Background

The implementation of rapid drug susceptibility testing (DST) is a current global priority for TB control. However, data are scarce on patient-relevant outcomes for presumptive diagnosis of drug-resistant tuberculosis (pDR-TB) evaluated under field conditions in high burden countries.

Methods

Observational study of pDR-TB patients referred by primary and secondary health units. TB reference centers addressing DR-TB in five cities in Brazil. Patients age 18 years and older were eligible if pDR-TB, culture positive results for Mycobacterium tuberculosis and, if no prior DST results from another laboratory were used by a physician to start anti-TB treatment. The outcome measures were median time from triage to initiating appropriate anti-TB treatment, empirical treatment and, the treatment outcomes.

Results

Between February,16th, 2011 and February, 15th, 2012, among 175 pDR TB cases, 110 (63.0%) confirmed TB cases with DST results were enrolled. Among study participants, 72 (65.5%) were male and 62 (56.4%) aged 26 to 45 years. At triage, empirical treatment was given to 106 (96.0%) subjects. Among those, 85 were treated with first line drugs and 21 with second line. Median time for DST results was 69.5 [interquartile - IQR: 35.7-111.0] days and, for initiating appropriate anti-TB treatment, the median time was 1.0 (IQR: 0-41.2) days. Among 95 patients that were followed-up during the first 6 month period, 24 (25.3%; IC: 17.5%-34.9%) changed or initiated the treatment after DST results: 16/29 MDRTB, 5/21 DR-TB and 3/45 DS-TB cases. Comparing the treatment outcome to DS-TB cases, MDRTB had higher proportions changing or initiating treatment after DST results (p = 0.01) and favorable outcomes (p = 0.07).

Conclusions

This study shows a high rate of empirical treatment and long delay for DST results. Strategies to speed up the detection and early treatment of drug resistant TB should be prioritized.

BACKGROUND: Optimal drug dosing is important to ensure adequate response to treatment, prevent development of drug resistance and reduce drug toxicity. The aim of these clinical standards is to provide guidance on 'best practice´ for dosing and management of TB drugs.METHODS: A panel of 57 global experts in the fields of microbiology, pharmacology and TB care were identified; 51 participated in a Delphi process. A 5-point Likert scale was used to score draft standards. The final document represents the broad consensus and was approved by all participants.RESULTS: Six clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, defining the most appropriate initial dose for TB treatment; Standard 2, identifying patients who may be at risk of sub-optimal drug exposure; Standard 3, identifying patients at risk of developing drug-related toxicity and how best to manage this risk; Standard 4, identifying patients who can benefit from therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM); Standard 5, highlighting education and counselling that should be provided to people initiating TB treatment; and Standard 6, providing essential education for healthcare professionals. In addition, consensus research priorities were identified.CONCLUSION: This is the first consensus-based Clinical Standards for the dosing and management of TB drugs to guide clinicians and programme managers in planning and implementation of locally appropriate measures for optimal person-centred treatment to improve patient care.

BACKGROUND: Increasing evidence suggests that post-TB lung disease (PTLD) causes significant morbidity and mortality. The aim of these clinical standards is to provide guidance on the assessment and management of PTLD and the implementation of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).METHODS: A panel of global experts in the field of TB care and PR was identified; 62 participated in a Delphi process. A 5-point Likert scale was used to score the initial ideas for standards and after several rounds of revision the document was approved (with 100% agreement).RESULTS: Five clinical standards were defined: Standard 1, to assess patients at the end of TB treatment for PTLD (with adaptation for children and specific settings/situations); Standard 2, to identify patients with PTLD for PR; Standard 3, tailoring the PR programme to patient needs and the local setting; Standard 4, to evaluate the effectiveness of PR; and Standard 5, to conduct education and counselling. Standard 6 addresses public health aspects of PTLD and outcomes due to PR.CONCLUSION: This is the first consensus-based set of Clinical Standards for PTLD. Our aim is to improve patient care and quality of life by guiding clinicians, programme managers and public health officers in planning and implementing adequate measures to assess and manage PTLD.