A meta-analysis of self-administered vs directly observed therapy effect on microbiologic failure, relapse, and acquired drug resistance in tuberculosis patients

Jotam G Pasipanodya, Tawanda Gumbo, Jotam G Pasipanodya, Tawanda Gumbo

Abstract

Background: Preclinical studies and Monte Carlo simulations have suggested that there is a relatively limited role of adherence in acquired drug resistance (ADR) and that very high levels of nonadherence are needed for therapy failure. We evaluated the superiority of directly observed therapy (DOT) for tuberculosis patients vs self-administered therapy (SAT) in decreasing ADR, microbiologic failure, and relapse in meta-analyses.

Methods: Prospective studies performed between 1965 and 2012 in which adult patients with microbiologically proven pulmonary Mycobacterium tuberculosis were separately assigned to either DOT or SAT as part of short-course chemotherapy were chosen. Endpoints were microbiologic failure, relapse, and ADR in patients on either DOT or SAT.

Results: Ten studies, 5 randomized and 5 observational, met selection criteria: 8774 patients were allocated to DOT and 3708 were allocated to SAT. For DOT vs SAT, the pooled risk difference for microbiologic failure was .0 (95% confidence interval [CI], -.01 to .01), for relapse .01 (95% CI, -.03 to .06), and for ADR 0.0 (95% CI, -0.01 to 0.01). The incidence rates for DOT vs SAT were 1.5% (95% CI, 1.3%-1.8%) vs 1.7% (95% CI, 1.2%-2.2%) for microbiologic failure, 3.7% (95% CI, 0.7%-17.6%) vs 2.3% (95% CI, 0.7%-7.2%) for relapse, and 1.5% (95% CI, 0.2%-9.90%) vs 0.9% (95% CI, 0.4%-2.3%) for ADR, respectively. There was no evidence of publication bias.

Conclusions: DOT was not significantly better than SAT in preventing microbiologic failure, relapse, or ADR, in evidence-based medicine. Resources should be shifted to identify other causes of poor microbiologic outcomes.

Keywords: acquired drug resistance; directly observed therapy; microbiologic failure; self-administered therapy; tuberculosis.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Summary of literature search and study selection for the meta-analysis. Abbreviations: DOT, directly observed therapy; HIV, human immunodeficiency virus; SAT, self-administered therapy; TB, tuberculosis.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Pooled risk differences for defaulting in patients on directly observed therapy compared to self-administered therapy. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DOT, directly observed therapy; ID, identity; RD, risk difference; SAT, self-administered therapy.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Pooled risk differences for microbiologic failure in patients on directly observed therapy compared to self-administered therapy. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DOT, directly observed therapy; ID, identity; RD, risk difference; SAT, self-administered therapy.
Figure 4.
Figure 4.
Publication bias analysis and small study effects for microbiologic failure. Abbreviation: RD, risk difference.
Figure 5.
Figure 5.
Pooled risk difference for relapse on directly observed therapy compared to self-administered therapy. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DOT, directly observed therapy; ID, identity; RD, risk difference; SAT, self-administered therapy.
Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Publication bias analysis and small study effects for relapse. Abbreviation: RD, risk difference.
Figure 7.
Figure 7.
Effect of directly observed therapy vs self-administered therapy on acquired drug resistance. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; DOT, directly observed therapy; ID, identity; RD, risk difference; SAT, self-administered therapy.

References

    1. Frieden TR, Fujiwara PI, Washko RM, Hamburg MA. Tuberculosis in New York City—turning the tide. N Engl J Med. 1995;333:229–33.
    1. Fujiwara PI, Larkin C, Frieden TR. Directly observed therapy in New York City: history, implementation, results, and challenges. Clin Chest Med. 1997;18:135–48.
    1. No authors listed. Results of directly observed short-course chemotherapy in 112,842 Chinese patients with smear-positive tuberculosis. China Tuberculosis Control Collaboration. Lancet. 1996;347:358–62.
    1. Weis SE, Slocum PC, Blais FX, et al. The effect of directly observed therapy on the rates of drug resistance and relapse in tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330:1179–84.
    1. Walley JD, Khan MA, Newell JN, Khan MH. Effectiveness of the direct observation component of DOTS for tuberculosis: a randomised controlled trial in Pakistan. Lancet. 2001;357:664–9.
    1. Steffen R, Menzies D, Oxlade O, et al. Patients’ costs and cost-effectiveness of tuberculosis treatment in DOTS and non-DOTS facilities in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. PLoS One. 2010;5:e14014.
    1. Ormerod LP. Directly observed therapy (DOT) for tuberculosis: why, when, how and if? Thorax. 1999;54(uppl 2):S42–5.
    1. Chaulk CP, Kazandjian VA. Directly observed therapy for treatment completion of pulmonary tuberculosis: consensus statement of the Public Health Tuberculosis Guidelines Panel. JAMA. 1998;279:943–8.
    1. Frieden TR, Sbarbaro JA. Promoting adherence to treatment for tuberculosis: the importance of direct observation. World Hosp Health Serv. 2007;43:30–3.
    1. Moore RD, Chaulk CP, Griffiths R, Cavalcante S, Chaisson RE. Cost-effectiveness of directly observed versus self-administered therapy for tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996;154:1013–9.
    1. Burman WJ, Cohn DL, Rietmeijer CA, Judson FN, Sbarbaro JA, Reves RR. Noncompliance with directly observed therapy for tuberculosis: epidemiology and effect on the outcome of treatment. Chest. 1997;111:1168–73.
    1. China Tuberculosis Control Collaboration. The effect of tuberculosis control in China. Lancet. 2004;364:417–22.
    1. Volmink J, Garner P. Directly observed therapy for treating tuberculosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007:CD003343.
    1. Cox HS, Morrow M, Deutschmann PW. Long term efficacy of DOTS regimens for tuberculosis: systematic review. BMJ. 2008;336:484–7.
    1. Verver S, Warren RM, Beyers N, et al. Rate of reinfection tuberculosis after successful treatment is higher than rate of new tuberculosis. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005;171:1430–5.
    1. Charalambous S, Grant AD, Moloi V, et al. Contribution of reinfection to recurrent tuberculosis in South African gold miners. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2008;12:942–8.
    1. Dartois V. Drug forgiveness and interpatient pharmacokinetic variability in tuberculosis. J Infect Dis. 2011;204:1827–9.
    1. Srivastava S, Pasipanodya JG, Meek C, Leff R, Gumbo T. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis not due to noncompliance but to between-patient pharmacokinetic variability. J Infect Dis. 2011;204:1951–9.
    1. Gumbo T. General principles of chemotherapy of infectious diseases. In: Brunton LL, Chabner B, Knollmann B, editors. Goodman & Gilman's the pharmacological basis of therapeutics. 12th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Medical; 2011.
    1. World Health Organization, International Union Against Tuberculosis and Lung Disease, Royal Netherlands Tuberculosis Association. Revised international definitions in tuberculosis control . Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2001;5:213–5.
    1. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12.
    1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
    1. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis. West Wessex, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
    1. Pogue J, Yusuf S. Overcoming the limitations of current meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 1998;351:47–52.
    1. DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.
    1. Fleiss JL. The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 1993;2:121–45.
    1. Ormerod LP, Horsfield N, Green RM. Tuberculosis treatment outcome monitoring: Blackburn 1988–2000. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2002;6:662–5.
    1. Pungrassami P, Johnsen SP, Chongsuvivatwong V, Olsen J. Has directly observed treatment improved outcomes for patients with tuberculosis in southern Thailand? Trop Med Int Health. 2002;7:271–9.
    1. Jasmer RM, Seaman CB, Gonzalez LC, Kawamura LM, Osmond DH, Daley CL. Tuberculosis treatment outcomes: directly observed therapy compared with self-administered therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2004;170:561–6.
    1. Okanurak K, Kitayaporn D, Wanarangsikul W, Koompong C. Effectiveness of DOT for tuberculosis treatment outcomes: a prospective cohort study in Bangkok, Thailand. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2007;11:762–8.
    1. Anuwatnonthakate A, Limsomboon P, Nateniyom S, et al. Directly observed therapy and improved tuberculosis treatment outcomes in Thailand. PLoS One. 2008;3:e3089.
    1. Zwarenstein M, Schoeman JH, Vundule C, Lombard CJ, Tatley M. Randomised controlled trial of self-supervised and directly observed treatment of tuberculosis. Lancet. 1998;352:1340–3.
    1. Zwarenstein M, Schoeman JH, Vundule C, Lombard CJ, Tatley M. A randomised controlled trial of lay health workers as direct observers for treatment of tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2000;4:550–4.
    1. Tuberculosis Research Centre. A controlled clinical trial of oral short-course regimens in the treatment of sputum-positive pulmonary tuberculosis. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1997;1:509–17.
    1. Kamolratanakul P, Sawert H, Lertmaharit S, et al. Randomized controlled trial of directly observed treatment (DOT) for patients with pulmonary tuberculosis in Thailand. Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 1999;93:552–7.
    1. Kish MA. Guide to development of practice guidelines. Clin Infect Dis. 2001;32:851–4.
    1. van den Boogaard J, Lyimo RA, Boeree MJ, Kibiki GS, Aarnoutse RE. Electronic monitoring of treatment adherence and validation of alternative adherence measures in tuberculosis patients: a pilot study. Bull World Health Organ. 2011;89:632–9.
    1. Pasipanodya JG, Srivastava S, Gumbo T. Meta-analysis of clinical studies supports the pharmacokinetic variability hypothesis for acquired drug resistance and failure of antituberculosis therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2012;55:169–77.
    1. Copeland KT, Checkoway H, McMichael AJ, Holbrook RH. Bias due to misclassification in the estimation of relative risk. Am J Epidemiol. 1977;105:488–95.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する