Active versus passive case finding for tuberculosis in marginalised and vulnerable populations in India: comparison of treatment outcomes

• Main Authors: Hemant Deepak Shewade, Vivek Gupta, Srinath Satyanarayana, Sunil Kumar, Prabhat Pandey, U. N. Bajpai, Jaya Prasad Tripathy, Soundappan Kathirvel, Sripriya Pandurangan, Subrat Mohanty, Vaibhav Haribhau Ghule, Karuna D. Sagili, Banuru Muralidhara Prasad, Priyanka Singh, Kamlesh Singh, Gurukartick Jayaraman, P. Rajeswaran, Moumita Biswas, Gayadhar Mallick, Ali Jafar Naqvi, Ashwin Kumar Bharadwaj, K. Sathiyanarayanan, Aniruddha Pathak, Nisha Mohan, Raghuram Rao, Ajay M. V. Kumar, Sarabjit Singh Chadha
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Taylor & Francis Group 2019-01-01
• Series: Global Health Action
• Subjects: tuberculosis/therapy; systematic screening; vulnerable populations; treatment outcome; community-based active case finding
• Online Access: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/16549716.2019.1656451

Background: 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.