M Loveday1, K Wallengren2, J Brust3, J Roberts4, A Voce5, B Margot6, J Ngozo6, I Master7, G Cassell8, N Padayatchi9. 1. Health Systems Research Unit, South African Medical Research Council, Cape Town, South Africa. 2. TB and HIV Investigative Network (Think), Durban, South Africa. 3. Department of Medicine, Montefiore Medical Center & Albert Einstein College of Medicine, New York, New York, USA. 4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. 5. Discipline of Public Health Medicine, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. 6. KwaZulu-Natal Department of Health, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa. 7. King Dinuzulu Hospital, Durban, South Africa. 8. Harvard University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. 9. Centre for the AIDS Programme of Research in South Africa, Durban, South Africa.
Abstract
SETTING: KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, a predominantly rural province with a high burden of tuberculosis (TB), multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective care model by comparing MDR-TB treatment outcomes at community-based sites with traditional care at a central, specialised hospital. DESIGN: A non-randomised observational prospective cohort study comparing community-based and centralised care. Patients at community-based sites were closer to home and had easier access to care, and home-based care was available from treatment initiation. RESULTS: Four community-based sites treated 736 patients, while 813 were treated at the centralised hospital (total = 1549 patients). Overall, 75% were HIV co-infected (community: 76% vs. hospitalised: 73%, P = 0.45) and 86% received antiretroviral therapy (community: 91% vs. hospitalised: 82%, P = 0.22). On multivariate analysis, MDR-TB patients were more likely to have a successful treatment outcome if they were treated at a community-based site (adjusted OR 1.43, P = 0.01). However, outcomes at the four community-based sites were heterogeneous, with Site 1 demonstrating that home-based care was associated with an increased treatment success of 72% compared with success rates of 52-60% at the other three sites. CONCLUSION: Community-based care for MDR-TB patients was more effective than care in a central, specialised hospital. Home-based care further increased treatment success.
SETTING: KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa, a predominantly rural province with a high burden of tuberculosis (TB), multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB) and human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection. OBJECTIVE: To determine the most effective care model by comparing MDR-TB treatment outcomes at community-based sites with traditional care at a central, specialised hospital. DESIGN: A non-randomised observational prospective cohort study comparing community-based and centralised care. Patients at community-based sites were closer to home and had easier access to care, and home-based care was available from treatment initiation. RESULTS: Four community-based sites treated 736 patients, while 813 were treated at the centralised hospital (total = 1549 patients). Overall, 75% were HIV co-infected (community: 76% vs. hospitalised: 73%, P = 0.45) and 86% received antiretroviral therapy (community: 91% vs. hospitalised: 82%, P = 0.22). On multivariate analysis, MDR-TBpatients were more likely to have a successful treatment outcome if they were treated at a community-based site (adjusted OR 1.43, P = 0.01). However, outcomes at the four community-based sites were heterogeneous, with Site 1 demonstrating that home-based care was associated with an increased treatment success of 72% compared with success rates of 52-60% at the other three sites. CONCLUSION: Community-based care for MDR-TBpatients was more effective than care in a central, specialised hospital. Home-based care further increased treatment success.
Authors: K F Laserson; L E Thorpe; V Leimane; K Weyer; C D Mitnick; V Riekstina; E Zarovska; M L Rich; H S F Fraser; E Alarcón; J P Cegielski; M Grzemska; R Gupta; M Espinal Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Elena Tkatchenko-Schmidt; Rifat Atun; Martin Wall; Patrick Tobi; Jürgen Schmidt; Adrian Renton Journal: Health Policy Plan Date: 2010-02-08 Impact factor: 3.344
Authors: Neel R Gandhi; N Sarita Shah; Jason R Andrews; Venanzio Vella; Anthony P Moll; Michelle Scott; Darren Weissman; Claudio Marra; Umesh G Lalloo; Gerald H Friedland Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2009-10-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: S Keshavjee; I Y Gelmanova; A D Pasechnikov; S P Mishustin; Y G Andreev; A Yedilbayev; J J Furin; J S Mukherjee; M L Rich; E A Nardell; P E Farmer; J Y Kim; S S Shin Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Carole Mitnick; Jaime Bayona; Eda Palacios; Sonya Shin; Jennifer Furin; Felix Alcántara; Epifanio Sánchez; Madeleny Sarria; Mercedes Becerra; Mary C Smith Fawzi; Saidi Kapiga; Donna Neuberg; James H Maguire; Jim Yong Kim; Paul Farmer Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2003-01-09 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nathan Kapata; Martin P Grobusch; Gershom Chongwe; Pascalina Chanda-Kapata; William Ngosa; Mathias Tembo; Shebba Musonda; Patrick Katemangwe; Matthew Bates; Peter Mwaba; Alimuddin Zumla; Frank Cobelens Journal: Infection Date: 2017-08-04 Impact factor: 3.553
Authors: N Sarita Shah; Sara C Auld; James C M Brust; Barun Mathema; Nazir Ismail; Pravi Moodley; Koleka Mlisana; Salim Allana; Angela Campbell; Thuli Mthiyane; Natashia Morris; Primrose Mpangase; Hermina van der Meulen; Shaheed V Omar; Tyler S Brown; Apurva Narechania; Elena Shaskina; Thandi Kapwata; Barry Kreiswirth; Neel R Gandhi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: P Sinha; M Carwile; A Bhargava; C Cintron; C Acuna-Villaorduna; S Lakshminarayan; A F Liu; N Kulatilaka; L Locks; N S Hochberg Journal: Public Health Action Date: 2020-09-21
Authors: Rebecca C Harris; Louis Grandjean; Laura J Martin; Alexander J P Miller; Joseph-Egre N Nkang; Victoria Allen; Mishal S Khan; Katherine Fielding; David A J Moore Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2016-05-04 Impact factor: 3.090