3.8 Article

Predictors of unfavourable treatment outcome in patients with multidrug-resistant tuberculosis in India

期刊

PUBLIC HEALTH ACTION
卷 7, 期 1, 页码 32-38

出版社

INT UNION AGAINST TUBERCULOSIS LUNG DISEASE (I U A T L D)
DOI: 10.5588/pha.16.0055

关键词

MDR-TB; treatment outcomes; India; operational research

资金

  1. Department for International Development (London, UK)
  2. The Union, MSF
  3. La Fondation Veuve Emile Metz-Tesch (Luxembourg)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Setting: India has one of the highest global rates of multidrug- resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), which is associated with poor treatment outcomes. A better understanding of the risk factors for unfavourable outcomes is needed. Objectives: To describe 1) the demographic and clinical characteristics of MDR-TB patients registered in three states of India during 2009-2011, 2) treatment outcomes, and 3) factors associated with unfavourable outcomes. Design: A retrospective cohort study involving a record review of registered MDR-TB patients. Results: Of 788 patients, 68% were male, 70% were aged 15-44 years, 90% had failed previous anti-tuberculosis treatment or were retreatment smear-positive, 60% had a body mass index. 18.5 kg/m(2) and 72% had additional resistance to streptomycin and/or ethambutol. The median time from sputum collection to the start of MDR-TB treatment was 128 days (IQR 103-173). Unfavourable outcomes occurred in 40% of the patients, mostly from death or loss to follow-up. Factors significantly associated with unfavourable outcomes included male sex, age. 45 years, being underweight and infection with the human immunodeficiency virus. Adverse drug reactions were reported in 24% of patients, with gastrointestinal disturbance, psychiatric morbidity and ototoxicity the most common. Conclusion: Long delays from sputum collection to treatment initiation using conventional methods, along with poor treatment outcomes, suggest the need to scale up rapid diagnostic tests and shorter regimens for MDR-TB.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据