ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the coverage and explore enablers and challenges in implementation of direct benefit transfer (DBT) cash incentive scheme for patients with tuberculosis (TB).DesignThis is a mixed methods study comprising a quantitative cohort and descriptive qualitative study.SettingThe study was conducted in City TB Centre, Vadodara, Western India.ParticipantsWe used routinely collected data under the National TB Programme (NTP) on patients with TB notified between April and September 2018 and initiated on first-line anti-tuberculosis treatment (ATT) to assess the coverage of DBT. We interviewed NTP staff and patients to understand their perceptions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe study outcomes are receipt of DBT (primary), time to receipt of first instalment of DBT and treatment outcome.ResultsAmong 1826 patients, 771 (42.2%) had received at least one instalment. Significantly more patients from the public sector had received DBT (at least one instalment) compared with those from private sector (adjusted relative risk (adjRR)=16.3; 95% CI 11.6 to 23.0). Among public sector patients, 7.3% (49/671) had received first instalment within 2 months of treatment initiation. Median (IQR) time to receipt of first instalment was 5.2 (3.4, 7.4) months. Treatment in private sector, residing outside city limits and being HIV non-reactive were significantly (p<0.001) associated with longer time to receipt. Timely and sufficient fund release, adequate manpower and adequate logistics in TB centre were the enablers. Inability of patients to open bank accounts due to lack of identity/residence proof, their reluctance to share personal information and inadequate support from private providers were the challenges identified in implementation.ConclusionDuring the early phase of DBT implementation, the coverage was low and there were delays in benefit transfer. Facilitating opening of bank accounts for patients by NTP staff and better support from private providers may improve DBT coverage. Repeat assessment of DBT coverage after streamlining of implementation is recommended.

Background: In 2016, the National AIDS Control Programme (NACP) in Gujarat, India implemented an innovative intervention called ‘M-TRACK’ (mobile phone reminders once every week for four weeks after diagnosis and electronic patient tracking tool) to reduce pre-treatment loss to follow-up (LFU) among people living with HIV (PLHIV) in Vadodara district while other districts received standard of care. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of M-TRACK in reducing pre-treatment LFU (proportion of diagnosed PLHIV not registering for HIV care by four weeks after diagnosis) and to explore the implementation enablers and challenges from health care providers’ and PLHIV perspective. Methods: An explanatory mixed-methods study design was used wherein the quantitative phase (cohort study with two groups: Vadodara district exposed to M-TRACK and Rajkot district as unexposed) was followed by a qualitative phase (descriptive study involving group interview with 16 health care providers, personal interviews with two programme managers and telephonic interviews with 16 PLHIV). Data were collected during October 2016 to February 2017. Results: During the pre-M-TRACK period (July–September 2016), the LFU proportion was similar [13% (25/191) in Vadodara; 15% (21/141) in Rajkot (p = 0.8)]. During the M-TRACK period (October–December 2016), LFU decreased to 4% (9/209) in Vadodara (exposed), whereas it remained similar at 16% (18/113) in Rajkot (unexposed) district (p = 0.02). PLHIV exposed to M-TRACK had an 80% lower risk of LFU (aRR 0.2; 95% CI: 0.1–0.5) compared with standard care, after adjusting for socio-demographics, time and clustering at district level. During interviews, M-TRACK was welcomed by both PLHIV and the counsellors. The latter felt it saved time by obviating the need for home visits and helped in documentation. Inconvenience of using landline phone available at the health facility, lack of budgets for reimbursement of mobile call expenses and internet connectivity problems were the key implementation challenges. Conclusion: M-TRACK was highly effective in reducing the gap between diagnosis and treatment. It may be considered for scale-up after addressing the challenges noted.

BackgroundColchicine, an anti-inflammatory drug is prescribed nowadays for COVID-19. In this meta-analysis, we evaluated efficacy and safety of colchicine in patients with COVID-19.MethodsWe searched databases for randomised controlled studies evaluating efficacy and/or safety of colchicine as compared with supportive care in patients with COVID-19. The efficacy outcomes were mortality, ventilatory support, intensive care unit (ICU) admission and length of hospital stay. The safety outcomes were adverse events, serious adverse events and diarrhoea. A meta-analytical summary was estimated using random effects model through Mantle-Hanzle method. An I2 test was used to assess heterogeneity. The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to assess quality of evidence for each outcome.ResultsOut of 69 full texts assessed, 6 studies (16148 patients with COVID-19) were included in meta-analysis. Patients receiving colchicine did not show significant reduction in mortality (risk difference, RD −0.00 (95% CI −0.01 to 0.01), I2=15%), ventilatory support (risk ratio, RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.38 to 1.21), I2=47%), ICU admission (RR 0.49 (95% CI 0.19 to 1.25), I2=34%), length of hospital stay (mean difference: −1.17 (95% CI −3.02 to 0.67), I2=77%) and serious adverse events (RD −0.01 (95% CI −0.02 to 0.00), I2=28%) than those who received supportive care only. Patients receiving colchicine had higher rates of adverse events (RR 1.58 (95% CI 1.07 to 2.33), I2=81%) and diarrhoea (RR 1.93 (95% CI 1.62 to 2.29), I2=0%) than supportive care treated patients. The GRADE quality of evidence was moderate for most outcomes.ConclusionThe moderate quality evidence suggests no benefit of addition of colchicine to the standard care regimen in patients with COVID-19.

The low-and-middle-income country (LMIC) context is volatile, uncertain and resource-constrained. India, an LMIC, has put up a complex response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Using an analytic approach, we have described India’s response to combat the pandemic during the initial months (from 17 January to 20 April 2020). India issued travel advisories and implemented graded international border controls between January and March 2020. By early March, cases started to surge. States scaled up movement restrictions. On 25 March, India went into a nationwide lockdown to ramp up preparedness. The lockdown uncovered contextual vulnerabilities and stimulated countermeasures. India leveraged existing legal frameworks, institutional mechanisms and administrative provisions to respond to the pandemic. Nevertheless, the cross-sectoral impact of the initial combat was intense and is potentially long-lasting. The country could have further benefited from evidence-based policy and planning attuned to local needs and vulnerabilities. Experience from India offers insights to nations, especially LMICs, on the need to have contextualised pandemic response plans.

No abstract