Implementation of VDOT resulted in successful anti-tuberculosis treatment outcomes while maximizing health department resources.

IMPORTANCEElectronic directly observed therapy (DOT) is used increasingly as an alternative to in-person DOT for monitoring tuberculosis treatment. Evidence supporting its efficacy is limited. OBJECTIVE To determine whether electronic DOT can attain a level of treatment observation as favorable as in-person DOT. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This was a 2-period crossover, noninferiority trial with initial randomization to electronic or in-person DOT at the time outpatient tuberculosis treatment began. The trial enrolled 216 participants with physician-suspected or bacteriologically confirmed tuberculosis from July 2017 to October 2019 in 4 clinics operated by the New York City Health Department. Data analysis was conducted between March 2020 and April 2021. INTERVENTIONS Participants were asked to complete 20 medication doses using 1 DOT method, then switched methods for another 20 doses. With in-person therapy, participants chose clinic or community-based DOT; with electronic DOT, participants chose live video-conferencing or recorded videos. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Difference between the percentage of medication dosesparticipants were observed to completely ingest with in-person DOT and with electronic DOT.Noninferiority was demonstrated if the upper 95% confidence limit of the difference was 10% or less. We estimated the percentage of completed doses using a logistic mixed effects model, run in 4 modes: modified intention-to-treat, per-protocol, per-protocol with 85% or more of doses conforming to the randomization assignment, and empirical. Confidence intervals were estimated by bootstrapping (with 1000 replicates). RESULTSThere were 173 participants in each crossover period (median age, 40 years [range, 16-86 years]; 140 [66%] men; 80 [37%] Asian and Pacific Islander, 43 [20%] Black, and 71 [33%] Hispanic individuals) evaluated with the model in the modified intention-to-treat analytic mode. The percentage of completed doses with in-person DOT was 87.2% (95% CI, 84.6%-89.9%) vs 89.8%(95% CI, 87.5%-92.1%) with electronic DOT. The percentage difference was −2.6% (95% CI, −4.8% to −0.3%), consistent with a conclusion of noninferiority. The 3 other analytic modes yielded equivalent conclusions, with percentage differences ranging from −4.9% to −1.9%. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this trial, the percentage of completed doses under electronic DOT was noninferior to that under in-person DOT. This trial provides evidence supporting the (continued) Key Points Question Is electronic directly observed therapy (DOT) noninferior to in-person DOT in supporting medication adherence for tuberculosis treatment? Findings In this randomized, 2-period crossover noninferiority trial of 216 patients with tuberculosis, the modified intention-to-treat analysis estimate of the percentage of medication doses staff observed patients ingest with in-person DOT was 87.2% vs 89.8% with electronic DOT. The percentage difference between DOT methods was −2.6%, which was less than the noninferiority margin of 10% at a statistically sign...

BackgroundSince January 2013, the New York City (NYC) Health Department Tuberculosis (TB) Program has offered persons diagnosed with latent TB infection (LTBI) the 3-month, once-weekly isoniazid and rifapentine (3HP) treatment regimen. Patients on this treatment are monitored in-person under directly observed therapy (DOT). To address patient and provider barriers to in-person DOT, we piloted the use of a videoconferencing software app to remotely conduct synchronous DOT (video directly observed therapy; VDOT) for patients on 3HP.ObjectiveThe objective of our study was to evaluate the implementation of VDOT for patients on 3HP and to assess whether treatment completion for these patients increased when they were monitored using VDOT compared with that using the standard in-person DOT.MethodsBetween February and October 2015, patients diagnosed with LTBI at any of the four NYC Health Department TB clinics who met eligibility criteria for treatment with 3HP under VDOT (V3HP) were followed until 16 weeks after treatment initiation, with treatment completion defined as ingestion of 11 doses within 16 weeks. Treatment completion of patients on V3HP was compared with that of patients on 3HP under clinic-based, in-person DOT who were part of a prior study in 2013. Furthermore, outcomes of video sessions with V3HP patients were collected and analyzed.ResultsDuring the study period, 70% (50/71) of eligible patients were placed on V3HP. Treatment completion among V3HP patients was 88% (44/50) compared with 64.9% (196/302) among 3HP patients on clinic DOT (P<.001). A total of 360 video sessions were conducted for V3HP patients with a median of 8 (range: 1-11) sessions per patient and a median time of 4 (range: 1-59) minutes per session. Adherence issues (eg, >15 minutes late) during video sessions occurred 104 times. No major side effects were reported by V3HP patients.ConclusionsThe NYC TB program observed higher treatment completion with VDOT than that previously seen with clinic DOT among patients on 3HP. Expanding the use of VDOT may improve treatment completion and corresponding outcomes for patients with LTBI.

Objectives. To assess costs of video and traditional in-person directly observed therapy (DOT) for tuberculosis (TB) treatment to health departments and patients in New York City, Rhode Island, and San Francisco, California. Methods. We collected health department costs for video DOT (VDOT; live and recorded), and in-person DOT (field- and clinic-based). Time–motion surveys estimated provider time and cost. A separate survey collected patient costs. We used a regression model to estimate cost by DOT type. Results. Between August 2017 and June 2018, 343 DOT sessions were captured from 225 patients; 87 completed a survey. Patient costs were lowest for VDOT live ($1.01) and highest for clinic DOT ($34.53). The societal (health department + patient) costs of VDOT live and recorded ($6.65 and $12.64, respectively) were less than field and clinic DOT ($21.40 and $46.11, respectively). VDOT recorded health department cost was not statistically different from field DOT cost in Rhode Island. Conclusions. Among the 4 different modalities, both types of VDOT were associated with lower societal costs when compared with traditional forms of DOT. Public Health Implications. VDOT was associated with lower costs from the societal perspective and may reduce public health costs when TB incidence is high. (Am J Public Health. Published online ahead of print September 17, 2020: e1–e8. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2020.305877 )