In this case-control study in Lusaka, Zambia, we found no evidence of association between hyperglycaemia and active tuberculosis, except for when TB was restricted to individuals with smear/Xpert-positive pulmonary TB. There was evidence of effect modification by HIV for the association between hyperglycaemia and active TB. When adjusted for confounding factors, the association was stronger among individuals infected with HIV than among uninfected individuals.
When analysed as an ordered categorical variable with pre-defined categories, there was evidence of a non-linear association between hyperglycaemia and tuberculosis in our study population, as individuals with RBG concentration 7.0-8.9mmol/L had a lower odds of TB than individuals with lower or higher RBG concentration (p < 0.001). This was an unexpected finding and may be due to chance as there is no biological reason to explain this pattern.
Although our primary association findings are not in keeping with the findings of the most recent systematic review, which reported a pooled odds ratio of 2.77 for the association between hyperglycaemia and tuberculosis in Africa,[6] they do mirror the findings of some studies in nearby communities in Guinea-Bissau,[16] South Africa[9] and Tanzania.[5] Boillat-Blanco et al in Tanzania found a positive association between hyperglycaemia and tuberculosis at the time of TB treatment initiation, but the association disappeared when measurement of diabetes was repeated five months after TB treatment initiation, suggesting that the initial positive association was due to an increase in stress-induced hyperglycaemia among TB cases secondary to acute TB infection rather than due to DM.[5]
Our findings of a stronger association among HIV infected than uninfected individuals are in keeping with Oni’s findings[9] and could suggest that HIV and hyperglycaemia work synergistically to increase an individual’s risk of TB. Another possible explanation is an increase in stress-induced hyperglycaemia among newly-diagnosed TB cases, as seen in Boillat-Blanco’s study.[5] It is plausible that the most unwell newly diagnosed TB cases, and therefore the most likely to have stress-induced hyperglycaemia, could be found among individuals with HIV and smear/Xpert-positive pulmonary TB.
This study used a single RBG concentration to measure hyperglycaemia. This method is simple, quick, and minimises participant inconvenience, so is ideal for use in large community-based studies. However, use of this method is also a limitation of the study as it is not as sensitive for diabetes diagnosis as other glycaemia measures. We chose to go ahead with using this method because all other methods would have been challenging to perform on a large scale in the community and could have led to selection bias if considered to be unacceptable to healthy control participants. An alternative could have been the use of a clinic-based control population as a proxy to community controls, but this too could have led to selection bias. Assessing shifts in proportions of glucose concentration between cases and controls in addition to using a binary cut-off definition of hyperglycaemia has limited potential misclassification error that could exist with the use of this less sensitive measurement.
Our assessment of intra- and inter-operator variability suggests that measurement of point-of-care RBG among cases in this study was consistent and valid. We explored the possibility of also undertaking laboratory validation of glucose measurements but this was not possible in our setting, as point-of-care glucose measurement is the principal method for measuring glycaemia in the community and centrally. The laboratory alternatives were therefore not equipped to offer a reliable benchmark. This lack of laboratory validation of glucose measurements is a limitation of our study. Finding a solution to this challenge in our setting would be valuable for future similar studies.
The temporal space between recruitment of controls and cases is another potential source of bias and limitation of our study, though the study communities have relatively stable populations and to our knowledge there were no major changes in the prevalence of hyperglycaemia, diabetes or HIV, or the incidence of TB during the study period. Any potential change in use of ART is unlikely to have had a major impact on hyperglycaemia, as protease inhibitors – which are associated with the development of glucose disorders[17] – are not included among first-line ART regimes in Zambia.[18] This is supported by exploration of the impact of ART on the associations studied. Any bias introduced by the recruitment gap is therefore likely to have been, at the most, minimal. However, an unforeseen consequence of the gap was the discontinuation of the initial glucometer model used for control participants. It was therefore necessary to use a different model for case participants. We chose a similar model to minimise any potential variability between models and so any difference in measurement of glycaemia is likely to be small rather than large.
Complete data were unavailable for analysis for a substantial proportion of control participants, reasons for which are discussed elsewhere.[8, 19, 20] This has resulted in reduced study power but is unlikely to have introduced bias to our study results.
Control participants are representative of the general population and case participants are representative of TB cases in each community. The findings from this study are therefore generalizable to the study communities and likely also to communities elsewhere in sub-Saharan Africa with similar high incidence of TB and high prevalence of HIV.