Management and treatment outcomes of MDR-TB: results from a setting with high rates of drug resistance

Risk factors for high death and loss-to-follow-up rates among patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis at a programmatic management unit

Among 186 retrospectively evaluated patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis, 33.9% were cured, 6.6% completed treatment, 25% died, 18.3% were lost to follow-up, 2.2% failed treatment, and 13.8% were still undergoing treatment by the end of the study period. Rural residence was a risk factor for loss to follow-up (odds ratio [OR], 3.315; P = .016), whereas baseline body weight <40 kg (OR, 2.175; P = .042) and resistance to ofloxacin (OR, 2.889; P = .025) were risk factors for death. Despite programmatic management, treatment outcomes of the current cohort were distressing.

Effects of Multidrug Resistant Tuberculosis Treatment on Patients' Health Related Quality of Life: Results from a Follow Up Study

Background

At present, within the management of multidrug resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) much attention is being paid to the traditional microbiological and clinical indicators. Evaluation of the impact of MDR-TB treatment on patients’ Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) has remained a neglected area.

Objective

To evaluate the impact of MDR-TB treatment on patients HRQoL, and determine the predictors of variability in HRQoL along the course of treatment

Methods

A prospective follow up study was conducted at the programmatic management unit for drug resistant TB of Lady Reading Hospital Peshawar. Culture confirmed eligible MDR-TB patients were asked to self complete SF-36v2 at the baseline visit, and subsequently after the completion of 12 months of treatment and at the end of treatment. A score of <47 norm-based scoring (NBS) points on component summary measures and health domain scales was considered indicative of function impairment. General linear model repeated measures ANOVA was used examine the change and predictors of change in physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) scores over the time.

Results

A total of 68 out of enrolled 81 eligible MDR-TB patients completed SF-36v2 questionnaire at the three time points. Patients’ mean PCS scores at the three time points were, 38.2±4.7, 38.6±4.4 and 42.2±5.2 respectively, and mean MCS were 33.7±7.0, 35.5±6.9 and 40.0±6.9 respectively. Length of sickness prior to the diagnosis of MDR-TB was predictive of difference in PCS scores (F = 4.988, Df = 1, 66), whereas patients’ gender (F = 5.638, Df = 1, 66) and length of sickness prior to the diagnosis of MDR-TB (F = 4.400, Df = 1, 66) were predictive of difference in MCS scores.

Conclusion

Despite the positive impact of MDR-TB treatment on patients' HRQoL, the scores on component summary measures suggested compromised physical and mental health even at the end of treatment. A large multicenter study is suggested to confirm the present findings.

The effect of early versus late treatment initiation after diagnosis on the outcomes of patients treated for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Globally it is estimated that 480 000 people developed multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) in 2014 and 190 000 people died from the disease. Successful treatment outcomes are achieved in only 50 % of patients with MDR-TB, compared to 86 % for drug susceptible disease. It is widely held that delay in time to initiation of treatment for MDR-TB is an important predictor of treatment outcome. The objective of this review was to assess the existing evidence on the outcomes of multidrug- and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis patients treated early (≤4 weeks) versus late (>4 weeks) after diagnosis of drug resistance.

METHODS

Eight sources providing access to 17 globally representative electronic health care databases, indexes, sources of evidence-based reviews and grey literature were searched using terms incorporating time to treatment and MDR-TB. Two-stage sifting in duplicate was employed to assess studies against pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only those articles reporting WHO-defined treatment outcomes were considered for inclusion. Articles reporting on fewer than 10 patients, published before 1990, or without a comparison of outcomes in patient groups experiencing different delays to treatment initiation were excluded.

RESULTS

The initial search yielded 1978 references, of which 1475 unique references remained after removal of duplicates and 28 articles published pre-1990. After title and abstract sifting, 64 papers underwent full text review. None of these articles fulfilled the criteria for inclusion in the review.

CONCLUSIONS

Whilst there is an inherent logic in the theory that treatment delay will lead to poorer treatment outcomes, no published evidence was identified in this systematic review to support this hypothesis. Reports of programmatic changes leading to reductions in treatment delay exist in the literature, but attribution of differences in outcomes specifically to treatment delay is confounded by other contemporaneous changes. Further primary research on this question is not considered a high priority use of limited resources, though where data are available, improved reporting of outcomes by time to treatment should be encouraged.