Comparing Additionality of Tuberculosis Cases Using GeneXpert or Smear-Based Active TB Case-Finding Strategies among Social Contacts of Index Cases in Nepal.

This study compares the yield and additionality of community-based active tuberculosis (TB) active case-finding strategies using either smear microscopy or GeneXpert as the TB diagnostic test. Active case-finding strategies screened social contacts of index cases and high-risk groups in four districts of Nepal in July 2017-2019. Two districts (Chitwan and Dhanusha) applied GeneXpert testing and two districts (Makwanpur and Mahotarri) used smear microscopy. Two control districts implemented standard national TB program activities. Districts implementing GeneXpert testing screened 23,657 people for TB, tested 17,114 and diagnosed 764 TB cases, producing a yield of 4.5%. Districts implementing smear microscopy screened 19,961 people for TB, tested 13,285 and diagnosed 437 cases, producing a yield of 3.3%. The screening numbers required were 31 for GeneXpert and 45.7 for smear districts. The test numbers required were 22.4 and 30.4 for GeneXpert and smear. Using the TB REACH additionality method, social contact tracing for TB through GeneXpert testing contributed to a 20% (3958/3322) increase in district-level TB notifications, smear microscopy 12.4% (3146/2798), and -0.5% (2553/2566) for control districts. Therefore, social contact tracing of TB index cases using GeneXpert testing should be implemented throughout Nepal within the TB FREE initiative to close the notification gap and accelerate progress toward END TB strategy targets.

Comparing cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches to tuberculosis patient cost surveys using Nepalese data.

The World Health Organization has supported the development of national tuberculosis (TB) patient cost surveys to quantify the socio-economic impact of TB in high-burden countries. However, methodological differences in the study design (e.g. cross-sectional vs longitudinal) can generate different estimates making the design and impact evaluation of socio-economic protection strategies difficult. The objective of the study was to compare the socio-economic impacts of TB estimated by applying cross-sectional or longitudinal data collections in Nepal. We analysed the data from a longitudinal costing survey (patients interviewed at three time points) conducted between April 2018 and October 2019. We calculated both mean and median costs from patients interviewed during the intensive (cross-sectional 1) and continuation (cross-sectional 2) phases of treatment. We then compared costs, the prevalence of catastrophic costs and the socio-economic impact of TB generated by each approach. There were significant differences in the costs and social impacts calculated by each approach. The median total cost (intensive plus continuation phases) was significantly higher for the longitudinal compared with cross-sectional 2 (US$119.42 vs 91.63, P < 0.001). The prevalence of food insecurity, social exclusion and patients feeling poorer or much poorer were all significantly higher by applying a longitudinal approach. In conclusion, the longitudinal design captured important aspects of costs and socio-economic impacts, which were missed by applying a cross-sectional approach. If a cross-sectional approach is applied due to resource constraints, our data suggest that the start of the continuation phase is the optimal timing for a single interview. Further research to optimize methodologies to report patient-incurred expenditure during TB diagnosis and treatment is needed.

Barriers and facilitators to accessing tuberculosis care in Nepal: a qualitative study to inform the design of a socioeconomic support intervention.

OBJECTIVE: Psychosocial 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. DESIGN: From 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. SETTING: The study was conducted in four districts, Makwanpur, Chitwan, Dhanusha and Mahottari, which have a high prevalence of poverty and TB. PARTICIPANTS: Seven 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSION: These 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.

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.