Table 2.
Characteristic | No INH Preventive Therapy [n(%)] | INH Preventive Therapy [n(%)] | P Value* | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Age (N = 4,216) | |||||
0–5 yr | 664 (31) |
855 (41) |
<0.01 | ||
6–10 yr | 439 (21) |
532 (25) |
<0.01 | ||
11–15 yr | 489 (23) |
451 (22) |
<0.01 | ||
16–19 yr | 528 (25) |
258 (12) |
<0.01 | ||
Sex (N = 4,216) | |||||
F | 1,087 (51) |
1,033 (49) |
0.21 | ||
M | 1,033 (49) |
1,063 (51) |
0.21 | ||
HIV seropositive (n = 4,164) | |||||
No | 2,086 (100) |
2,074 (100) |
0.14 | ||
Yes | 4 (0) |
0 (0) |
— | ||
Diabetes mellitus (n = 4,202) | |||||
No | 2,111 (100) |
2,087 (100) |
0.99 | ||
Yes | 2 (0) |
2 (0) |
— | ||
BCG scars (N = 4,216) | |||||
0 | 423 | 20% | 401 | 19% | 0.39 |
>1 | 1,697 | 80% | 1,695 | 81% | — |
Smoking status (n = 4,209) | |||||
≤1 cigarette/d | 2,093 (99) |
2,091 (100) |
<0.01 | ||
>1 cigarette/d | 22 (1) |
3 (0) |
— | ||
Alcohol use (n = 4,195) | |||||
<3 drinks/d | 2,061 (98) |
2,079 (99) |
<0.01 | ||
≥3 drinks/d | 44 (2) |
11 (1) |
— | ||
Nutritional status† (n = 4,173) | |||||
Normal weight | 1,748 (83) |
1,681 (81) |
0.12 | ||
Underweight | 44 (2) |
59 (3) |
— | ||
Overweight | 308 (15) |
333 (16) |
— | ||
Use of public transportation (n = 4,120) | |||||
Nonuser | 736 (35) |
795 (39) |
0.02 | ||
1–3 d/wk | 709 (34) |
640 (32) |
0.02 | ||
4–7 d/wk | 652 (31) |
588 (29) |
0.02 | ||
Socioeconomic status‡ (n = 4,128) | |||||
Low | 821 (40) |
801 (39) |
0.20 | ||
Middle | 931 (45) |
887 (43) |
0.20 | ||
High | 325 (16) |
363 (18) |
0.20 | ||
TB infected at baseline (n = 4,068) | |||||
No | 1,417 (70) |
1,494 (73) |
0.01 | ||
Yes | 613 (30) |
544 (27) |
0.01 | ||
TB history (N = 4,216) | |||||
No | 2,042 (96) |
2,086 (100) |
<0.01 | ||
Yes | 78 (4) |
10 (0) |
<0.01 | ||
Employment (n = 4,214) | |||||
No | 1,893 (89) |
1,981 (95) |
<0.01 | ||
Yes | 226 (11) |
114 (5) |
<0.01 | ||
Being a student (n = 4,214) | |||||
No | 809 (38) |
727 (35) |
0.02 | ||
Yes | 1,311 (62) |
1,367 (65) |
0.02 | ||
Index case age (N = 4,216) | |||||
16–30 yr | 1,264 (60) |
1,197 (57) |
<0.01 | ||
31–45 yr | 438 (21) |
580 (28) |
<0.01 | ||
46–60 yr | 252 (12) |
155 (7) |
<0.01 | ||
>60 yr | 166 (8) |
164 (8) |
<0.01 | ||
Index case sex (n = 4,126) | |||||
F | 836 (39) |
1,024 (49) |
<0.01 | ||
M | 1,284 (61) |
1,072 (51) |
<0.01 | ||
Index case smoking status (n = 4,125) | |||||
None or light smoker | 2,037 (99) |
2,021 (98) |
0.45 | ||
Heavy smoker | 30 (1) |
37 (2) |
0.45 | ||
Index case drinking status (n = 4,053) | |||||
None or light drinker | 1,798 (89) |
1,833 (90) |
0.25 | ||
Heavy drinker | 222 (11) |
200 (10) |
0.25 | ||
Index case employment (n = 4,200) | |||||
No | 1,412 (67) |
1,384 (66) |
0.62 | ||
Yes | 697 (33) |
707 (34) |
0.62 | ||
Index case INH profile (N = 4,216) | |||||
Sensitive | 1,534 (72) |
1,630 (78) |
<0.01 | ||
Monoresistant | 185 (9) |
201 (10) |
<0.01 | ||
MDR | 401 (19) |
265 (13) |
<0.01 | ||
Index case marijuana use (n = 4,206) | |||||
No | 1,774 (84) |
1,811 (90) |
<0.01 | ||
Yes | 336 (16) |
284 (10) |
<0.01 | ||
Index case cocaine use (n = 4,206) | |||||
No | 1,715 (81) |
1,811 (86) |
<0.01 | ||
Yes | 396 (19) |
284 (14) |
<0.01 | ||
Household incarceration history (N = 4,216) | |||||
No | 1,863 (88) |
1,943 (92) |
<0.01 | ||
Yes | 257 (12) |
162 (8) |
<0.01 | ||
Household education (N = 4,216) | |||||
Low | 900 (42) |
1,384 (34) |
<0.01 | ||
Medium | 801 (38) |
707 (41) |
<0.01 | ||
High | 419 (20) |
1,384 (25) |
<0.01 | ||
Household district (N = 4,216) | |||||
Cercado de Lima | 238 (11) |
135 (6) |
0.62 | ||
Comas | 112 (5) |
135 (6) |
0.62 | ||
El Agustino | 294 (14) |
52 (2) |
0.62 | ||
La Victoria | 273 (13) |
178 (8) |
0.62 | ||
Los Olivos | 212 (10) |
238 (11) |
0.62 | ||
Rimac | 84 (4) |
323 (15) |
0.62 | ||
San Martin de Porres | 373 (18) |
605 (29) |
0.62 | ||
Santa Anita | 138 (7) |
83 (4) |
0.62 | ||
Others | 396 (19) | 347 (17) | 0.62 |
Definition of abbreviations: BCG = bacillus Calmette-Guérin; INH = isoniazid; MDR = multidrug resistant; TB = tuberculosis.
Compared the two groups using a χ2 test.
Nutritional status was defined by the World Health Organization body mass index z-score tables.
Socioeconomic status was defined using a principal component analysis based on housing quality, water supply, and sanitation.