BackgroundThe World Health Organization (WHO) End TB Strategy has established a milestone to reduce the number of tuberculosis (TB)- affected households facing catastrophic costs to zero by 2020. The role of active case finding (ACF) in reducing patient costs has not been determined globally. This study therefore aimed to compare costs incurred by TB patients diagnosed through ACF and passive case finding (PCF), and to determine the prevalence and intensity of patient-incurred catastrophic costs in Nepal.MethodsThe study was conducted in two districts of Nepal: Bardiya and Pyuthan (Province No. 5) between June and August 2018. One hundred patients were included in this study in a 1:1 ratio (PCF: ACF, 25 consecutive ACF and 25 consecutive PCF patients in each district). The WHO TB patient costing tool was applied to collect information from patients or a member of their family regarding indirect and direct medical and non-medical costs. Catastrophic costs were calculated based on the proportion of patients with total costs exceeding 20% of their annual household income. The intensity of catastrophic costs was calculated using the positive overshoot method. The chi-square and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare proportions and costs. Meanwhile, the Mantel Haenszel test was performed to assess the association between catastrophic costs and type of diagnosis.ResultsNinety-nine patients were interviewed (50 ACF and 49 PCF). Patients diagnosed through ACF incurred lower costs during the pre-treatment period (direct medical: USD 14 vs USD 32, P = 0.001; direct non-medical: USD 3 vs USD 10, P = 0.004; indirect, time loss: USD 4 vs USD 13, P <  0.001). The cost of the pre-treatment and intensive phases combined was also lower for direct medical (USD 15 vs USD 34, P = 0.002) and non-medical (USD 30 vs USD 54, P = 0.022) costs among ACF patients. The prevalence of catastrophic direct costs was lower for ACF patients for all thresholds. A lower intensity of catastrophic costs was also documented for ACF patients, although the difference was not statistically significant.ConclusionsACF can reduce patient-incurred costs substantially, contributing to the End TB Strategy target. Other synergistic policies, such as social protection, will also need to be implemented to reduce catastrophic costs to zero among TB-affected households.

The aim of this study was to compare costs and socio-economic impact of tuberculosis (TB) for patients diagnosed through active (ACF) and passive case finding (PCF) in Nepal. A longitudinal costing survey was conducted in four districts of Nepal from April 2018 to October 2019. Costs were collected using the WHO TB Patient Costs Survey at three time points: intensive phase of treatment, continuation phase of treatment and at treatment completion. Direct and indirect costs and socio-economic impact (poverty headcount, employment status and coping strategies) were evaluated throughout the treatment. Prevalence of catastrophic costs was estimated using the WHO threshold. Logistic regression and generalized estimating equation were used to evaluate risk of incurring high costs, catastrophic costs and socio-economic impact of TB over time. A total of 111 ACF and 110 PCF patients were included. ACF patients were more likely to have no education (75% vs 57%, P = 0.006) and informal employment (42% vs 24%, P = 0.005) Compared with the PCF group, ACF patients incurred lower costs during the pretreatment period (mean total cost: US$55 vs US$87, P &lt; 0.001) and during the pretreatment plus treatment periods (mean total direct costs: US$72 vs US$101, P &lt; 0.001). Socio-economic impact was severe for both groups throughout the whole treatment, with 32% of households incurring catastrophic costs. Catastrophic costs were associated with ‘no education’ status [odds ratio = 2.53(95% confidence interval = 1.16–5.50)]. There is a severe and sustained socio-economic impact of TB on affected households in Nepal. The community-based ACF approach mitigated costs and reached the most vulnerable patients. Alongside ACF, social protection policies must be extended to achieve the zero catastrophic costs milestone of the End TB strategy.

ObjectivePsychosocial and economic (socioeconomic) barriers, including poverty, stigma and catastrophic costs, impede access to tuberculosis (TB) services in low-income countries. We aimed to characterise the socioeconomic barriers and facilitators of accessing TB services in Nepal to inform the design of a locally appropriate socioeconomic support intervention for TB-affected households.DesignFrom August 2018 to July 2019, we conducted an exploratory qualitative study consisting of semistructured focus group discussions (FGDs) with purposively selected multisectoral stakeholders. The data were managed in NVivo V.12, coded by consensus and analysed thematically.SettingThe study was conducted in four districts, Makwanpur, Chitwan, Dhanusha and Mahottari, which have a high prevalence of poverty and TB.ParticipantsSeven FGDs were conducted with 54 in-country stakeholders, grouped by stakeholders, including people with TB (n=21), community stakeholders (n=13) and multidisciplinary TB healthcare professionals (n=20) from the National TB Programme.ResultsThe perceived socioeconomic barriers to accessing TB services were: inadequate TB knowledge and advocacy; high food and transportation costs; income loss and stigma. The perceived facilitators to accessing TB care and services were: enhanced championing and awareness-raising about TB and TB services; social protection including health insurance; cash, vouchers and/or nutritional allowance to cover food and travel costs; and psychosocial support and counselling integrated with existing adherence counselling from the National TB Programme.ConclusionThese results suggest that support interventions that integrate TB education, psychosocial counselling and expand on existing cash transfer schemes would be locally appropriate and could address the socioeconomic barriers to accessing and engaging with TB services faced by TB-affected households in Nepal. The findings have been used to inform the design of a socioeconomic support intervention for TB-affected households. The acceptability, feasibility and impact of this intervention on TB-related costs, stigma and TB treatment outcomes, is now being evaluated in a pilot implementation study in Nepal.