Search

BACKGROUNDThe inclusion of adolescents in TB drug trials is essential for the development of safe, child-friendly regimens for the prevention and treatment of TB. TB Trials Consortium Study 31/AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5349 (S31/A5349) enrolled adolescents as young as 12 years old. We assessed investigator and coordinator described facilitators and barriers to adolescent recruitment, enrollment, and retention.METHODSInterviews were conducted with six investigators from sites that enrolled adolescent participants and six investigators from non-enrolling sites. Additionally, two focus groups were conducted with study coordinators from enrolling sites and two focus groups with non-enrolling sites. Discussions were transcribed, analyzed, summarized, and summaries were reviewed by Community Research Advisors Group members and research group representatives for content validity.RESULTSInvestigators and coordinators attributed the successful enrollment of adolescents to the establishment and cultivation of external partnerships, flexibility to accommodate adolescents' schedules, staff engagement, recruitment from multiple locations, dedicated recruitment staff working onsite to access potential participants, creation of youth-friendly environments, and effective communications. Non-enrolling sites were mainly hindered by regulations. Suggestions for improvement in future trials focused on study planning and site preparations.CONCLUSIONProactive partnerships and collaboration with institutions serving adolescents helped identify and reduce barriers to their inclusion in this trial..

CDC recommends testing persons at increased risk for tuberculosis (TB) infection as part of routine health care, using TB blood tests, when possible, and, if a diagnosis of latent TB infection (LTBI) is made, prescribing a rifamycin-based, 3- or 4-month treatment regimen (short-course) to prevent the development of TB disease. In 2022, approximately three quarters (73%) of reported TB cases in the United States occurred among non-U.S.-born persons. To assess TB-related practices among health care providers (HCPs) in the United States, CDC analyzed data from the 2020-2022 Porter Novelli DocStyles surveys. Approximately one half (53.3%) of HCPs reported routinely testing non-U.S.-born patients for TB, and of those who did, 35.7% exclusively ordered recommended blood tests, 44.2% exclusively ordered skin tests, and 20.2% ordered TB skin tests and blood tests. One third (33.0%) of HCPs reported prescribing recommended short-course LTBI treatment regimens, and 4.0% reported doing none of the treatment practices available for patients with LTBI (i.e., prescribing short-course regimens, longer course regimens, or referring patients to a health department). Further efforts are needed to identify and overcome barriers for providers to test for and treat persons at risk for TB., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated patient safety within a randomized crossover trial comparing electronic directly observed therapy (eDOT) to in-person DOT (ipDOT) in persons undergoing TB treatment in New York City, NY, USA. METHODS: Participant symptoms, symptom severity, and clinical management were documented. We assessed adverse event reports (AERs) by DOT method during the two-period crossover. Using Cox proportional-hazards mixed-effects models, we estimated the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of participants reporting an adverse event (AE) vs. not reporting an AE. RESULTS: Of 211 participants, 57 (27.0%) reported AEs during the two-period crossover; of these, 54.4% (31/57) were reported while using eDOT vs. 45.6% (26/57) while using ipDOT. Controlling for study group and period, the aHR for eDOT vs. ipDOT was 0.98 (95% CI 0.49-1.93). Although statistically not significant, the wide confidence intervals suggest that a significant association cannot be entirely ruled out. Gastrointestinal symptoms were most frequently reported (42.1%, 24/57). AER types and severity did not differ significantly by DOT method. Days from symptom onset to medical attention was similar across DOT methods (median: 1.0 day, IQR 0.0-2.0). No participants switched DOT methods due to AERs or monitoring concerns. CONCLUSION: Further evaluation to ascertain whether AERs differ when patients use eDOT vs. ipDOT is warranted.

BACKGROUND: Electronic directly observed therapy (eDOT) has been proposed as an alternative to traditional in-person DOT (ipDOT) for monitoring TB treatment adherence. Information about the comparative performance and implementation of eDOT is limited. METHODS: The frequency of challenges during DOT, challenge type, and effect on medication observation were documented by DOT method during a crossover, noninferiority randomized controlled trial. A logistic mixed-effects model that adjusted for the study design was used to estimate the percentage of successfully observed doses when challenges occurred. RESULTS: A total of 20,097 medication doses were scheduled for observation with either eDOT (15,405/20,097; 76.7%) or ipDOT (4,692/20,097; 23.3%) for 213 study participants. In total, one or more challenges occurred during 17.3% (2,672/15,405) of eDOT sessions and 15.6% (730/4,692) of ipDOT sessions. Among 4,374 documented challenges, 27.3% ( n = 1,192) were characterized as technical, 65.9% ( n = 2,881) were patient-related, and 6.9% ( n = 301) were program-related. Estimated from the logistic model ( n = 6,782 doses, 173 participants), the adjusted percentage of doses successfully observed during problematic sessions was 21.7% (95% CI 11.2-37.8) for eDOT and 4.2% (95% CI 1.1-14.7) for ipDOT. CONCLUSION: Compared to ipDOT, challenges were encountered in a slightly higher percentage of eDOT sessions but were more often resolved to enable successful dose observation during problematic sessions.

U.S. clinical practice guidelines recommend directly observed therapy (DOT) as the standard of care for tuberculosis (TB) treatment (1). DOT, during which a health care worker observes a patient ingesting the TB medications, has typically been conducted in person. Video DOT (vDOT) uses video-enabled devices to facilitate remote interactions between patients and health care workers to promote medication adherence and clinical monitoring. Published systematic reviews, a published meta-analysis, and a literature search through 2022 demonstrate that vDOT is associated with a higher proportion of medication doses being observed and similar proportions of cases with treatment completion and microbiologic resolution when compared with in-person DOT (2-5). Based on this evidence, CDC has updated the recommendation for DOT during TB treatment to include vDOT as an equivalent alternative to in-person DOT. vDOT can assist health department TB programs meet the U.S. standard of care for patients undergoing TB treatment, while using resources efficiently., Competing Interests: All authors have completed and submitted the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors form for disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. No potential conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Importance: Electronic directly observed therapy (DOT) is used increasingly as an alternative to in-person DOT for monitoring tuberculosis treatment. Evidence supporting its efficacy is limited., Objective: To determine whether electronic DOT can attain a level of treatment observation as favorable as in-person DOT., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a 2-period crossover, noninferiority trial with initial randomization to electronic or in-person DOT at the time outpatient tuberculosis treatment began. The trial enrolled 216 participants with physician-suspected or bacteriologically confirmed tuberculosis from July 2017 to October 2019 in 4 clinics operated by the New York City Health Department. Data analysis was conducted between March 2020 and April 2021., Interventions: Participants were asked to complete 20 medication doses using 1 DOT method, then switched methods for another 20 doses. With in-person therapy, participants chose clinic or community-based DOT; with electronic DOT, participants chose live video-conferencing or recorded videos., Main Outcomes and Measures: Difference between the percentage of medication doses participants were observed to completely ingest with in-person DOT and with electronic DOT. Noninferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% confidence limit of the difference was 10% or less. We estimated the percentage of completed doses using a logistic mixed effects model, run in 4 modes: modified intention-to-treat, per-protocol, per-protocol with 85% or more of doses conforming to the randomization assignment, and empirical. Confidence intervals were estimated by bootstrapping (with 1000 replicates)., Results: There were 173 participants in each crossover period (median age, 40 years [range, 16-86 years]; 140 [66%] men; 80 [37%] Asian and Pacific Islander, 43 [20%] Black, and 71 [33%] Hispanic individuals) evaluated with the model in the modified intention-to-treat analytic mode. The percentage of completed doses with in-person DOT was 87.2% (95% CI, 84.6%-89.9%) vs 89.8% (95% CI, 87.5%-92.1%) with electronic DOT. The percentage difference was -2.6% (95% CI, -4.8% to -0.3%), consistent with a conclusion of noninferiority. The 3 other analytic modes yielded equivalent conclusions, with percentage differences ranging from -4.9% to -1.9%., Conclusions and Relevance: In this trial, the percentage of completed doses under electronic DOT was noninferior to that under in-person DOT. This trial provides evidence supporting the efficacy of this digital adherence technology, and for the inclusion of electronic DOT in the standard of care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03266003.

Objectives. To assess costs of video and traditional in-person directly observed therapy (DOT) for tuberculosis (TB) treatment to health departments and patients in New York City, Rhode Island, and San Francisco, California. Methods. We collected health department costs for video DOT (VDOT; live and recorded), and in-person DOT (field- and clinic-based). Time-motion surveys estimated provider time and cost. A separate survey collected patient costs. We used a regression model to estimate cost by DOT type. Results. Between August 2017 and June 2018, 343 DOT sessions were captured from 225 patients; 87 completed a survey. Patient costs were lowest for VDOT live ($1.01) and highest for clinic DOT ($34.53). The societal (health department + patient) costs of VDOT live and recorded ($6.65 and $12.64, respectively) were less than field and clinic DOT ($21.40 and $46.11, respectively). VDOT recorded health department cost was not statistically different from field DOT cost in Rhode Island. Conclusions. Among the 4 different modalities, both types of VDOT were associated with lower societal costs when compared with traditional forms of DOT. Public Health Implications. VDOT was associated with lower costs from the societal perspective and may reduce public health costs when TB incidence is high.

Setting: Patients who initiated treatment for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) at 15 Programmatic Management of Drug-resistant Tuberculosis (PMDT) health facilities in the Philippines between July and December 2012., Objectives: To describe patients' views of current interventions, and suggest changes likely to reduce MDR-TB loss to follow-up., Methods: In-depth interviews were conducted between April and July 2014 with MDR-TB patients who were undergoing treatment, had finished treatment at the time of the interview (controls), or had been lost to follow-up (LTFU). Responses were thematically analyzed., Results: Interviews were conducted with 182 patients who were undergoing or had completed treatment and 91 LTFU patients. Views and suggestions could be thematically categorized as approaches to facilitate adherence or address barriers to adherence. The top themes were the need for transportation assistance or improvements to the current transportation assistance program, food assistance, and difficulties patients encountered related to their medications. These themes were addressed by respectively 63%, 60%, and 32% of the participants., Conclusions: A more patient-centered approach is needed to improve MDR-TB treatment adherence. Programs should strive to provide assistance that considers patient preferences, is adequate to cover actual costs or needs, and is delivered in a timely, uninterrupted manner.

Setting: Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) patients lost to follow-up (LTFU) from Programmatic Management of Drug-resistant Tuberculosis facilities in the Philippines., Objectives: To gain insight into patients' readiness to return to treatment., Methods: MDR-TB patients who initiated treatment and were categorized as LTFU were identified using TB registers, contacted, and asked to consent to an interview and medical record review. At the conclusion of the interview, patients' readiness to restart treatment was assessed and examined in relation to demographic, clinical, and interview data. Odds ratios were calculated., Results: When asked if they would consider restarting MDR-TB treatment, 3% of the 89 participating patients reported that they had already restarted, 34% indicated that they wanted to restart, 33% had not considered restarting, 28% were undecided, and 2% had decided against restarting. Patients who wanted to restart treatment were more likely to report having borrowed money for TB-related expenses (OR 5.97, 95%CI 1.27-28.18), and were less likely to report being self-employed (OR 0.08, 95%CI 0.01-0.67), or perceive themselves at low or no risk for TB relapse (OR 0.30, 95%CI 0.08-0.96) than patients who did not indicate an interest in restarting treatment., Conclusions: Efforts to re-engage LTFU patients in care should consider financial barriers, knowledge gaps, and personal adherence challenges in patients.

To identify factors associated with loss to follow-up during treatment for multidrug-resistant (MDR) tuberculosis (TB) in the Philippines, we conducted a case-control study of adult patients who began receiving treatment for rifampin-resistant TB during July 1-December 31, 2012. Among 91 case-patients (those lost to follow-up) and 182 control-patients (those who adhered to treatment), independent factors associated with loss to follow-up included patients' higher self-rating of the severity of vomiting as an adverse drug reaction and alcohol abuse. Protective factors included receiving any type of assistance from the TB program, better TB knowledge, and higher levels of trust in and support from physicians and nurses. These results provide insights for designing interventions aimed at reducing patient loss to follow-up during treatment for MDR TB.