Treatment outcomes of tuberculosis patients detected by active case finding under the Revised National Tuberculosis Control Programme during 2018 in Haridwar district of Uttarakhand

A mixed-methods study on impact of active case finding on pulmonary tuberculosis treatment outcomes in India

“…In contrast to our findings, a study in Haridwar reported a 2.6 times higher risk of unsuccessful TB treatment outcomes associated with ACF compared to PCF, albeit on a small sample size [30]. Similarly, another study in the same district, albeit also with a small sample size, reported a much lower treatment success rate of 64% compared to the 94% reported in our study [32]. A study in South Delhi, again with a limited sample size, did not find a significant association between ACF and TB treatment outcomes, with treatment success rates of 75% for ACF and 82% for PCF [33].…”

“…When comparing our study results with international evidence, we observed higher treatment success rates in the ACF group compared with the PCF group, while studies in Myanmar, Ethiopia, Nigeria, and South Africa, including a systematic review, reported similar treatment success rates in these groups [ 14 , 25 , 27 – 29 ]. Additionally, most existing studies have reported high initial default rates and treatment delays among patients diagnosed through community surveys [ 16 , 25 , 27 , 30 , 32 , 40 ], although one study noted a decrease in the initial default rate due to ACF [ 19 ]. However, our study did not specifically investigate this effect as it focused on TB patients already on treatment.…”

“…For instance, while one meta-analysis found no difference in treatment success between ACF and PCF groups [27], studies outside India have also reported conflicting results [28,29]. Moreover, within India, there is limited and inconsistent evidence on the impact of ACF on TB treatment outcomes [30][31][32][33]. Such inconsistencies underscore the critical need for further investigation.…”