Smartphone-enabled video-observed versus directly observed treatment for tuberculosis: a multicentre, analyst-blinded, randomised, controlled superiority trial.

BackgroundDirectly observed treatment (DOT) has been the standard of care for tuberculosis since the early 1990s, but it is inconvenient for patients and service providers. Video-observed therapy (VOT) has been conditionally recommended by WHO as an alternative to DOT. We tested whether levels of treatment observation were improved with VOT.MethodsWe did a multicentre, analyst-blinded, randomised controlled superiority trial in 22 clinics in England (UK). Eligible participants were patients aged at least 16 years with active pulmonary or non-pulmonary tuberculosis who were eligible for DOT according to local guidance. Exclusion criteria included patients who did not have access to charging a smartphone. We randomly assigned participants to either VOT (daily remote observation using a smartphone app) or DOT (observations done three to five times per week in the home, community, or clinic settings). Randomisation was done by the SealedEnvelope service using minimisation. DOT involved treatment observation by a health-care or lay worker, with any remaining daily doses self-administered. VOT was provided by a centralised service in London. Patients were trained to record and send videos of every dose ingested 7 days per week using a smartphone app. Trained treatment observers viewed these videos through a password-protected website. Patients were also encouraged to report adverse drug events on the videos. Smartphones and data plans were provided free of charge by study investigators. DOT or VOT observation records were completed by observers until treatment or study end. The primary outcome was completion of 80% or more scheduled treatment observations over the first 2 months following enrolment. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and restricted (including only patients completing at least 1 week of observation on allocated arm) analyses were done. Superiority was determined by a 15% difference in the proportion of patients with the primary outcome (60% vs 75%). This trial is re