Search

Background: Charging for tuberculosis (TB) treatment could reduce completion rates, particularly in the poor. We identified and synthesised studies that measure costs of TB treatment, estimates of adherence and the potential impact of charging on treatment completion in China., Methods: Inclusion criteria were primary research studies, including surveys and studies using qualitative methods, conducted in mainland China. We searched MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, Science Direct, HEED, CNKI to June 2010; and web pages of relevant Chinese and international organisations. Cost estimates were extracted, transformed, and expressed in absolute values and as a percentage of household income., Results: Low income patients, defined at household or district level, pay a total of US$ 149 to 724 (RMB 1241 to 5228) for medical costs for a treatment course; as a percentage of annual household income, estimates range from 42% to 119%. One national survey showed 73% of TB patients at the time of the survey had interrupted or suspended treatment, and estimates from 9 smaller more recent studies showed that the proportion of patients at the time of the survey who had run out of drugs or were not taking them ranged from 3 to 25%. Synthesis of surveys and qualitative research indicate that cost is the most cited reason for default., Conclusions: Despite a policy of free drug treatment for TB in China, health services charge all income groups, and costs are high. Adherence measured in cross sectional surveys is often low, and the cumulative failure to adhere is likely to be much higher. These findings may be relevant to those concerned with the development and spread of multi-drug resistant TB. New strategies need to take this into account and ensure patient adherence.

Background: Drugs to protect the liver are frequently prescribed in some countries as part of treatment for tuberculosis. The biological rationale is not clear, they are expensive and may do harm. We conducted a systematic review to a) describe the ingredients of "liver protection drugs"; and b) compare the evidence base for the policy against international standards., Methods: We searched international medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the specialised register of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group) and Chinese language databases (CNKI, VIP and WanFang) to April 2007. Our inclusion criteria were research papers that reported evaluating any liver protection drug or drugs for preventing liver damage in people taking anti-tuberculosis treatment. Two authors independently categorised and extracted data, and appraised the stated methods of evaluating their effectiveness., Results: Eighty five research articles met our inclusion criteria, carried out in China (77), India (2), Russia (4), Ukraine (2). These articles evaluated 30 distinct types of liver protection compounds categorised as herbal preparations, manufactured herbal products, combinations of vitamins and other non-herbal substances and manufactured pharmaceutical preparations. Critical appraisal of these articles showed that all were small, poorly conducted studies, measuring intermediate outcomes. Four trials that were described as randomised controlled trials were small, had short follow up, and did not meet international standards., Conclusion: There is no reliable evidence to support prescription of drugs or herbs to prevent liver damage in people on tuberculosis treatment.

Background: Charging for tuberculosis (TB) treatment could reduce completion rates, particularly in the poor. We identified and synthesised studies that measure costs of TB treatment, estimates of adherence and the potential impact of charging on treatment completion in China. Methods: Inclusion criteria were primary research studies, including surveys and studies using qualitative methods, conducted in mainland China. We searched MEDLINE, PUBMED, EMBASE, Science Direct, HEED, CNKI to June 2010; and web pages of relevant Chinese and international organisations. Cost estimates were extracted, transformed, and expressed in absolute values and as a percentage of household income. Results: Low income patients, defined at household or district level, pay a total of US$ 149 to 724 (RMB 1241 to 5228) for medical costs for a treatment course; as a percentage of annual household income, estimates range from 42% to 119%. One national survey showed 73% of TB patients at the time of the survey had interrupted or suspended treatment, and estimates from 9 smaller more recent studies showed that the proportion of patients at the time of the survey who had run out of drugs or were not taking them ranged from 3 to 25%. Synthesis of surveys and qualitative research indicate that cost is the most cited reason for default. Conclusions: Despite a policy of free drug treatment for TB in China, health services charge all income groups, and costs are high. Adherence measured in cross sectional surveys is often low, and the cumulative failure to adhere is likely to be much higher. These findings may be relevant to those concerned with the development and spread of multi-drug resistant TB. New strategies need to take this into account and ensure patient adherence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Drugs to protect the liver are frequently prescribed in some countries as part of treatment for tuberculosis. The biological rationale is not clear, they are expensive and may do harm. We conducted a systematic review to a) describe the ingredients of "liver protection drugs"; and b) compare the evidence base for the policy against international standards. Methods: We searched international medical databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the specialised register of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group) and Chinese language databases (CNKI, VIP and WanFang) to April 2007. Our inclusion criteria were research papers that reported evaluating any liver protection drug or drugs for preventing liver damage in people taking anti-tuberculosis treatment. Two authors independently categorised and extracted data, and appraised the stated methods of evaluating their effectiveness. Results: Eighty five research articles met our inclusion criteria, carried out in China (77), India (2), Russia (4), Ukraine (2). These articles evaluated 30 distinct types of liver protection compounds categorised as herbal preparations, manufactured herbal products, combinations of vitamins and other non-herbal substances and manufactured pharmaceutical preparations. Critical appraisal of these articles showed that all were small, poorly conducted studies, measuring intermediate outcomes. Four trials that were described as randomised controlled trials were small, had short follow up, and did not meet international standards. Conclusion: There is no reliable evidence to support prescription of drugs or herbs to prevent liver damage in people on tuberculosis treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]