Literature DB >> 17943789

Directly observed therapy for treating tuberculosis.

J Volmink1, P Garner.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: For tuberculosis treatment, policies have been introduced to encourage adherence to treatment regimens. One such policy is directly observed therapy (DOT), which involves people directly observing patients taking their antituberculous drugs.
OBJECTIVES: To compare DOT with self administration of treatment or different DOT options for people requiring treatment for clinically active tuberculosis or prevention of active disease. SEARCH STRATEGY: In May 2007, we searched the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group Specialized Register, CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 2), MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, and mRCT. We also checked article reference lists and contacted relevant researchers and organizations. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized and quasi-randomized controlled trials comparing a health worker, family member, or community volunteer routinely observing people taking antituberculous drugs compared with routine self administration of treatment at home. We include people requiring treatment for clinically active tuberculosis or medication for preventing active disease. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Both authors independently assessed trial methodological quality and extracted data. Data were analysed using relative risks (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and the fixed-effect model when there was no statistically significant heterogeneity (chi square P > 0.1). Trials of drug users were analysed separately. MAIN
RESULTS: Eleven trials with 5609 participants met the inclusion criteria. No statistically significant difference was detected between DOT and self administration in terms of cure (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21, random-effects model; 1603 participants, 4 trials), with similar results for cure plus completion of treatment. When stratified by location, DOT provided at home compared with DOT provided at clinic suggests a possible small advantage with home-based DOT for cure (RR 1.10, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.18; 1365 participants, 3 trials). There was no significant difference detected in clinical outcomes between DOT at a clinic versus by a family member or community health worker (2 trials), or for DOT provided by a family member versus a community health worker (1326 participants, 1 trial). Two small trials of tuberculosis prophylaxis in intravenous drugs users found no statistically significant difference between DOT and self administration (199 participants, 1 trial) or a choice of location for DOT for completion of treatment (108 participants, 1 trial). AUTHORS'
CONCLUSIONS: The results of randomized controlled trials conducted in low-, middle-, and high-income countries provide no assurance that DOT compared with self administration of treatment has any quantitatively important effect on cure or treatment completion in people receiving treatment for tuberculosis.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17943789     DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003343.pub3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev        ISSN: 1361-6137


  109 in total

Review 1.  Patient education and counselling for promoting adherence to treatment for tuberculosis.

Authors:  James Machoki M'imunya; Tamara Kredo; Jimmy Volmink
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2012-05-16

2.  Doubts about DOTS.

Authors:  G R Davies; S B Squire
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2008-02-04

Review 3.  New drugs against tuberculosis: problems, progress, and evaluation of agents in clinical development.

Authors:  Jossy van den Boogaard; Gibson S Kibiki; Elton R Kisanga; Martin J Boeree; Rob E Aarnoutse
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2008-12-15       Impact factor: 5.191

4.  Caveat emptor? Meta-analysis of studies comparing self-observed therapy and directly observed therapy for tuberculosis.

Authors:  Patrick K Moonan; Stephen E Weis
Journal:  Clin Infect Dis       Date:  2013-06-27       Impact factor: 9.079

Review 5.  Tuberculous pleural effusion.

Authors:  Kan Zhai; Yong Lu; Huan-Zhong Shi
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2016-07       Impact factor: 2.895

6.  Epidemiology of urban tuberculosis in the United States, 2000-2007.

Authors:  Eyal Oren; Carla A Winston; Robert Pratt; Valerie A Robison; Masahiro Narita
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2011-05-12       Impact factor: 9.308

7.  Can we systematically review studies that evaluate complex interventions?

Authors:  Sasha Shepperd; Simon Lewin; Sharon Straus; Mike Clarke; Martin P Eccles; Ray Fitzpatrick; Geoff Wong; Aziz Sheikh
Journal:  PLoS Med       Date:  2009-08-11       Impact factor: 11.069

8.  The governance of standard-setting to improve health.

Authors:  Daniel M Fox
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2010-10-15       Impact factor: 2.830

9.  Re-inventing adherence: toward a patient-centered model of care for drug-resistant tuberculosis and HIV.

Authors:  M R O'Donnell; A Daftary; M Frick; Y Hirsch-Moverman; K R Amico; M Senthilingam; A Wolf; J Z Metcalfe; P Isaakidis; J L Davis; J R Zelnick; J C M Brust; N Naidu; M Garretson; D R Bangsberg; N Padayatchi; G Friedland
Journal:  Int J Tuberc Lung Dis       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 2.373

10.  Food incentives to improve completion of tuberculosis treatment: randomised controlled trial in Dili, Timor-Leste.

Authors:  Nelson Martins; Peter Morris; Paul M Kelly
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-10-26
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.