Background: There is limited evidence on whether active case finding (ACF) among marginalised and vulnerable populations mitigates the financial burden during tuberculosis (TB) diagnosis. Objectives: To determine the effect of ACF among marginalised and vulnerable populations on prevalence and inequity of catastrophic costs due to TB diagnosis among TB-affected households when compared with passive case finding (PCF). Methods: In 18 randomly sampled ACF districts in India, during March 2016 to February 2017, we enrolled all new sputum-smear-positive TB patients detected through ACF and an equal number of randomly selected patients detected through PCF. Direct (medical and non-medical) and indirect costs due to TB diagnosis were collected through patient interviews at their residence. We defined costs due to TB diagnosis as ‘catastrophic’ if the total costs (direct and indirect) due to TB diagnosis exceeded 20% of annual pre-TB household income. We used concentration curves and indices to assess the extent of inequity. Results: When compared with patients detected through PCF (n = 231), ACF patients (n = 234) incurred lower median total costs (US$ 4.6 and 20.4, p < 0.001). The prevalence of catastrophic costs in ACF and PCF was 10.3 and 11.5% respectively. Adjusted analysis showed that patients detected through ACF had a 32% lower prevalence of catastrophic costs relative to PCF [adjusted prevalence ratio (95% CI): 0.68 (0.69, 0.97)]. The concentration indices (95% CI) for total costs in both ACF [−0.15 (−0.32, 0.11)] and PCF [−0.06 (−0.20, 0.08)] were not significantly different from the line of equality and each other. The concentration indices (95% CI) for catastrophic costs in both ACF [−0.60 (−0.81, –0.39)] and PCF [−0.58 (−0.78, –0.38)] were not significantly different from each other: however, both the curves had a significant distribution among the poorest quintiles. Conclusion: ACF among marginalised and vulnerable populations reduced total costs and prevalence of catastrophic costs due to TB diagnosis, but could not address inequity.

ObjectiveWe assessed uptake of isoniazid preventive therapy (IPT) among child contacts of smear-positive tuberculosis (TB) patients and its implementation challenges from healthcare providers’ and parents’ perspectives in Bhopal, India.MethodsA mixed-method study design: quantitative phase (review of programme records and house-to-house survey of smear-positive TB patients) followed by qualitative phase (interviews of healthcare providers and parents).ResultsOf 59 child contacts (<6 years) of 129 index patients, 51 were contacted. Among them, 19 of 51 (37%) were screened for TB and one had TB. Only 11 of 50 (22%) children were started and 10 of 50 (20%) completed IPT. Content analysis of interviews revealed lack of awareness, risk perception among parents, cumbersome screening process, isoniazid stock-outs, inadequate knowledge among healthcare providers and poor programmatic monitoring as main barriers to IPT implementation.ConclusionNational TB programme should counsel parents, train healthcare providers, simplify screening procedures, ensure regular drug supply and introduce an indicator to strengthen monitoring and uptake of IPT.

BACKGROUNDSputum smear negative pulmonary tuberculosis remains a significant burden with a definite role in disease transmission too. They sometimes pose a diagnostic challenge to the treating physician. CBNAAT, a newly endorsed WHO technique, which not only detects the tubercle bacilli but also tells about the resistance to rifampicin, may have a role in sputum smear negative patients if bronchoalveolar lavage fluid is made available.

Results Mutations were identified in 269 (37.6%) samples, as follows: 55 (7.6%) samples had mutations conferring resistance to only isoniazid, 84 (11.6%) had mutations conferring resistance to only rifampicin and 130 (18%) isolates had mutations conferring resistance to both isoniazid and rifampicin.The most frequent mutation in the rpoB gene was at codon S531L, seen in 141 (19.5%) isolates. The most frequent mutation in the katG gene was at codon S315T1, seen in 151 (20.9%) isolates; and in the inhA gene at codon C15T, seen in 21 (2.9%) isolates. Some unidentified mutations were also observed. ConclusionThe patterns and the frequency of the mutations identified in this study indicate the most frequent mutations at S531L codon in the rpoB gene, S315T1 codon in the katG gene and C15T codon in the promoter region of the inhA gene. Controlling the emergence and spread of MDR TB requires an understanding of the evolution of these mutations.

Background: In 2007, a field observation from India reported 11% misclassification among ‘new’ patients registered under the revised national tuberculosis (TB) control programme. Ten years down the line, it is important to know what proportion of newly registered patients has a past history of TB treatment for at least one month (henceforth called ‘misclassification’). Methods: A study was conducted among new smear-positive pulmonary TB patients registered between March 2016 and February 2017 in 18 randomly selected districts to determine the effectiveness of an active case-finding strategy in marginalised and vulnerable populations. We included all patients detected through active case-finding. An equal number of randomly selected patients registered through passive case-finding from marginalised and vulnerable populations in the same districts were included. Before enrolment, we enquired about any history of previous TB treatment through interviews. Results: Of 629 patients, we interviewed 521, of whom, 11% (n=56) had past history of TB treatment (public or private) for at least a month: 13% (34/268) among the active case-finding group and 9% (22/253) among the passive case-finding group (p=0.18). No factors were found to be significantly associated with misclassification. Conclusion: Around one in every ten patients registered as ‘new’ had previous history of TB treatment. Corrective measures need to be implemented, followed by monitoring of any change in the proportion of ‘previously treated’ patients among all registered patients treated under the programme at national level.