on migrant group and disease targeted. European countries have adopted a variety of approaches to screening migrants for infections; however, these are limited in scope to single diseases and a narrow subset of migrants, with low coverage. More emphasis must be placed on developing inno...

There is heterogeneity in intrapartum antibiotic use and implementation of policy varies widely. Global strategies to enhance the prevention of group B streptococcal disease that may include maternal vaccination are needed.

Migration to Europe - and in particular the UK - has risen dramatically in the past decades, with implications for public health services. Migrants have increased vulnerability to infectious diseases (70% of TB cases and 60% HIV cases are in migrants) and face multiple barriers to healthcare. There is currently considerable debate as to the optimum approach to infectious disease screening in this often hard-to-reach group, and an urgent need for innovative approaches. Little research has focused on the specific experience of new migrants, nor sought their views on ways forward. We undertook a qualitative semi-structured interview study of migrant community health-care leads representing dominant new migrant groups in London, UK, to explore their views around barriers to screening, acceptability of screening, and innovative approaches to screening for four key diseases (HIV, TB, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C). Participants unanimously agreed that current screening models are not perceived to be widely accessible to new migrant communities. Dominant barriers that discourage uptake of screening include disease-related stigma present in their own communities and services being perceived as non-migrant friendly. New migrants are likely to be disproportionately affected by these barriers, with implications for health status. Screening is certainly acceptable to new migrants, however, services need to be developed to become more community-based, proactive, and to work more closely with community organisations; findings that mirror the views of migrants and health-care providers in Europe and internationally. Awareness raising about the benefits of screening within new migrant communities is critical. One innovative approach proposed by participants is a community-based package of health screening combining all key diseases into one general health check-up, to lessen the associated stigma. Further research is needed to develop evidence-based community-focused screening models - drawing on models of best practice from other countries receiving high numbers of migrants.

BackgroundMigrants, including refugees, asylum seekers, labour migrants, and undocumented migrants, now constitute a considerable proportion of most high-income countries’ populations, including their skilled and unskilled workforces. Migrants may be at increased risk of COVID-19 due to their health and social circumstances, yet the extent to which they are being affected and their predisposing risk factors are not clearly understood. We did a systematic review to assess clinical outcomes of COVID-19 in migrant populations (cases, hospitalisations, deaths), indirect health and social impacts, and to determine key risk factors.MethodsWe did a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines, registered with PROSPERO (CRD42020222135). We searched databases including PubMed, Global Health, Scopus, CINAHL, and pre-print databases (medRxiv) via the WHO Global Research on COVID-19 database to Nov 18, 2020 for peer-reviewed and grey literature pertaining to migrants (defined as foreign born) and COVID-19 in 82 high-income countries. We used our international networks to source national datasets and grey literature. Data were extracted on our primary outcomes (cases, hospitalisations, deaths) and we evaluated secondary outcomes on indirect health and social impacts, and risk factors, using narrative synthesis.Results3016 data sources were screened with 158 from 15 countries included in the analysis (35 data sources for primary outcomes: cases [21], hospitalisations [4]; deaths [15]; 123 for secondary outcomes). We found that migrants are at increased risk of infection and are disproportionately represented among COVID-19 cases. Available datasets suggest a similarly disproportionate representation of migrants in reported COVID-19 deaths, as well as increased all-cause mortality in migrants in some countries in 2020. Undocumented migrants, migrant health and care workers, and migrants housed in camps and labour compounds may have been especially affected. In general, migrants have higher levels of many risk factors and vulnerabilities relevant to COVID-19, including increased exposure to SARS-CoV-2 due to high-risk occupations and overcrowded accommodation, and barriers to health care including inadequate information, language barriers, and reduced entitlement to healthcare coverage related to their immigration status.ConclusionsMigrants in high-income countries are at high risk of exposure to, and infection with, COVID-19. These data are of immediate relevance to national public health responses to the pandemic and should inform policymaking on strategies for reducing transmission of COVID-19 in this population. Robust data on testing uptake and clinical outcomes in migrants, and barriers and facilitators to COVID-19 vaccination, are urgently needed, alongside strengthening engagement with diverse migrant groups.

Based on current evidence, routine screening for group B streptococcus colonisation in late pregnancy should not be introduced in the UK, as the potential harms of unnecessary treatment with antibiotics may outweigh the benefits, argue Farah Seedat and colleagues

BackgroundRising rates of infectious diseases in international migrants has reignited the debate around screening. There have been calls to strengthen primary-care-based programmes, focusing on latent TB. We did a cross-sectional study of new migrants to test an innovative one-stop blood test approach to detect multiple infections at one appointment (HIV, latent tuberculosis, and hepatitis B/C) on registration with a General Practitioner (GP) in primary care.MethodsThe study was done across two GP practices attached to hospital Accident and Emergency Departments (A&E) in a high migrant area of London for 6 months. Inclusion criteria were foreign-born individuals from a high TB prevalence country (>40 cases per 100,000) who have lived in the UK ≤ 10 years, and were over 18 years of age. All new migrants who attended a New Patient Health Check were screened for eligibility and offered the blood test. We followed routine care pathways for follow-up.ResultsThere were 1235 new registrations in 6 months. 453 attended their New Patient Health Check, of which 47 (10.4%) were identified as new migrants (age 32.11 years [range 18–72]; 22 different nationalities; time in UK 2.28 years [0–10]). 36 (76.6%) participated in the study. The intervention only increased the prevalence of diagnosed latent TB (18.18% [95% CI 6.98-35.46]; 181.8 cases per 1000). Ultimately 0 (0%) of 6 patients with latent TB went on to complete treatment (3 did not attend referral). No cases of HIV or hepatitis B/C were found. Foreign-born patients were under-represented at these practices in relation to 2011 Census data (Chi-square test −0.111 [95% CI −0.125 to −0.097]; p < 0.001).ConclusionThe one-stop approach was feasible in this context and acceptability was high. However, the number of presenting migrants was surprisingly low, reflecting the barriers to care that this group face on arrival, and none ultimately received treatment. The ongoing UK debate around immigration checks and charging in primary care for new migrants can only have negative implications for the promotion of screening in this group. Until GP registration is more actively promoted in new migrants, a better place to test this one-stop approach could be in A&E departments where migrants may present in larger numbers.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12879-014-0657-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

BackgroundTuberculosis (TB), caused byMycobacterium tuberculosis(MTB) [(Zopf 1883) Lehmann and Neumann 1896], is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Nearly one-third of the world’s population is infected with MTB; TB has an annual incidence of 9 million new cases and each year causes 2 million deaths worldwide.ObjectivesTo investigate the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of screening tests [interferon-gamma release assays (IGRAs) and tuberculin skin tests (TSTs)] in latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) diagnosis to support National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline development for three population groups: children, immunocompromised people and those who have recently arrived in the UK from high-incidence countries. All of these groups are at higher risk of progression from LTBI to active TB.Data sourcesElectronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Library and Current Controlled Trials were searched from December 2009 up to December 2014.Review methodsEnglish-language studies evaluating the comparative effectiveness of commercially available tests used for identifying LTBI in children, immunocompromised people and recent arrivals to the UK were eligible. Interventions were IGRAs [QuantiFERON®-TB Gold (QFT-G), QuantiFERON®-TB Gold-In-Tube (QFT-GIT) (Cellestis/Qiagen, Carnegie, VA, Australia) and T-SPOT.TB(Oxford Immunotec, Abingdon, UK)]. The comparator was TST 5 mm or 10 mm alone or with an IGRA. Two independent reviewers screened all identified records and undertook a quality assessment and data synthesis. A de novo model, structured in two stages, was developed to compare the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies.ResultsIn total, 6687 records were screened, of which 53 unique studies were included (a further 37 studies were identified from a previous NICE guideline). The majority of the included studies compared the strength of association for the QFT-GIT/G IGRA with the TST (5 mm or 10 mm) in relation to the incidence of active TB or previous TB exposure. Ten studies reported evidence on decision-analytic models to determine the cost-effectiveness of IGRAs compared with the TST for LTBI diagnosis. In children, TST (≥ 5 mm) negative followed by QFT-GIT was the most cost-effective strategy, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of £18,900 per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. In immunocompromised people, QFT-GIT negative followed by the TST (≥ 5 mm) was the most cost-effective strategy, with an ICER of approximately £18,700 per QALY gained. In those recently arrived from high TB incidence countries, the TST (≥ 5 mm) alone was less costly and more effective than TST (≥ 5 mm) positive followed by QFT-GIT or T-SPOT.TBor QFT-GIT alone.LimitationsThe limitations and scarcity of the evidence, variation in the exposure-based definitions of LTBI and heterogeneity in IGRA performance relative to TST limit the applicability of the review findings.ConclusionsGiven the current evidence, TST (≥ 5 mm) negative followed by QFT-GIT for children, QFT-GIT negative followed by TST (≥ 5 mm) for the immunocompromised population and TST (≥ 5 mm) for recent arrivals were the most cost-effective strategies for diagnosing LTBI that progresses to active TB. These results should be interpreted with caution given the limitations identified. The evidence available is limited and more high-quality research in this area is needed including studies on the inconsistent performance of tests in high-compared with low-incidence TB settings; the prospective assessment of progression to active TB for those at high risk; the relative benefits of two-compared with one-step testing with different tests; and improved classification of people at high and low risk for LTBI.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014009033.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.