HHS Public Access

Author manuscript
JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 September 06.
Author Manuscript

Published in final edited form as:

JAMA. 2016 September 06; 316(9): 931–933. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.11021.

The Challenge of Latent TB Infection

Henry M. Blumberg, MD and Joel D. Ernst, MD
Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine,
Atlanta, Georgia (Blumberg); Department of Epidemiology, Emory Rollins School of Public Health,
Atlanta, Georgia (Blumberg); Department of Global Health, Emory Rollins School of Public
Health, Atlanta, Georgia (Blumberg); Division of Infectious Diseases and Immunology,
Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York (Ernst);
Author Manuscript

Department of Pathology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York (Ernst);
Department of Microbiology, New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York (Ernst)

Tuberculosis (TB) is an enormous global public health problem and has emerged as the
leading cause of death linked to a single pathogen: deaths attributable to TB now exceed
those attributable to human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) (1.5 million vs 1.2 million in
2014).1 The World Health Organization estimates that there were 9.6 million new TB cases
in 2014.1 The large majority of cases occur in low and middle-income countries, especially
in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. In the United States, 9563 cases of TB were reported in
2015, for a rate of 3 cases per 100000.2 The global TB epidemic affects the United States
because about two-thirds of US TB cases occur among non–US-born persons; higher rates
of TB are also found among US-born persons of color.2 Tuberculosis remains an important
Author Manuscript

public health problem in selected geographic areas.2 In 2013, 555 deaths attributable to TB
were reported in the United States, the most recent year for which these data are available.3

Clinically, TB has been dichotomized into active disease (patients who are generally
symptomatic and may be infectious if pulmonary disease is present) and latent infection
(asymptomatic, noninfectious, but at variable risk for progression to active TB disease).
There is increasing recognition that latent TB infection (LTBI) likely includes diverse
responses to infection with Mycobacterium tuberculosis and, consequently, heterogeneous
clinical outcomes. This includes individuals whose immunologic response is insufficient and
who progress to primary active disease; those who have subclinical disease; those who
initially contain infection but later progress to active TB disease; those who maintain
persistent, life-long asymptomatic infection; and those who may effectively clear infection
Author Manuscript

by generating especially effective immune responses.4 Certain epidemiologic factors are

associated with an increased risk of progression to active TB, including recent infection (eg,
contacts of persons with active TB) and HIV co-infection (the greatest risk factor for
progression to active TB disease), but otherwise there is a lack of understanding and tools to
predict who will and who will not progress from LTBI to active TB. This poses a major

Corresponding Author: Henry M. Blumberg, MD, Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Medicine, Emory University School
of Medicine, 49 Jesse Hill Jr Dr, Atlanta, GA 30303 (henry.m.blumberg@emory.edu).
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of
Interest. Both authors have noted that they serve as principal investigators on National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other federal
grants. No other disclosures are reported.
 Blumberg and Ernst Page 2

challenge to TB control and efforts to target screening and therapy for LTBI and complicates
Author Manuscript

efforts to implement guidelines on how best to screen patients for LTBI in the United States.

An estimated 12.4 million persons in the United States have LTBI, with non–US-born
persons representing an increasingly larger proportion (73%) of this group.5 The World
Health Organization, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and
professional societies such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the American
Thoracic Society have recommended targeted testing and treatment of high-risk individuals
with LTBI as part of control strategies and efforts at TB elimination for the United
States.2,6–8 As noted by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) and others,
treatment of LTBI can significantly reduce the risk of progression to active disease with the
greatest benefit among high-risk individuals.6,8–10 Globally, there is growing interest in the
diagnosis and treatment of LTBI and efforts to expand such activities beyond high income,
low-burden countries.11,12 In the United States, there is increasing recognition that screening
Author Manuscript

and treatment of LTBI among high-risk individuals should be part of primary care activities,
especially if progress is to be made in enhancing TB control efforts and pre-elimination
(defined as <1 TB case per 100000 per year) and the ultimate goal of TB elimination. Thus,
the USPSTF Recommendation Statement on screening in primary care settings for LTBI in
adults and the accompanying Evidence Report and systematic review that provides support
for the USPSTF recommendations, both of which are published in this issue of JAMA, are
well timed.9,10

The USPSTF recommends screening for LTBI in populations at increased risk and gives this
“B” recommendation (“offer or provide this service”). However, the highest-risk populations
and thus those with the greatest benefit for targeted screening and treatment (persons living
with HIV, close contacts of persons with active TB, and those being treated with
Author Manuscript

immunosuppressive agents such as tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors) were excluded
from the USPSTF review of evidence because “screening in these populations may be
considered standard care as part of disease management or indicated prior to the use of
certain medications….” Once these highest-risk groups are removed, which patients are high
risk in the primary care setting, and how should clinicians implement the USPSTF
recommendations?

The USPSTF recommendations and systematic review include the standard estimate that the
lifetime risk of active TB after infection is 5% to 10%. Although the risk varies widely, the
majority of immunocompetent persons with LTBI do not progress to active TB disease. The
risk of progression to active TB among persons with LTBI seen in primary care settings is
incompletely defined, because the currently available diagnostic tests (including the
Author Manuscript

tuberculin skin test and the interferon-gamma release assays [IGRAs]) have a poor
predictive value for TB disease progression.8 The USPSTF indicates that “many comments”
were received on their draft guidelines that “sought clarification around risk assessment of
populations who should receive screening.” Namely, who is considered at “high risk” in
primary care settings and should be USPSTF answer: “clinicians may consult their local or
state public health agency for additional details on specific populations at risk in their
community.”

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 September 06.

 Blumberg and Ernst Page 3

While there are geographic differences in risk factors for LTBI, the USPSTF may not have
Author Manuscript

been able to provide additional guidance on how best to define “high risk” because of the
lack of tools to know who will progress from LTBI to active disease. Currently, it is not
possible to provide personalized medicine for LTBI, owing to a lack of understanding of TB
biology. A recent study by Zak et al13 suggests that blood biomarkers (in this study, whole-
blood gene expression data) may be useful to identify individuals at risk for progression to
active TB disease in otherwise healthy patients who have latent infection. Our hypothesis is
that “immunologic signatures” related to antigen-specific T-cell responses may provide the
ability to develop new biomarkers that predict disease progression.

Further guidance for clinicians (eg, from the CDC and state and local health departments) is
needed to implement these USPSTF recommendations in primary care settings. Given that
the highest-risk groups (eg, persons living with HIV, contacts of persons with active TB,
persons who will receive tumor necrosis factor alpha inhibitors) were not part of the
Author Manuscript

USPSTF scope of review, the most frequently encountered high-risk group will include
immigrants from countries with high TB burden, which may represent the best target for
screening in primary care settings. Other individuals at increased risk may include homeless
persons, illicit drug users, and those who are incarcerated or who work in a correctional
facility or other high-risk congregate settings such as homeless shelters. Risk assessment
tools that have been developed by the CDC and the California Department of Public Health
may be of use to clinicians in implementing the USPSTF recommendations.14,15 The
USPSTF notes that in the accompanying systematic review9 there were insufficient data to
make a recommendation for or against screening among persons with diabetes. Worldwide,
especially in countries with high TB burden, diabetes and smoking are important risk
factors.1
Author Manuscript

Harm does occur when screening low-risk US populations. Targeted testing for LTBI is
recommended by the CDC and others because even with highly specific diagnostic tests,
testing of low- or very low–risk populations will result in many false-positive results.6,16
However, in the United States, extensive testing for LTBI is misguided when it involves
testing low-risk individuals because of outdated state laws (that require food handlers,
teachers, or other low-risk groups to be tested) or federal recommendations17 or
Occupational Safety and Health Administration mandates related to testing of health care
workers that have not kept up with the changing epidemiology of TB. Unlike countries with
high TB burden, the vast majority of US health care workers are not at increased risk for
occupationally acquired TB infection. However, tens or hundreds of thousands of low-risk
US health care workers are required to undergo yearly testing for LTBI. This results in high
rates of false-positive test results, especially if IGRAs are used for serial testing of low-risk
Author Manuscript

health careworkers.18 Additional harm can be the consequence of toxicity of the drugs used
to treat LTBI; this makes screening and accurate identification of those at high or low risk
especially compelling.

Poor completion rates (<50% for those who agree to initiate therapy) complicate the
challenge of treating LTBI.19 Patients treated for LTBI are asymptomatic, regimens are long
(up to 9 months), and clinicians are not able to provide patients with a precise estimate of
the risk of progressing to active TB.

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 September 06.

 Blumberg and Ernst Page 4

The USPSTF focused on CDC-recommended treatment regimens for LTBI.6,20 These

Author Manuscript

include 9 months of self-administered isoniazid, 4 months of self-administered rifampin, or

12 doses of weekly isoniazid plus rifapentine delivered by directly observed therapy.
Primary care settings rarely have the resources to provide directly observed therapy. A recent
report indicated that completion rates of self-administered weekly isoniazid/rifapentine was
not inferior to directly observed therapy for the treatment of LTBI.21 This study is likely to
facilitate changes in CDC treatment guidelines for this regimen, with wider use in the
primary care setting.

The USPSTF recommendations on screening for TB provide a service by focusing

discussions on how to expand efforts on targeted testing and treatment of LTBI among adults
seen in primary care settings. There will be challenges with implementation of these
recommendations because of the current inability to precisely define individuals at high risk
for progression to active TB. The recommendations also highlight the need for new and
Author Manuscript

better tools for control of TB, including LTBI. In the short run, implementation science
(operational research) will be needed to help facilitate the best ways of implementing the
USPSTF recommendations. In the long run and to overcome the challenge of LTBI, new
tools are needed including new and better diagnostic tests, biomarkers that have a high
predictive value for identifying which patients are at risk for progression to active disease,
and shorter, more effective, and better-tolerated regimens for treatment of LTBI. Such
advancements will not be made without substantial investments in TB research by funders,
including foundations and, most importantly, the United States and other governments from
high- and middle-income countries.

Acknowledgments
Author Manuscript

Funding/Support: This work was supported in part by grants from the NIH (U19 AI111211 and UL1 TR000454).

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The NIH had no role in the preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript or
decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1. World Health Organization. Global Tuberculosis Report, 2015. 20. Geneva, Switzerland: World
Health Organization; 2015.
2. Salinas JL, Mindra G, Haddad MB, Pratt R, Price SF, Langer AJ. Leveling of tuberculosis incidence
—United States, 2013–2015. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2016; 65(11):273–278. [PubMed:
27010173]
3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Accessed July 20, 2016] Fact Sheet: Trends in
Tuberculosis. 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/factsheets/statistics/tbtrends-2014.pdf
4. O’Garra A, Redford PS, McNab FW, Bloom CI, Wilkinson RJ, Berry MP. The immune response in
Author Manuscript

tuberculosis. Annu Rev Immunol. 2013; 31:475–527. [PubMed: 23516984]

5. Mancuso JD, Diffenderfer JM, Ghassemieh BJ, Horne DJ, Kao TC. The prevalence of latent
tuberculosis infection in the United States [published online February 11, 2016]. Am J Respir Crit
Care Med. 2016; doi: 10.1164/rccm.201508-1683OC
6. American Thoracic Society. Targeted tuberculin testing and treatment of latent tuberculosis
infection. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2000; 49(RR-6):1–51.
7. Taylor Z, Nolan CM, Blumberg HM. American Thoracic Society; Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; Infectious Diseases Society of America. Controlling tuberculosis in the United States:

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 September 06.

 Blumberg and Ernst Page 5

recommendations from the American Thoracic Society, CDC, and the Infectious Diseases Society
of America. MMWR Recomm Rep. 2005; 54(RR-12):1–81.
Author Manuscript

8. Getahun H, Matteelli A, Abubakar I, et al. Management of latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis

infection: WHO guidelines for low tuberculosis burden countries. Eur Respir J. 2015; 46(6):1563–
1576. [PubMed: 26405286]
9. Kahwati LC, Feltner C, Halpern M, et al. Primary care screening and treatment for latent
tuberculosis infection in adults: evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive
Services Task Force. JAMA.
10. US Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for latent tuberculosis infection in adults: US
Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA.
11. Getahun H, Matteelli A, Chaisson RE, Raviglione M. Latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis
infection. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(22):2127–2135. [PubMed: 26017823]
12. World Health Organization. Guidelines on the Management of Latent Tuberculosis Infection.
Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization; 2015.
13. Zak DE, Penn-Nicholson A, Scriba TJ, et al. ACS GC6-74 cohort study groups. A blood RNA
signature for tuberculosis disease risk: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2016; 387(10035):
Author Manuscript

2312–2322. [PubMed: 27017310]

14. California Department of Public Health. [Accessed July 20, 2016] California Tuberculosis Risk
Assessment. https://www.cdph.ca.gov/programs/tb/Documents/TBCB-CA-TB-Risk-Assessment-
and-Fact-Sheet.pdf
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. [Accessed July 20, 2016] Sample TB Risk Assessment
Tool. http://www.cdc.gov/tb/publications/ltbi/appendixa.htm
16. Agoritsas T, Courvoisier DS, Combescure C, Deom M, Perneger TV. Does prevalence matter to
physicians in estimating post-test probability of disease? a randomized trial. J Gen Intern Med.
2011; 26(4):373–378. [PubMed: 21053091]
17. Jensen PA, Lambert LA, Iademarco MF, Ridzon R. CDC. Guidelines for preventing the
transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in health-care settings, 2005. MMWR Recomm Rep.
2005; 54(RR-17):1–141.
18. Dorman SE, Belknap R, Graviss EA, et al. Tuberculosis Epidemiologic Studies Consortium.
Interferon-γ release assays and tuberculin skin testing for diagnosis of latent tuberculosis infection
Author Manuscript

in healthcare workers in the United States. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014; 189(1):77–87.
[PubMed: 24299555]
19. Hirsch-Moverman Y, Shrestha-Kuwahara R, Bethel J, et al. Tuberculosis Epidemiologic Studies
Consortium (TBESC). Latent tuberculous infection in the United States and Canada: who
completes treatment and why? Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2015; 19(1):31–38. [PubMed: 25519787]
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Recommendations for use of an isoniazid-
rifapentine regimen with direct observation to treat latent Mycobacterium tuberculosis infection.
MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2011; 60(48):1650–1653. [PubMed: 22157884]
21. Belknap, RBA., Holland, D., Feng, PJ., et al. Adherence to once-weekly self-administered INH and
rifapentine for latent TB: iAdhere (Abstract 827LB). Paper presented at: Conference on
Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections (CROI); February 23–26, 2015; Seattle, WA.
Author Manuscript

JAMA. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2017 September 06.