Suchergebnisse

OBJECTIVES: The proportion of tuberculosis (TB) cases occurring in migrants in Europe is increasing. Extrapulmonary TB poses challenges in diagnosis and treatment and causes serious morbidity and mortality, yet its extent in migrant populations is unclear. We assessed patterns of extrapulmonary TB in migrants across the European Union (EU)/European Free Trade Association (EFTA). We investigated the proportion of extrapulmonary TB cases among migrants versus non-migrants, and variations by specific site of disease, reporting European region, and migrant region of origin. METHODS: We carried out a cross-sectional secondary database analysis, utilizing 23 years of data collected between 1995 and 2017 from the European Surveillance System of the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control for 32 EU/EFTA countries. RESULTS: In total, 1 270 896 TB cases were included, comprising 326 987 migrants (25.7%) and 943 909 non-migrants (74.3%). Of TB cases among migrants, 45.2% (n = 147 814) were extrapulmonary compared to 21.7% (n = 204 613) among non-migrants (p < 0.001). Lymphatic, bone/joint and peritoneal/digestive TB were more common among migrant than non-migrant extrapulmonary cases. A lower proportion of extrapulmonary TB was seen in Eastern Europe (17.4%, n = 98 656 of 566 170) and Southern Europe (29.6%, n = 62 481 of 210 828) compared with Western (35.7%, n = 89 498 of 250 517) and Northern Europe (41.8%, n = 101 792 of 243 381). Migrants from South-East Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa were at highest risk of extrapulmonary disease, with 62.0% (n = 55 401 of 89 353) and 54.5% (n = 38 327 of 70 378) of cases, respectively, being extrapulmonary. CONCLUSIONS: Among TB cases in the EU/EFTA, extrapulmonary disease is significantly more common in migrants than in non-migrants. There is a need to improve clinical awareness of extrapulmonary TB and to integrate its detection into screening programmes.

BACKGROUND: Migrants in low tuberculosis (TB) incidence countries in the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area (EEA) are an at-risk group for latent tuberculosis infection (LTBI) and are increasingly included in LTBI screening programmes. AIM: To investigate current approaches and implement LTBI screening in recently arrived migrants in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. METHODS: At least one TB expert working at a national level from the EU/EEA and one TB expert from Switzerland completed an electronic questionnaire. We used descriptive analyses to calculate percentages, and framework analysis to synthesise free-text responses. RESULTS: Experts from 32 countries were invited to participate (30 countries responded): 15 experts reported an LTBI screening programme targeting migrants in their country; five reported plans to implement one in the near future; and 10 reported having no programme. LTBI screening was predominantly for asylum seekers (n = 12) and refugees (n = 11). Twelve countries use 'country of origin' as the main eligibility criteria. The countries took similar approaches to diagnosis and treatment but different approaches to follow-up. Six experts reported that drop-out rates in migrants were higher compared with non-migrant groups. Most of the experts (n = 22) called for a renewed focus on expanding efforts to screen for LTBI in migrants arriving in low-incidence countries. CONCLUSION: We found a range of approaches to LTBI screening of migrants in the EU/EEA and Switzerland. Findings suggest a renewed focus is needed to expand and strengthen efforts to meaningfully include migrants in these programmes, in order to meet regional and global elimination targets for TB.

Introduction: Early evidence confirms lower COVID-19 vaccine uptake in established ethnic minority populations, yet there has been little focus on understanding vaccine hesitancy and barriers to vaccination in migrants. Growing populations of precarious migrants (including undocumented migrants, asylum seekers and refugees) in the UK and Europe are considered to be under-immunised groups and may be excluded from health systems, yet little is known about their views on COVID-19 vaccines specifically, which are essential to identify key solutions and action points to strengthen vaccine roll-out. Methods: We did an in-depth semi-structured qualitative interview study of recently arrived migrants (foreign-born, >18 years old; <10 years in the UK) to the UK with precarious immigration status between September 2020 and March 2021, seeking their input into strategies to strengthen COVID-19 vaccine delivery and uptake. We used the 'Three Cs' model (confidence, complacency and convenience) to explore COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, barriers and access. Data were analysed using a thematic framework approach. Data collection continued until data saturation was reached, and no novel concepts were arising. The study was approved by the University of London ethics committee (REC 2020.00630). Results: We approached 20 migrant support groups nationwide, recruiting 32 migrants (mean age 37.1 years; 21 [66%] female; mean time in the UK 5.6 years [SD 3.7 years]), including refugees (n = 3), asylum seekers (n = 19), undocumented migrants (n = 8) and migrants with limited leave to remain (n = 2) from 15 different countries (5 WHO regions). 23 (72%) of 32 migrants reported being hesitant about accepting a COVID-19 vaccine and two (6%) would definitely not accept a vaccine. Participants communicated concerns over vaccine content, side-effects, lack of accessible information in an appropriate language, lack of trust in the health system and low perceived need. A range of barriers to accessing the COVID-19 vaccine were reported and concerns expressed that their communities would be excluded from or de-prioritised in the roll-out. Undocumented migrants described fears over being charged and facing immigration checks if they present for a vaccine. Participants (n = 10) interviewed after recent government announcements that COVID-19 vaccines can be accessed without facing immigration checks remained unaware of this. Participants stated that convenience of access would be a key factor in their decision around whether to accept a vaccine and proposed alternative access points to primary care services (for example, walk-in centres in trusted places such as foodbanks, community centres and charities), alongside promoting registration with primary care for all, and working closely with communities to produce accessible information on COVID-19 vaccination. Conclusions: Precarious migrants may be hesitant about accepting a COVID-19 vaccine and face multiple and unique barriers to access, requiring simple but innovative solutions to ensure equitable access and uptake. Vaccine hesitancy and low awareness around entitlement and relevant access points could be easily addressed with clear, accessible, and tailored information campaigns, co-produced and delivered by trusted sources within marginalised migrant communities. These findings have immediate relevance to the COVID-19 vaccination initiatives in the UK and in other European and high-income countries with diverse migrant populations. Funding: NIHR.