RESUMO
Assuntos
Grupos Focais , Seleção de Pacientes , Tuberculose , Humanos , Adolescente , Tuberculose/tratamento farmacológico , Feminino , Masculino , Criança , Antituberculosos/administração & dosagem , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto , PesquisadoresRESUMO
BACKGROUND: We evaluated patient safety within a randomized crossover trial comparing electronic directly observed therapy (eDOT) to in-person DOT (ipDOT) in persons undergoing TB treatment in New York City, NY, USA.METHODS: Participant symptoms, symptom severity, and clinical management were documented. We assessed adverse event reports (AERs) by DOT method during the two-period crossover. Using Cox proportional-hazards mixed-effects models, we estimated the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) of participants reporting an adverse event (AE) vs. not reporting an AE.RESULTS: Of 211 participants, 57 (27.0%) reported AEs during the two-period crossover; of these, 54.4% (31/57) were reported while using eDOT vs. 45.6% (26/57) while using ipDOT. Controlling for study group and period, the aHR for eDOT vs. ipDOT was 0.98 (95% CI 0.49-1.93). Although statistically not significant, the wide confidence intervals suggest that a significant association cannot be entirely ruled out. Gastrointestinal symptoms were most frequently reported (42.1%, 24/57). AER types and severity did not differ significantly by DOT method. Days from symptom onset to medical attention was similar across DOT methods (median: 1.0 day, IQR 0.0-2.0). No participants switched DOT methods due to AERs or monitoring concerns.CONCLUSION: Further evaluation to ascertain whether AERs differ when patients use eDOT vs. ipDOT is warranted.
Assuntos
Terapia Diretamente Observada , Tuberculose , Humanos , Tuberculose/tratamento farmacológico , Cidade de Nova Iorque/epidemiologiaRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Electronic directly observed therapy (eDOT) has been proposed as an alternative to traditional in-person DOT (ipDOT) for monitoring TB treatment adherence. Information about the comparative performance and implementation of eDOT is limited.METHODS: The frequency of challenges during DOT, challenge type, and effect on medication observation were documented by DOT method during a crossover, noninferiority randomized controlled trial. A logistic mixed-effects model that adjusted for the study design was used to estimate the percentage of successfully observed doses when challenges occurred.RESULTS: A total of 20,097 medication doses were scheduled for observation with either eDOT (15,405/20,097; 76.7%) or ipDOT (4,692/20,097; 23.3%) for 213 study participants. In total, one or more challenges occurred during 17.3% (2,672/15,405) of eDOT sessions and 15.6% (730/4,692) of ipDOT sessions. Among 4,374 documented challenges, 27.3% (n = 1,192) were characterized as technical, 65.9% (n = 2,881) were patient-related, and 6.9% (n = 301) were program-related. Estimated from the logistic model (n = 6,782 doses, 173 participants), the adjusted percentage of doses successfully observed during problematic sessions was 21.7% (95% CI 11.2-37.8) for eDOT and 4.2% (95% CI 1.1-14.7) for ipDOT.CONCLUSION: Compared to ipDOT, challenges were encountered in a slightly higher percentage of eDOT sessions but were more often resolved to enable successful dose observation during problematic sessions.