No abstract

Summary Background Despite international recommendations, coverage of syphilis testing in pregnant women and treatment of those found seropositive remains limited in sub-Saharan Africa. We assessed whether combining the provision of supplies with a behavioural intervention was more effective than providing supplies only, to improve syphilis screening and treatment during antenatal care. Methods In this 18-month, cluster randomised controlled trial, we randomly assigned (1:1) 26 urban antenatal care clinics in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Lusaka, Zambia, to receive a behavioural intervention (opinion leader selection, academic detailing visits, reminders, audits and feedback, and supportive supervision) plus supplies for syphilis testing and treatment (intervention group) or to receive supplies only (control group). The primary outcomes were proportion of pregnant women who had syphilis screening out of the total who attended the clinic; and the proportion of women who had treatment with benzathine benzylpenicillin out of those who tested positive for syphilis at their first antenatal care visit. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02353117 . Findings The 18-month study period was Feb 1, 2016, to July 14, 2017. 18 357 women were enrolled at the 13 intervention clinics and 17 679 women were enrolled at the 13 control clinics at their first antenatal care visit. Syphilis screening was done in a median of 99·9% (IQR 99·0–100·0) of women in the intervention clinics and 93·8% (85·0–98·9) in the control clinics (absolute difference 6·1% [95% CI 1·1–14·1]; p=0·00092). Syphilis treatment at the first visit was done in a median of 100% (IQR 99·7–100·0) of seropositive women in intervention clinics and 43·2% (2·6–83·2) of seropositive women in control clinics (absolute difference 56·8% [12·8–99·0]; p=0·0028). Interpretation A behavioural intervention, together with the provision of supplies, can lead to more than 95% of women being screened and treated for syphilis. The sole provision of supplies is sufficient to reach such levels of screening coverage but is not sufficient to ensure high levels of treatment. Funding Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

Background Tuberculosis (TB) still represents a major public health problem in Latin America, with low success and high default rates. Poor adherence represents a major threat for TB control and promotes emergence of drug-resistant TB. Expanding social protection programs could have a substantial effect on the global burden of TB; however, there is little evidence to evaluate the outcomes of socioeconomic support interventions. This study evaluated the effect of a conditional cash transfer (CCT) policy on treatment success and default rates in a prospective cohort of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients. Methods and findings Data were collected on adult patients with first diagnosis of pulmonary TB starting treatment in public healthcare facilities (HCFs) from 16 health departments with high TB burden in Buenos Aires who were followed until treatment completion or abandonment. The main exposure of interest was the registration to receive the CCT. Other covariates, such as sociodemographic and clinical variables and HCFs’ characteristics usually associated with treatment adherence and outcomes, were also considered in the analysis. We used hierarchical models, propensity score (PS) matching, and inverse probability weighting (IPW) to estimate treatment effects, adjusting for individual and health system confounders. Of 941 patients with known CCT status, 377 registered for the program showed significantly higher success rates (82% versus 69%) and lower default rates (11% versus 20%). After controlling for individual and system characteristics and modality of treatment, odds ratio (OR) for success was 2.9 (95% CI 2, 4.3, P < 0.001) and default was 0.36 (95% CI 0.23, 0.57, P < 0.001). As this is an observational study evaluating an intervention not randomly assigned, there might be some unmeasured residual confounding. Although it is possible that a small number of patients was not registered into the program because they were deemed not eligible, the majority of patients fulfilled the requirements and were not registered because of different reasons. Since the information on the CCT was collected at the end of the study, we do not know the exact timing for when each patient was registered for the program. Conclusions The CCT appears to be a valuable health policy intervention to improve TB treatment outcomes. Incorporating these interventions as established policies may have a considerable effect on the control of TB in similar high-burden areas.

No abstract