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

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mahendra Singh, Karuna D Sagili, Jaya P Tripathy, Surekha Kishore, Yogesh A Bahurupi, Ajay Kumar, Vagish Kala, Vikas Yadav, Shikha Murmu
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2020-01-01
Series:Journal of Global Infectious Diseases
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.jgid.org/article.asp?issn=0974-777X;year=2020;volume=12;issue=1;spage=28;epage=33;aulast=Singh
id doaj-3d7a8a7de8964b1697edad11886a9575
record_format Article
spelling doaj-3d7a8a7de8964b1697edad11886a95752020-11-25T02:42:00ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Global Infectious Diseases0974-777X2020-01-01121283310.4103/jgid.jgid_66_19Are treatment outcomes of patients with tuberculosis detected by active case finding different from those detected by passive case finding?Mahendra SinghKaruna D SagiliJaya P TripathySurekha KishoreYogesh A BahurupiAjay KumarVagish KalaVikas YadavShikha MurmuContext: 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.http://www.jgid.org/article.asp?issn=0974-777X;year=2020;volume=12;issue=1;spage=28;epage=33;aulast=Singhcase findingindialoss to follow-upoperational researchstigmatreatment outcometuberculosis
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Mahendra Singh
Karuna D Sagili
Jaya P Tripathy
Surekha Kishore
Yogesh A Bahurupi
Ajay Kumar
Vagish Kala
Vikas Yadav
Shikha Murmu
spellingShingle Mahendra Singh
Karuna D Sagili
Jaya P Tripathy
Surekha Kishore
Yogesh A Bahurupi
Ajay Kumar
Vagish Kala
Vikas Yadav
Shikha Murmu
Are treatment outcomes of patients with tuberculosis detected by active case finding different from those detected by passive case finding?
Journal of Global Infectious Diseases
case finding
india
loss to follow-up
operational research
stigma
treatment outcome
tuberculosis
author_facet Mahendra Singh
Karuna D Sagili
Jaya P Tripathy
Surekha Kishore
Yogesh A Bahurupi
Ajay Kumar
Vagish Kala
Vikas Yadav
Shikha Murmu
author_sort Mahendra Singh
title Are treatment outcomes of patients with tuberculosis detected by active case finding different from those detected by passive case finding?
title_short Are treatment outcomes of patients with tuberculosis detected by active case finding different from those detected by passive case finding?
title_full Are treatment outcomes of patients with tuberculosis detected by active case finding different from those detected by passive case finding?
title_fullStr Are treatment outcomes of patients with tuberculosis detected by active case finding different from those detected by passive case finding?
title_full_unstemmed Are treatment outcomes of patients with tuberculosis detected by active case finding different from those detected by passive case finding?
title_sort are treatment outcomes of patients with tuberculosis detected by active case finding different from those detected by passive case finding?
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series Journal of Global Infectious Diseases
issn 0974-777X
publishDate 2020-01-01
description 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.
topic case finding
india
loss to follow-up
operational research
stigma
treatment outcome
tuberculosis
url http://www.jgid.org/article.asp?issn=0974-777X;year=2020;volume=12;issue=1;spage=28;epage=33;aulast=Singh
work_keys_str_mv AT mahendrasingh aretreatmentoutcomesofpatientswithtuberculosisdetectedbyactivecasefindingdifferentfromthosedetectedbypassivecasefinding
AT karunadsagili aretreatmentoutcomesofpatientswithtuberculosisdetectedbyactivecasefindingdifferentfromthosedetectedbypassivecasefinding
AT jayaptripathy aretreatmentoutcomesofpatientswithtuberculosisdetectedbyactivecasefindingdifferentfromthosedetectedbypassivecasefinding
AT surekhakishore aretreatmentoutcomesofpatientswithtuberculosisdetectedbyactivecasefindingdifferentfromthosedetectedbypassivecasefinding
AT yogeshabahurupi aretreatmentoutcomesofpatientswithtuberculosisdetectedbyactivecasefindingdifferentfromthosedetectedbypassivecasefinding
AT ajaykumar aretreatmentoutcomesofpatientswithtuberculosisdetectedbyactivecasefindingdifferentfromthosedetectedbypassivecasefinding
AT vagishkala aretreatmentoutcomesofpatientswithtuberculosisdetectedbyactivecasefindingdifferentfromthosedetectedbypassivecasefinding
AT vikasyadav aretreatmentoutcomesofpatientswithtuberculosisdetectedbyactivecasefindingdifferentfromthosedetectedbypassivecasefinding
AT shikhamurmu aretreatmentoutcomesofpatientswithtuberculosisdetectedbyactivecasefindingdifferentfromthosedetectedbypassivecasefinding
_version_ 1724776032876101632