How to reduce household costs for people with tuberculosis: a longitudinal costing survey in Nepal.

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 < 0.001) and during the pretreatment plus treatment periods (mean total direct costs: US$72 vs US$101, P < 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.

Geographic and socioeconomic factors associated with leprosy treatment default: An analysis from the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Although leprosy is largely curable with multidrug therapy, incomplete treatment limits therapeutic effectiveness and is an important obstacle to disease control. To inform efforts to improve treatment completion rates, we aimed to identify the geographic and socioeconomic factors associated with leprosy treatment default in Brazil. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Using individual participant data collected in the Brazilian national registries for social programs and notifiable diseases and linked as part of the 100 Million Brazilian Cohort, we evaluated the odds of treatment default among 20,063 leprosy cases diagnosed and followed up between 2007 and 2014. We investigated geographic and socioeconomic risk factors using a multivariate hierarchical analysis and carried out additional stratified analyses by leprosy subtype and geographic region. Over the duration of follow-up, 1,011 (5.0%) leprosy cases were observed to default from treatment. Treatment default was markedly increased among leprosy cases residing in the North (OR = 1.57; 95%CI 1.25-1.97) and Northeast (OR = 1.44; 95%CI 1.17-1.78) regions of Brazil. The odds of default were also higher among cases with black ethnicity (OR = 1.29; 95%CI 1.01-1.69), no income (OR = 1.41; 95%CI 1.07-1.86), familial income ≤ 0.25 times Brazilian minimum wage (OR = 1.42; 95%CI 1.13-1.77), informal home lighting/no electricity supply (OR = 1.53; 95%CI 1.28-1.82), and household density of > 1 individual per room (OR = 1.35; 95%CI 1.10-1.66). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of the study indicate that the frequency of leprosy treatment default varies regionally in Brazil and provide new evidence that adverse socioeconomic conditions may represent important barriers to leprosy treatment completion. These findings suggest that interventions to address socioeconomic deprivation, along with continued efforts to improve access to care, have the potential to improve leprosy treatment outcomes and disease control.