Search

Background: In 2022, India's national tuberculosis (TB) elimination program (NTEP) commissioned a national level evaluation of active case finding (ACF) for TB to guide evidence-based strategic planning. As part of this evaluation, based on secondary data analysis we observed that the quality of ACF was suboptimal in 2021. Hence, this study aimed to understand the enablers, barriers, and suggested solutions to improve ACF for TB in India from NTEP staff (provider) perspective. Methods: This was a descriptive qualitative study involving key informant interviews from six districts and eight states, conducted between February and August 2023. We purposively selected key state- district- and sub-district-level program managers and implementers who were experienced and vocal. The interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim by research interns and investigators. Two investigators independently did manual descriptive thematic analysis, and a third investigator resolved inconsistencies. The themes and categories emerged by collating together the results of the coding process. Results: A total of 34 key informant interviews were conducted and of these, four were repeat interviews. Adequate budgets for ACF including incentives, performance review mechanism, engagement of all stakeholders, adopting a community friendly approach, use of rapid diagnostic tests and digitalization were the perceived enablers. In some states ACF was implemented in general population (not restricted to high-risk population) following directives at state level. There were limited mechanisms to ensure ACF quality indicators were met before disbursing incentives and cross-verification of the aggregate ACF care cascade numbers that were reported in Ni-kshay (electronic TB information management system under NTEP). In addition to the state and district level implementers having limited understanding of concepts around ACF (quality indicators, number needed to screen and yield), we also inferred the presence of a 'know-do' gap for many activities under ACF. The suggested solutions were around capacity building and quality improvement strategies. Conclusion: The existing national ACF guidance should be revised to emphasize capacity building, need to carry out ACF in high-risk (not general) population, quality control-linked incentives, and regular implementation monitoring of the activities. This should contribute towards better coverage and improved quality translating into better ACF outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ni-kshay Poshan Yojana (NPY), a direct benefit transfer scheme under the National Tuberculosis Elimination Program (NTEP) in India, provides a monthly benefit of INR500 for nutritional support of persons with TB (PwTB)., Objectives: To determine the proportion of PwTB receiving atleast one NPY instalment and pattern of utilisation; to ascertain factors associated with NPY non-receipt and association of NPY receipt with TB treatment outcome., Methods: In our cross-sectional study, we used multi-stage sampling to select PwTB whose treatment outcome was declared between May 2022 and February 2023. A cluster-adjusted, generalized linear model was used to identify factors associated with the non-receipt of NPY and determine association between NPY receipt and TB treatment outcome., Results: Among 3201 PwTB, 2888 (92.7%; 95% CI 89.8%, 94.8%) had received at least one NPY instalment, and 1903 (64.2%; 95% CI 58.9%, 69.2%) self-reported receipt of benefit. The median (IQR) time to receipt of first instalment was 105 (60,174) days. Non-receipt was significantly higher among PwTB from states with low TB score (aPR = 2.34; 95%CI 1.51, 3.62), who do not have bank account (aPR = 2.48; 95%CI 1.93, 3.19) and with unknown/missing diabetic status (aPR = 1.69; 95%CI 1.11, 2.55). Unfavorable treatment outcomes were associated with non-receipt of NPY (aPR 4.93; 95%CI 3.61,6.75) after adjusting for potential confounders., Conclusion: Majority of the PwTB received atleast one NPY instalment, but they experience significant delays. Most of the recipients utilised NPY for nutrition. Longitudinal follow-up studies are required to study the impact of NPY on treatment outcomes.

Background: Treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis with bedaquiline-pretomanid-linezolid regimen has demonstrated good treatment efficacy. Given linezolid's toxicity profile, prudence suggests reconsidering its dose and duration. We determined the effectiveness and safety of structured dose reduction of linezolid with bedaquiline and pretomanid in adults with pre-extensively drug-resistant (pre-XDR) or treatment-intolerant/nonresponsive multidrug-resistant (MDRTI/NR) pulmonary tuberculosis., Method: Adults with pre-XDR or MDRTI/NR pulmonary tuberculosis were enrolled in a multicenter, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial in India. Patients were randomized to 26 weeks of bedaquiline, pretomanid, and daily linezolid, at 600 mg for 26 weeks (arm 1); 600 mg for 9 weeks followed by 300 mg for 17 weeks (arm 2); or 600 mg for 13 weeks followed by 300 mg for 13 weeks (arm 3). Study end points included sustained cure, bacteriological failure, toxicity, and death., Results: Of 403 patients enrolled, 255 (63%) were <30 years old, 273 (68%) had prior tuberculosis episodes, and 238 (59%) were malnourished. At the end of treatment, after excluding those with negative baseline cultures, cure was seen in 120 (93%), 117 (94%), and 115 (93%) in arms 1, 2, and 3 respectively. Myelosuppression seen in 85 patients each in arms 1 and 2 and 77 patients in arm 3, not significantly different. Peripheral neuropathy was noticed in 66 patients (30, 17, and 19 in arms 1, 2, and 3) at 10-26 weeks (P = .02). The linezolid dose was reduced because of toxicity in 13, 2, and 4 patients in arms 1, 2, and 3, respectively., Conclusions: In adults with pre-XDR or MDRTI/NR pulmonary tuberculosis, structured linezolid dose reduction to 300 mg/d is as effective as the standard 600-mg dose but with fewer cases of peripheral neuropathy when given with bedaquiline and pretomanid., Clinical Trials Registration: Clinical Trial Registry of India (CTRI/2021/03/032189)., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest. Umesh Alavadi was an employee of the United States Agency for Internation Development (USAID) during the initial period of study conduct and J. J. is an employee of The UNION. All other authors report no potential conflicts of interest. All authors have submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Conflicts that the editors consider relevant to the content of the manuscript have been disclosed., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For commercial re-use, please contact reprints@oup.com for reprints and translation rights for reprints. All other permissions can be obtained through our RightsLink service via the Permissions link on the article page on our site—for further information please contact journals.permissions@oup.com.)