BackgroundWhile the high burden of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB) itself is a matter of great concern, the emergence and rise of advanced forms of drug-resistance such as extensively drug-resistant TB (XDR-TB) and extremely drug-resistant TB (XXDR-TB) is more troubling. The aim of this study was to investigate the trends over time of patterns of drug resistance in a sample of MDR-TB patients in greater metropolitan Mumbai, India.MethodsThis was a retrospective, observational study of drug susceptibility testing (DST) results among MDR-TB patients from eight health care facilities in greater Mumbai between 2005 and 2013. We classified resistance patterns into four categories: MDR-TB, pre-XDR-TB, XDR-TB and XXDR-TB.ResultsA total of 340 MDR-TB patients were included in the study. Pre-XDR-TB was the most common form of drug-resistant TB observed overall in this Mumbai population at 56.8% compared to 29.4% for MDR-TB. The proportion of patients with MDR-TB was 39.4% in the period 2005–2007 and 27.8% in 2011–2013, while the proportion of those with XDR-TB and XXDR-TB was changed from 6.1% and 0% respectively to 10.6% and 5.6% during the same time period. During the same periods, the proportions of patients with ofloxacin, moxifloxacin and ethionamide resistance significantly increased from 57.6% to 75.3%, from 60.0% to 69.5% and from 24.2% to 52.5% respectively (p<0.05).DiscussionThe observed trends in TB drug-resistance patterns in Mumbai highlight the need for individualized drug regimens, designed on the basis of DST results involving first- and second-line anti-TB drugs and treatment history of the patient. A drug-resistant TB case-finding strategy based on molecular techniques that identify only rifampicin resistance will lead to initiation of suboptimal treatment regimens for a significant number of patients, which may in turn contribute to amplification of resistance and transmission of strains with increasingly advanced resistance within the community.

BackgroundDespite their importance, the number of outcomes research studies conducted in India are lesser than other countries. Information about the distribution of existing outcomes research resources and relevant expertise can benefit researchers and research groups interested in conducting outcomes research studies and policy makers interested in funding outcomes research studies in India. We have reviewed the literature to identify and map resources described in outcomes research studies conducted in India.MethodsWe reviewed the following online biomedical databases: Pubmed, SCIRUS, CINAHL, and Google scholar and selected articles that met the following criteria: published in English, conducted on Indian population, providing information about outcomes research resources (databases/registries/electronic medical records/electronic healthcare records/hospital information systems) in India and articles describing outcomes research studies or epidemiological studies based on outcomes research resources. After shortlisting articles, we abstracted data into three datasets viz. 1. Resource dataset, 2. Bibliometric dataset and 3. Researcher dataset and carried out descriptive analysis.ResultsOf the 126 articles retrieved, 119 articles were selected for inclusion in the study. The tally increased to 133 articles after a secondary search. Based on the information available in the articles, we identified a total of 91 unique research resources. We observed that most of the resources were Registries (62/91) and Databases ( 23/91) and were primarily located in Maharashtra (19/91) followed by Tamil Nadu (11/91), Chandigarh (8/91) and Kerala (7/91) States. These resources primarily collected data on Cancer (44/91), Stroke (5/91) and Diabetes (4/91). Most of these resources were Institutional (38/91) and Regional resources (35/91) located in Government owned and managed Academic Institutes/Hospitals (57/91) or Privately owned and managed non – Academic Institutes/Hospitals (14/91). Data from the Population based Cancer Registry, Mumbai was used in 41 peer reviewed publications followed by Population based Cancer Registry, Chennai (17) and Rural Cancer Registry Barshi (14). Most of the articles were published in International journals (139/193) that had an impact factor of 0–1.99 (43/91) and received an average of 0–20 citations (55/91). We identified 193 researchers who are mainly located in Maharashtra (37/193) and Tamil Nadu (24/193) states and Southern (76/193) and Western zones (47/193). They were mainly affiliated to Government owned & managed Academic Institutes /Hospitals (96/193) or privately owned and managed Academic Institutes/ Hospitals (35/193).ConclusionsGiven the importance of Outcomes research, relevant resources should be supported and encouraged which would help in the generation of important healthcare data that can guide health and research policy. Clarity about the distribution of outcomes research resources can facilitate future resource and funding allocation decisions for policy makers as well as hel...