Are treatment outcomes of patients with tuberculosis detected by active case finding different from those detected by passive case finding?

Context: India has adopted active case finding (ACF) as an additional strategy to find its missing tuberculosis (TB) cases since 2017. Treatment outcomes of patients identified through ACF may be similar or different from those detected through routine passive case finding (PCF); currently, there ar...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of global infectious diseases 2020-01, Vol.12 (1), p.28-33
Main Authors: Singh, Mahendra, Sagili, Karuna, Tripathy, Jaya, Kishore, Surekha, Bahurupi, Yogesh, Kumar, Ajay, Kala, Vagish, Yadav, Vikas, Murmu, Shikha
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Care and treatment
case finding
Clinical outcomes
Data collection
Ethics
india
loss to follow-up
Medical diagnosis
Medical research
operational research
Original
Patient outcomes
Patients
stigma
Studies
treatment outcome
Tuberculosis
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Context: India has adopted active case finding (ACF) as an additional strategy to find its missing tuberculosis (TB) cases since 2017. Treatment outcomes of patients identified through ACF may be similar or different from those detected through routine passive case finding (PCF); currently, there are limited studies on this in India. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess differences in treatment outcomes of patients detected through ACF and PCF under the national TB program. Study Design: A study was conducted in six TB units of Haridwar district where ACF campaigns were conducted in 2017-2018. Methods: Data from patients detected by ACF (n = 72) and PCF (n = 184) were extracted from program records. Results: Of 72 patients detected by ACF, only 54 (75%) were initiated on treatment. A high proportion of initial loss to follow-up (25% vs. 0%) and delay in treatment initiation (4 days vs. 0 days) was observed in ACF patients as compared to PCF. The proportion of unsuccessful treatment outcome was 33% (n = 18) among ACF patients compared to 14% (n = 25) among PCF patients (adjusted relative risk: 2.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.7-4.0). Conclusion: High initial loss to follow-up, delay in treatment initiation, and poor treatment outcome among ACF patients are a major concern. The study results call for active follow-up after diagnosis and close monitoring during treatment for patients detected by ACF.
ISSN:0974-777X
0974-8245
DOI:10.4103/jgid.jgid_66_19