Cost implications of delays to tuberculosis diagnosis among pulmonary tuberculosis patients in Ethiopia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Delays seeking care worsen the burden of tuberculosis and cost of care for patients, families and the public health system. This study investigates costs of tuberculosis diagnosis incurred by patients, escorts and the public health system in 10 districts of Ethiopia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>New pulmonary tuberculosis patients ≥ 15 years old were interviewed regarding their health care seeking behaviour at the time of diagnosis. Using a structured questionnaire patients were interviewed about the duration of delay at alternative care providers and the public health system prior to diagnosis. Costs incurred by patients, escorts and the public health system were quantified through patient interview and review of medical records.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Interviews were held with 537 (58%) smear positive patients and 387 (42%) smear negative pulmonary patients. Of these, 413 (45%) were female; 451 (49%) were rural residents; and the median age was 34 years. The mean (median) days elapsed for consultation at alternative care providers and public health facilities prior to tuberculosis diagnosis was 5 days (0 days) and 3 (3 days) respectively. The total median cost incurred from first consultation to diagnosis was $27 per patient (mean =$59). The median costs per patient incurred by patient, escort and the public health system were $16 (mean =$29), $3 (mean =$23) and $3 (mean =$7) respectively. The total cost per patient diagnosed was higher for women, rural residents; those who received government food for work support, patients with smear negative pulmonary tuberculosis and patients who were not screened for TB in at least one district diagnostic centers.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The costs of tuberculosis diagnosis incurred by patients and escorts represent a significant portion of their monthly income. The costs arising from time lost in seeking care comprised a major portion of the total cost of diagnosis, and may worsen the economic position of patients and their families. Getting treatment from alternative sources and low index of suspicion public health providers were key problems contributing to increased cost of tuberculosis diagnosis. Thus, the institution of effective systems of referral, ensuring screening of suspects across the district public health system and the involvement of alternative care providers in district tuberculosis control can reduce delays and the financial burden to patients and escorts.</p

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Association of Lifecourse Socioeconomic Status with Chronic Inflammation and Type 2 Diabetes Risk: The Whitehall II Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Socioeconomic adversity in early life has been hypothesized to "program" a vulnerable phenotype with exaggerated inflammatory responses, so increasing the risk of developing type 2 diabetes in adulthood. The aim of this study is to test this hypothesis by assessing the extent to which the association between lifecourse socioeconomic status and type 2 diabetes incidence is explained by chronic inflammation. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We use data from the British Whitehall II study, a prospective occupational cohort of adults established in 1985. The inflammatory markers C-reactive protein and interleukin-6 were measured repeatedly and type 2 diabetes incidence (new cases) was monitored over an 18-year follow-up (from 1991-1993 until 2007-2009). Our analytical sample consisted of 6,387 non-diabetic participants (1,818 women), of whom 731 (207 women) developed type 2 diabetes over the follow-up. Cumulative exposure to low socioeconomic status from childhood to middle age was associated with an increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes in adulthood (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.96, 95% confidence interval: 1.48-2.58 for low cumulative lifecourse socioeconomic score and HR = 1.55, 95% confidence interval: 1.26-1.91 for low-low socioeconomic trajectory). 25% of the excess risk associated with cumulative socioeconomic adversity across the lifecourse and 32% of the excess risk associated with low-low socioeconomic trajectory was attributable to chronically elevated inflammation (95% confidence intervals 16%-58%). CONCLUSIONS: In the present study, chronic inflammation explained a substantial part of the association between lifecourse socioeconomic disadvantage and type 2 diabetes. Further studies should be performed to confirm these findings in population-based samples, as the Whitehall II cohort is not representative of the general population, and to examine the extent to which social inequalities attributable to chronic inflammation are reversible. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Tackling tuberculosis patients' internalized social stigma through patient centred care: An intervention study in rural Nicaragua

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>We report a patient-centered intervention study in 9 municipalities of rural Nicaragua aiming at a reduction of internalized social stigma in new AFB positive tuberculosis (TB) patients diagnosed between March 2004 and July 2005.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Five out of 9 municipal teams were coached to tailor and introduce patient-centered package. New TB patients were assigned to the intervention group when diagnosed in municipalities implementing effectively at least TB clubs and home visits.</p> <p>We compared the changes in internalized stigma and TB treatment outcome in intervention and control groups. The internalized stigma was measured through score computed at 15 days and at 2 months of treatment. The treatment results were evaluated through classical TB program indicators. In all municipalities, we emphasized process monitoring to capture contextual factors that could influence package implementation, including stakeholders.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>TB clubs and home visits were effectively implemented in 2 municipalities after June 2004 and in 3 municipalities after January 2005. Therefore, 122 patients were included in the intervention group and 146 in the control group. After 15 days, internalized stigma scores were equivalent in both groups. After 2 months, difference between scores was statistically significant, revealing a decreased internalized stigma in the intervention group and not in the control group.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>This study provides initial evidences that it is possible to act on TB patients' internalized stigma, in contexts where at least patient centered home visits and TB clubs are successfully implemented. This is important as, indeed, TB care should also focus on the TB patient's wellbeing and not solely on TB epidemics control.</p