Reasons for using traditional and complementary care by people living with HIV on antiretroviral therapy and association with interrupted care: a mixed methods study in Eswatini.

The use of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine (TCAM) can lead to delays and interruptions in the HIV continuum of care. This study explores reasons for TCAM use in people living with HIV on antiretroviral therapy (ART) in Eswatini and compares interrupted care between different types of TCAM users. Data were collected using surveys in the MaxART study (a test-and-treat trial) between 2014 and 2017 to assess the exposure, namely visiting a TCAM provider. Additionally, visit dates were retrieved from clinic records to assess the outcome, interrupted care. Open-ended questions were analysed with qualitative content analysis (n = 602) and closed questions with bivariable and multivariable analysis (n = 202). Out of 202 participants, 145 (72%) never used TCAM, 40 (20%) ever used, and 17 (8%) is currently using TCAM (diviners, herbalists, and religious healers). No differences in interrupted care were found comparing never (reference category), past (Odds Ratio: 1.31, 95% confidence interval: 0.63-2.72), and current users (1.34, 0.47-3.77), while adjusting for gender, time since HIV diagnosis, and time on ART. Contextual factors affecting the choice for TCAM were the influence of family, advice from the health facility, and religious beliefs. Individual factors include trust in biomedical care, type of illness, no need for additional care, and practical reasons such as financial means. In conclusion, individual and contextual factors influence the choice for TCAM. Interrupted care does not differ between never, past, and current users.

Availability and costs of medicines for the treatment of tuberculosis in Europe.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the access to comprehensive diagnostics and novel antituberculosis medicines in European countries. METHODS: We investigated the access to genotypic and phenotypic Mycobacterium tuberculosis drug susceptibility testing and the availability of antituberculosis drugs and calculated the cost of drugs and treatment regimens at major tuberculosis treatment centres in countries of the WHO European region where rates of drug-resistant tuberculosis are the highest among all WHO regions. Results were stratified by middle-income and high-income countries. RESULTS: Overall, 43 treatment centres from 43 countries participated in the study. For WHO group A drugs, the frequency of countries with the availability of phenotypic drug susceptibility testing was as follows: (a) 75% (30/40) for levofloxacin, (b) 82% (33/40) for moxifloxacin, (c) 48% (19/40) for bedaquiline, and (d) 72% (29/40) for linezolid. Overall, of the 43 countries, 36 (84%) and 24 (56%) countries had access to bedaquiline and delamanid, respectively, whereas only 6 (14%) countries had access to rifapentine. The treatment of patients with extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis with a regimen including a carbapenem was available only in 17 (40%) of the 43 countries. The median cost of regimens for drug-susceptible tuberculosis, multidrug-resistant/rifampicin-resistant tuberculosis (shorter regimen, including bedaquiline for 6 months), and extensively drug-resistant tuberculosis (including bedaquiline, delamanid, and a carbapenem) were €44 (minimum-maximum, €15-152), €764 (minimum-maximum, €542-15152), and €8709 (minimum-maximum, €7965-11759) in middle-income countries (n = 12) and €280 (minimum-maximum, €78-1084), €29765 (minimum-maximum, €11116-40584), and €217591 (minimum-maximum, €82827-320146) in high-income countries (n = 29), respectively. DISCUSSION: In countries of the WHO European region, there is a widespread lack of drug susceptibility testing capacity to new and repurposed antituberculosis drugs, lack of access to essential medications in several countries, and a high cost for the treatment of drug-resistant tuberculosis.

Appropriateness of diagnosis and antibiotic use in sepsis patients admitted to a tertiary hospital in Indonesia.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the diagnostic and antibiotic treatment strategies for patients suspected of sepsis, in a tertiary hospital in Indonesia. This can identify areas for improvement in care provided, and inform diagnostic and antimicrobial stewardship activities within the hospital. METHODS: Retrospective review of medical records with regards to the diagnosis and management of adult patients with sepsis admitted to a tertiary hospital in Indonesia. We assessed the diagnostic process, and whether or not the antibiotic treatment provided was appropriate for the diagnosis. Appropriateness of antibiotic treatment was classified as being definite appropriate, probable appropriate, inappropriate, or unknown. RESULTS: The study included 535 adult patients, of whom 295 (55%) were diagnosed with a community-acquired sepsis, and 240 (45%) with a hospital-acquired sepsis. A specimen for culture and antimicrobial susceptibility testing was collected from three out of four patients (392/535). All but 10 patients had information on antibiotic treatment at the time of sepsis diagnosis. Of those, nearly 50% (257/525) of the patients received antibiotic treatment with unknown appropriateness because no cultures were taken (n = 141) or all cultures were negative (n = 116). Just 3.4% and 9.1% of the patients received definite or probable appropriate antibiotic treatment, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a clear need in encouraging attending physicians to obtain the much-required blood cultures, or cultures from the suspected source of infection before empirical antibiotic treatment is started. This will improve the use of appropriate antibiotic treatment strategies, and contribute to antimicrobial stewardship.

Laboratory-based versus population-based surveillance of antimicrobial resistance to inform empirical treatment for suspected urinary tract infection in Indonesia.

Surveillance of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) enables monitoring of trends in AMR prevalence. WHO recommends laboratory-based surveillance to obtain actionable AMR data at local or national level. However, laboratory-based surveillance may lead to overestimation of the prevalence of AMR due to bias. The objective of this study is to assess the difference in resistance prevalence between laboratory-based and population-based surveillance (PBS) among uropathogens in Indonesia. We included all urine samples submitted to the laboratory growing Escherichia coli and Klebsiella pneumoniae in the laboratory-based surveillance. Population-based surveillance data were collected in a cross-sectional survey of AMR in E. coli and K. pneumoniae isolated from urine samples among consecutive patients with symptoms of UTI, attending outpatient clinics and hospital wards. Data were collected between 1 April 2014 until 31 May 2015. The difference in percentage resistance (95% confidence intervals) between laboratory- and population-based surveillance was calculated for relevant antibiotics. A difference larger than +/- 5 percent points was defined as a biased result, precluding laboratory-based surveillance for guiding empirical treatment. We observed high prevalence of AMR ranging between 63.1% (piperacillin-tazobactam) and 85% (ceftriaxone) in laboratory-based surveillance and 41.3% (piperacillin-tazobactam) and 74.2% (ceftriaxone) in population-based surveillance, except for amikacin and meropenem (5.7%/9.8%; 10.8%/5.9%; [laboratory-/population-based surveillance], respectively). Laboratory-based surveillance yielded significantly higher AMR prevalence estimates than population-based surveillance. This difference was much larger when comparing surveillance data from outpatients than from inpatients. All point estimates of the difference between the two surveillance systems were larger than 5 percent points, except for amikacin and meropenem. Laboratory-based AMR surveillance of uropathogens, is not adequate to guide empirical treatment for community-based settings in Indonesia.

Multidrug resistance among new tuberculosis cases: detecting local variation through lot quality-assurance sampling.

BACKGROUND: Current methodology for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR TB) surveys endorsed by the World Health Organization provides estimates of MDR TB prevalence among new cases at the national level. On the aggregate, local variation in the burden of MDR TB may be masked. This paper investigates the utility of applying lot quality-assurance sampling to identify geographic heterogeneity in the proportion of new cases with multidrug resistance. METHODS: We simulated the performance of lot quality-assurance sampling by applying these classification-based approaches to data collected in the most recent TB drug-resistance surveys in Ukraine, Vietnam, and Tanzania. We explored 3 classification systems- two-way static, three-way static, and three-way truncated sequential sampling-at 2 sets of thresholds: low MDR TB = 2%, high MDR TB = 10%, and low MDR TB = 5%, high MDR TB = 20%. RESULTS: The lot quality-assurance sampling systems identified local variability in the prevalence of multidrug resistance in both high-resistance (Ukraine) and low-resistance settings (Vietnam). In Tanzania, prevalence was uniformly low, and the lot quality-assurance sampling approach did not reveal variability. The three-way classification systems provide additional information, but sample sizes may not be obtainable in some settings. New rapid drug-sensitivity testing methods may allow truncated sequential sampling designs and early stopping within static designs, producing even greater efficiency gains. CONCLUSIONS: Lot quality-assurance sampling study designs may offer an efficient approach for collecting critical information on local variability in the burden of multidrug-resistant TB. Before this methodology is adopted, programs must determine appropriate classification thresholds, the most useful classification system, and appropriate weighting if unbiased national estimates are also desired.