TY - JOUR T1 - Latent tuberculosis screening and treatment in HIV: highly acceptable in a prospective cohort study JF - ERJ Open Research JO - erjor DO - 10.1183/23120541.00442-2021 SP - 00442-2021 AU - Helena A White AU - Hajra Okhai AU - Amandip Sahota AU - John Maltby AU - Iain Stephenson AU - Hemu Patel AU - Philip M Hefford AU - Martin J Wiselka AU - Manish Pareek Y1 - 2021/01/01 UR - http://openres.ersjournals.com/content/early/2021/11/11/23120541.00442-2021.abstract N2 - Background People living with HIV (PLWH) are at increased risk of reactivation of latent TB infection (LTBI). Although UK and international guidelines identify this group as a priority for LTBI screening and treatment, data on attitudes of PLWH to this policy recommendation are lacking.Methods A five-point, Likert-style questionnaire was administered to PLWH to assess views and intentions towards accepting LTBI screening and treatment. Subsequent Immune Gamma Release Assay (IGRA) testing was offered, and chemoprophylaxis if required. Influencing demographic and psychological associations with planned, and actual, testing and treatment uptake, were assessed using multivariable logistic regression.Results 444/716 (62%) patients responded. 417/437 (95.4%) expressed intention to accept LTBI testing. The only significant association was the perceived importance of testing to the individual (aOR 8.98, 95% CI 2.55–31.67). 390/393 (99·2%) accepted appropriate IGRA screening; 41/390 (10·5%) were positive. 397/431 (92.1%) expressed intention to accept chemoprophylaxis, associated with perceived importance of treatment (aOR 3.52, 95% CI 1.46–8.51), a desire to have treatment for LTBI (aOR 1.77, 95% CI 0.99–3.15), and confidence in taking treatment (aOR 3.77, 95% CI 1.84–7.72). Of those offered chemoprophylaxis, 36/37 (97·3%) accepted and 34/36 (94·4%) completed treatment. There were no correlates with actual screening acceptance.Conclusions LTBI is common amongst PLWH, highlighting the importance of robust screening and treatment programmes. This study shows that screening and treatment for LTBI is highly acceptable to PLWH and provides strong, objective, evidence for policy-makers developing guidelines in this cohort.FootnotesThis manuscript has recently been accepted for publication in the ERJ Open Research. It is published here in its accepted form prior to copyediting and typesetting by our production team. After these production processes are complete and the authors have approved the resulting proofs, the article will move to the latest issue of the ERJOR online. Please open or download the PDF to view this article.Conflict of interests: Dr. White has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interests: Miss Okhai has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interests: Dr. Sahota has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interests: Dr. Maltby has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interests: Dr. Stephenson has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interests: Mrs Patel has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interests: Mr. Hefford has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interests: Dr. Wiselka has nothing to disclose.Conflict of interests: Dr. Pareek has nothing to disclose. ER -