Search

Background: Population Services International (PSI) Myanmar’s social franchise network of general practitioners, known as Sun Quality Health Clinics (SQHC), provided tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis and treatment with Direct Observed Treatment Short course (DOTs) across Myanmar since 2004, with a total of 898 clinics across the country. People who sought TB treatment from these SQHC by themselves were regarded as walk-in patients. To augment TB case notification, PSI Myanmar developed two treatment seeking channels: Community Health Services Providers (CHSP) and Interpersonal Communicators (IPC). They actively sought people who were suspected to have TB and referred them to SQH clinics. In this study, we compared the loss to follow-up rates of TB patients across three treatment seeking channels; and investigated risk-factors for loss to follow-up. Methods and findings: A retrospective cohort design was applied using TB client records between 2012 and 2016. Outcome was defined as loss to follow-up in comparison to successful TB treatment (completed or cured). Multivariate Poisson regression was conducted to estimate incidence rate ratio of loss to follow-up. Of the 62,664 TB patients registered at the SQHC, around 10% each were actively screened by the CHSP and the IPC, and 78.9% were walk-in patients. Overall cumulative incidence for loss to follow-up rate was significantly higher in the IPC channel (14.2%, 95% CI 13.4–15.1%) than walk-in patients (8.9%, 95% CI 8.6–9.1%) and the CHSP channel (5.5%, 95% CI 5.0–6.1%) (p<0.001). The median time after which patients were lost to follow-up from treatment was 4.04 months. We found that patients with older age, male sex, patients residing in hilly region, unknown smear status, retreated cases, HIV co-infection, and unknown HIV status were risk-factors for loss to follow-up in the continuation phase of treatment; whereas patients with higher initial body weight, patients who received travel support and patients taking treatment in older providers were less likely to be lost to follow-up. Conclusions: Based on these findings, we recommend that implementation strategies for improving case notification and treatment seeking should carefully consider retention strategies in parallel, and the identified influencing factors for loss to follow-up should be taken account for such consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The community-based MDR-TB care (CBMDR-TBC) project was implemented in 2015 by The Union in collaboration with national TB programme (NTP) in 33 townships of upper Myanmar to improve treatment outcomes among patients with MDR-TB registered under NTP. They received community-based support through the project staff, in addition to the routine domiciliary care provided by NTP staff. Each project township had a project nurse exclusively for MDR-TB and a community volunteer who provided evening directly observed therapy (in addition to morning directly observed therapy by NTP). Objectives: To determine the effect of CBMDR-TBC project on death and unfavourable outcomes during the intensive phase of MDR-TB treatment. Methods: In this cohort study involving record review, all patients diagnosed with MDR-TB between January 2015 and June 2016 in project townships and initiated on treatment till 31 Dec 2016 were included. CBMDR-TBC status was categorized as “receiving support” if project initiation in patient’s township was before treatment initiation, “receiving partial support” if project initiation was after treatment initiation, and “not receiving support” if project initiation was after intensive phase treatment outcome declaration. Time to event analysis (censored on 10 April 2017) and cox regression was done. Results: Of 261 patients initiated on treatment, death and unfavourable outcomes were accounted for 13% and 21% among “receiving support (n = 163)”, 3% and 24% among “receiving partial support (n = 75)” and 13% and 26% among “not receiving support (n = 23)” respectively. After adjusting for other potential confounders, the association between CBMDR-TBC and unfavourable outcomes was not statistically significant. However, when compared to “not receiving support”, those “receiving support” and “receiving partial support” had 20% [aHR (0.95 CI: 0.8 (0.2–3.1)] and 90% lower hazard [aHR (0.95 CI: 0.1 (0.02–0.9)] of death, respectively. This was intriguing. Implementation of CBMDR-TBC coincided with implementation of decentralized MDR-TB centers at district level. Hence, patients that would have generally not accessed MDR-TB treatment before decentralization also started receiving treatment and were also included under CBMDR-TBC “received support” group. These patients could possibly be expected to sicker at treatment initiation than patients in other CBMDR-TBC groups. This could be the possible reason for nullifying the effect of CBMDR-TBC in “receiving support” group and therefore similar survival was found when compared to “not receiving support”. Conclusion: CBMDR-TBC may prevent early deaths and has a scope for expansion to other townships of Myanmar and implications for NTPs globally. However, future studies should consider including data on extent of sickness at treatment initiation and patient level support received under CBMDR-TBC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]