Abstract
ABSTRACTBackground: Community-based active case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) implemented among marginalised and vulnerable populations in 285 districts of India resulted in reduction of diagnosis delay and prevalence of catastrophic costs due to TB diagnosis. We were interested to know whether this translated into improved treatment outcomes. Globally, there is limited published literature from marginalised and vulnerable populations on the independent effect of community-based ACF on treatment outcomes when compared to passive case finding (PCF).Objectives: To determine the relative differences in unfavourable treatment outcomes (death, loss-to-follow-up, failure, not evaluated) of ACF and PCF-diagnosed people.Methods: Cohort study involving record reviews and interviews in 18 randomly selected districts. We enrolled all ACF-diagnosed people with new smear-positive pulmonary TB, registered under the national TB programme between March 2016 and February 2017, and an equal number of randomly selected PCF-diagnosed people in the same settings. We used log binomial models to adjust for confounders.Results: Of 572 enrolled, 275 belonged to the ACF and 297 to the PCF group. The proportion of unfavourable outcomes were 10.2% (95% CI: 7.1%, 14.3%) in the ACF and 12.5% (95% CI: 9.2%, 16.7%) in the PCF group (p = 0.468). The association between ACF and unfavourable outcomes remained non-significant after adjusting for confounders available from records [aRR: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.56, 1.21)]. Due to patient non-availability at their residence, interviews were conducted for 465 (81.3%). In the 465 cohort too, there was no association after adjusting for confounders from records and interviews [aRR: 1.05 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.77)].Conclusion: We did not find significant differences in the treatment outcomes. Due to the wide CIs, studies with larger sample sizes are urgently required. Studies are required to understand how to translate the benefits of ACF to improved treatment outcomes.
Highlights
Community-based active case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) implemented among marginalised and vulnerable populations in 285 districts of India resulted in reduction of diagnosis delay and prevalence of catastrophic costs due to TB diagnosis
Due to patient nonavailability during visit to their residence, interviews were not conducted for 107 (18.7%). When compared to those interviewed (n = 465), those not interviewed (n = 107) were more likely to belong to the passive case finding (PCF) group, reside in rural areas and have a sputum grading of 3+ at diagnosis
We did not find significant differences in treatment outcomes of people with TB detected through active case finding when compared to passive case finding in marginalised and vulnerable populations of India
Summary
Community-based active case finding (ACF) for tuberculosis (TB) implemented among marginalised and vulnerable populations in 285 districts of India resulted in reduction of diagnosis delay and prevalence of catastrophic costs due to TB diagnosis. There is limited published literature from marginalised and vulnerable populations on the independent effect of community-based ACF on treatment outcomes when compared to passive case finding (PCF). Objectives: To determine the relative differences in unfavourable treatment outcomes (death, loss-to-follow-up, failure, not evaluated) of ACF and PCF-diagnosed people. PCF is defined as detecting TB at health facilities among persons who seek medical care on their own. Many people with presumptive TB do not seek care at a health facility and this points towards the need for advocacy, communication and social mobilisation (ACSM) and community-based active case finding (ACF) [5]. In most high burden settings, ACF can be a powerful and cost-effective tool [6]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
