Decentralized, Integrated Treatment of RR/MDR-TB and HIV Using a Bedaquiline-Based, Short-Course Regimen Is Effective and Associated With Improved HIV Disease Control.

BACKGROUND: In decentralized sites, with fewer resources and a high prevalence of advanced HIV, the effectiveness of the new short-course, bedaquiline-based regimen for rifampicin-resistant and multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (RR/MDR-TB) is not well-described. SETTING: Adults with pulmonary RR/MDR-TB initiating the short-course regimen in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa were prospectively enrolled at a decentralized program that integrated person-centered TB care. METHODS: In addition to standard of care monitoring, study visits occurred at enrollment and months 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9. Favorable RR/MDR-TB outcome was defined as cure or treatment completion without loss to follow-up, death, or failure by treatment. In patients with HIV, we assessed antiretroviral therapy (ART) uptake, virologic and immunologic outcomes. RESULTS: Among 57 patients, HIV was present in 73.7% (95% CI: 60.3-84.5), with a median CD4 count of 170 cells/mm 3 (intraquartile range 49-314). A favorable RR/MDR-TB outcome was achieved in 78.9% (CI: 67.1-87.9). Three deaths occurred, all in the setting of baseline advanced HIV and elevated viral load. Overall, 21.1% (95% CI: 12.1-32.9) experienced a severe or life-threatening adverse event, the most common of which was anemia. Among patients with HIV, enrollment resulted in increased ART uptake by 24% (95% CI: 12.1%-39.4%), a significant improvement from baseline ( P = 0.004); virologic suppression during concomitant treatment was observed in 71.4% (n = 30, 95% CI: 55.4-84.3). CONCLUSION: Decentralized, person-centered care for RR/MDR-TB in patients with HIV using the short-course, bedaquiline-based regimen is effective and safe. In patients with HIV, enrollment led to improved ART use and reassuring virologic outcomes.

When peer comparison information harms physician well-being.

Policymakers and business leaders often use peer comparison information-showing people how their behavior compares to that of their peers-to motivate a range of behaviors. Despite their widespread use, the potential impact of peer comparison interventions on recipients' well-being is largely unknown. We conducted a 5-mo field experiment involving 199 primary care physicians and 46,631 patients to examine the impact of a peer comparison intervention on physicians' job performance, job satisfaction, and burnout. We varied whether physicians received information about their preventive care performance compared to that of other physicians in the same health system. Our analyses reveal that our implementation of peer comparison did not significantly improve physicians' preventive care performance, but it did significantly decrease job satisfaction and increase burnout, with the effect on job satisfaction persisting for at least 4 mo after the intervention had been discontinued. Quantitative and qualitative evidence on the mechanisms underlying these unanticipated negative effects suggest that the intervention inadvertently signaled a lack of support from leadership. Consistent with this account, providing leaders with training on how to support physicians mitigated the negative effects on well-being. Our research uncovers a critical potential downside of peer comparison interventions, highlights the importance of evaluating the psychological costs of behavioral interventions, and points to how a complementary intervention-leadership support training-can mitigate these costs.

Examining the role of COVID-19 testing availability on intention to isolate: A Randomized hypothetical scenario.

BACKGROUND: Little information exists on how COVID-19 testing influences intentions to engage in risky behavior. Understanding the behavioral effects of diagnostic testing may highlight the role of adequate testing on controlling viral transmission. In order to evaluate these effects, simulated scenarios were conducted evaluating participant intentions to self-isolate based on COVID-19 diagnostic testing availability and results. METHODS: Participants from the United States were recruited through an online survey platform (Amazon Mechanical Turk) and randomized to one of three hypothetical scenarios. Each scenario asked participants to imagine having symptoms consistent with COVID-19 along with a clinical diagnosis from their physician. However, scenarios differed in either testing availability (testing available v. unavailable) or testing result (positive v. negative test). The primary outcome was intention to engage in high-risk COVID-19 behaviors, measured using an 11-item mean score (range 1-7) that was pre-registered prior to data collection. Multi-variable linear regression was used to compare the mean composite scores between conditions. The randomized survey was conducted between July 23rd to July 29th, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 1400 participants were recruited through a national, online, opt-in survey. Out of 1194 respondents (41.6% male, 58.4% female) with a median age of 38.5 years, participants who had no testing available in their clinical scenario showed significantly greater intentions to engage in behavior facilitating COVID-19 transmission compared to those who received a positive confirmatory test result scenario (mean absolute difference (SE): 0.14 (0.06), P = 0.016), equating to an 11.1% increase in mean score risky behavior intentions. Intention to engage in behaviors that can spread COVID-19 were also positively associated with male gender, poor health status, and Republican party affiliation. CONCLUSION: Testing availability appears to play an independent role in influencing behaviors facilitating COVID-19 transmission. Such findings shed light on the possible negative externalities of testing unavailability. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Effect of Availability of COVID-19 Testing on Choice to Isolate and Socially Distance, NCT04459520, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04459520.