| Literature DB >> 27913560 |
Fatima Mukhtar1,2, Zahid A Butt3,4.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Pakistan is faced with an increasing prevalence of diabetes in addition to its existing high burden of tuberculosis (TB). Diabetes has a detrimental effect on treatment outcomes of patients with TB, which may hinder achieving the goals of the End-TB strategy by 2030. We conducted a prospective cohort study to determine difference between treatment outcomes among patients with diabetes and new pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) and patients without diabetes and new PTB. This would help generate contextual and valid scientific evidence from a developing country like Pakistan with its unique interplay of sociocultural, economic and health system factors to inform policy and practice. PARTICIPANTS: This paper outlines the baseline characteristics of 614 new cases of PTB, aged 15 years and older, which were followed up prospectively at 2nd, 5th and 6th months while on antituberculosis treatment and at 6 months after treatment completion. FINDINGS TO DATE: We ascertained patients' diabetic status by conducting random and fasting blood glucose tests and their glycaemic control by determining glycosylated haemoglobin. Treatment outcomes were established using standardised definitions provided by WHO. The assessment of 614 respondents' diabetic status revealed that 113 (18%) were diabetic and 501 (82%) were non-diabetic. A greater proportion of patients with diabetes and PTB were illiterate (n=74/113, 65.5%) as compared to patients without diabetes and PTB (n=249/501, 50%) (p=0.035). More patients with diabetes and PTB gave a history of heart disease (n=14/113, 12%) and hypertension (n=26/113, 23%) as compared to patients without diabetes and PTB (n=2/501, 0.4% (heart disease) and n=13 501, 3% (hypertension)) (p<0.001). Unfavourable treatment outcome was more likely among patients with diabetes and PTB (n=23/93, 25%) as opposed to patients without diabetes and PTB (n=46/410, 11%) (p=0.001). FUTURE PLANS: We are negotiating with the government regarding funding for a further 2-year follow-up of the cohort to ascertain death and relapse in the post-treatment period and also differentiate between re-infection and recurrence among these patients with respect to their diabetic status. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.Entities:
Keywords: EPIDEMIOLOGY; PUBLIC HEALTH
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27913560 PMCID: PMC5168597 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012970
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMJ Open ISSN: 2044-6055 Impact factor: 2.692
Figure 1Flow diagram depicting the follow-up periods of the PTB cohort along with treatment outcome and loss to follow-up at Gulab Devi Chest Hospital, Lahore. TB, tuberculosis; PTB, pulmonary tuberculosis.
Figure 2The protocol used in screening patients with PTB for diabetes. PTB, pulmonary tuberculosis.
Reporting AFB through sputum smear microscopy16
| Seen on slide | Result | Positive (grading) | Bacterial load |
|---|---|---|---|
| More than 10 AFB per field | POS | 3+ | Heavy |
| 1–10 AFB per field | POS | 2+ | Medium |
| 10–99 AFB in 100 fields | POS | 1+ | Low |
| 1–9 AFB in 100 fields | POS | Record actual number | Very low |
| No AFB in 100 fields | NEG | 0 | Nil/not seen |
AFB, acid-fast bacillus; NEG, negative; POS, positive.
Figure 3Flow diagram of data collection activity at Gulab Devi Hospital, Lahore.
Profile of 614 new pulmonary tuberculosis patients with (n=113) or without diabetes mellitus (n=501) presenting at Gulab Devi Chest Hospital, Lahore
| PTB with diabetes | PTB without diabetes | Total | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| n | Percent | n | Percent | n (%) | p value | |
| Age group (in years) | <0.001 | |||||
| 15–19 | 1 | 1 | 134 | 27 | 135 (22) | |
| 20–24 | 4 | 3.5 | 138 | 27 | 142 (23) | |
| 25–29 | 4 | 3.5 | 63 | 13 | 67 (11) | |
| 30–39 | 16 | 14 | 74 | 15 | 90 (15) | |
| 40–49 | 30 | 27 | 37 | 7 | 67 (11) | |
| >50 | 58 | 51 | 55 | 11 | 113 (18) | |
| Gender | 0.357 | |||||
| Male | 53 | 47 | 259 | 52 | 312 (51) | |
| Female | 60 | 53 | 242 | 48 | 302 (49) | |
| Sputum smear status | 0.232 | |||||
| Positive | 67 | 59 | 266 | 53 | 333 (54) | |
| Negative | 46 | 41 | 235 | 47 | 281 (46) | |
| Residence | 0.179 | |||||
| Urban | 84 | 74 | 340 | 68 | 424 (69) | |
| Rural | 29 | 26 | 161 | 32 | 190 (31) | |
| Educational qualification | 0.035 | |||||
| Illiterate | 74 | 65.5 | 249 | 50 | 323 (52) | |
| Primary | 13 | 11.5 | 71 | 14 | 84 (14) | |
| Matriculation | 20 | 18 | 126 | 25 | 146 (24) | |
| Intermediate | 5 | 4 | 25 | 5 | 30 (5) | |
| Bachelors | 1 | 1 | 17 | 3 | 18 (3) | |
| Masters and above | 0 | 0 | 13 | 3 | 13 (2) | |
| Income category (rupees) | 0.113 | |||||
| Nil* | 73 | 65 | 311 | 62 | 384 (63) | |
| <5000 | 5 | 5 | 38 | 8 | 43 (7) | |
| 5100–8000 | 6 | 5 | 61 | 12 | 67 (11) | |
| 8100–11 000 | 10 | 9 | 44 | 9 | 54 (9) | |
| 11 100–14 000 | 7 | 6 | 19 | 4 | 26 (4) | |
| 14 100–17 000 | 6 | 5 | 15 | 3 | 21 (3) | |
| >17 100 | 6 | 5 | 13 | 2 | 19 (3) | |
| Marital status | <0.001 | |||||
| Married | 101 | 89 | 243 | 48.4 | 344 (56) | |
| Single | 12 | 11 | 255 | 51 | 267 (43.5) | |
| Divorced | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0.2 | 1 (0.2) | |
| Widowed | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0.4 | 2 (0.3) | |
| BMI† | <0.001 | |||||
| <18.50 | 18 | 17 | 289 | 58 | 307 (51) | |
| 18.50–24.99 | 63 | 58 | 194 | 39 | 257 (42) | |
| 25–29.99 | 18 | 17 | 9 | 2 | 27 (4) | |
| 30 and above | 9 | 8 | 8 | 1 | 17 (3) | |
| Heart disease | <0.001 | |||||
| Yes | 14 | 12 | 2 | 0.4 | 16 (3) | |
| No | 99 | 88 | 499 | 99.6 | 598 (97) | |
| Hypertension | <0.001 | |||||
| Yes | 26 | 23 | 13 | 3 | 39 (6) | |
| No | 87 | 77 | 488 | 97 | 575 (94) | |
*Income in the form of loans/help from relatives/extended family/friends.
†Body mass index, of 608 patients.
BMI, body mass index; PTB, pulmonary tuberculosis.