Prevalence and predictive factors of tuberculosis treatment interruption in the Asia region: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

IntroductionTuberculosis (TB) treatment interruption remains a critical challenge leading to poor treatment outcomes. Two-thirds of global new TB cases are mostly contributed by Asian countries, prompting systematic analysis of predictors for treatment interruption due to the variable findings.MethodsArticles published from 2012 to 2021 were searched through seven databases. Studies that established the relationship for risk factors of TB treatment interruption among adult Asian were included. Relevant articles were screened, extracted and appraised using Joanna Briggs Institute’s checklists for cohort, case–control and cross-sectional study designs by three reviewers. Meta-analysis was performed using the random effect model in Review Manager software. The pooled prevalence and predictors of treatment interruption were expressed in ORs with 95% CIs; heterogeneity was assessed using the I2statistic. The publication bias was visually inspected using the funnel plot.ResultsFifty eligible studies (658 304 participants) from 17 Asian countries were included. The overall pooled prevalence of treatment interruption was 17% (95% CI 16% to 18%), the highest in Southern Asia (22% (95% CI 16% to 29%)), followed by Eastern Asia (18% (95% CI 16% to 20%)) and South East Asia (16% (95% CI 4% to 28%)). Seven predictors were identified to increase the risk of treatment interruption, namely, male gender (OR 1.38 (95% CI 1.26 to 1.51)), employment (OR 1.43 (95% CI 1.11 to 1.84)), alcohol intake (OR 2.24 (95% CI 1.58 to 3.18)), smoking (OR 2.74 (95% CI 1.98 to 3.78)), HIV-positive (OR 1.50 (95% CI 1.15 to 1.96)), adverse drug reactions (OR 2.01 (95% CI 1.20 to 3.34)) and previously treated cases (OR 1.77 (95% CI 1.39 to 2.26)). All predictors demonstrated substantial heterogeneity except employment and HIV status with no publication bias.ConclusionThe identification of predictors for TB treatment interruption enables strategised planning and collective intervention to be targeted at the high-risk groups to strengthen TB care and control in the Asia region.

Risk Factors for Unfavorable Outcomes of Tuberculosis in Korea: Implications for Patient-Centered Care in Tuberculosis Treatment

“…ADRs increase the likelihood of treatment interruption. 16 17 18 19 In our study, 187 patients (28.4%) experienced ADRs in total. Among the LTFU group, 20 (74.1%) patients experiencing ADRs.…”

Occurrence of multidrug-resistant Mycobacterium tuberculosis in upper Southern Thailand

“…The incidence of TB in other Asian countries has been documented. Southern Asia (22%) showed the highest prevalence of TB, followed by Eastern Asia (18%) and South-east Asia (16%), as described by a systematic review and meta-analysis of articles published from 2012 to 2021 [ 12 ].…”

Retreatment and Anti-tuberculosis Therapy Outcomes in Brazil Between 2015 and 2022: A Nationwide Study

“…An unfavorable outcome was defined as TB treatment failure (positive sputum smear results remain until the end of treatment), LTFU (if the patient has taken >30 consecutive days to return to a treatment unit after the expected return date), or death (the knowledge of a patient's death during treatment), while a favorable treatment outcome was defined as cure (clinical and bacteriologic). The definitions for clinical or bacteriological cure, as well as for each specific unfavorable outcome, were determined following criteria found in the Manual of Recommendations for the Control of TB in Brazil and are depicted in detail in Supplementary Table 1 [ 5 , 14 ]. Registries of other outcomes—such as transferred (patient sent to another healthcare unit to finalize the treatment), treatment modification (factors that cause treatment modification: due to drug-resistant TB), change in diagnosis (patient diagnosed with another disease other than TB), and “ongoing treatment”—were excluded from the analyses due to the lack of information on the final treatment outcome ( Figure 1 ).…”