Debunking the myths perpetuating low implementation of isoniazid preventive therapy amongst human immunodeficiency virus-infected persons

Isoniazid preventive therapy(IPT) is the administration of isoniazid(INH) to people with latent tuberculosis(TB) infection(LTBI) to prevent progression to active TB disease. Despite being life-saving for human immunodeficiency virus(HIV)-infected persons who do not have active TB, IPT is poorly implemented globally due to misconceptions shared by healthcare providers and policy makers. However, amongst HIV-infected patients especially those living in resource-limited settings with a high burden of TB, available evidence speaks for IPT: Among HIV-infected persons, active TB- the major contraindication to IPT, can be excluded with symptom screening; chest X-ray and tuberculin skin testing are unreliable and often lead to logistic delays resulting in increased numbers of people with LTBI progressing to active TB; the use of IPT has not been found to increase the risk of the development of INH mono-resistance; IPT is cost-effective and cheaper than the cost of treating cases of active TB that would develop without IPT; ART and IPT have an additive effect on the prevention of TB, and both are safe and beneficial even in children. In order to sustain the recorded gains from ART scale-up and to further reduce TB-related morbidity and mortality, more efforts are needed to scale-up IPT implementation globally.

Patients direct costs to undergo TB diagnosis

Background:A major impediment to the treatment of TB is a diagnostic process that requires multiple visits.Descriptions of patient costs associated with diagnosis use different protocols and are not comparable.Methods:We aimed to describe the direct costs incurred by adults attending TB diagnostic centres in four countries and factors associated with expenditure for diagnosis.Surveys of 2225 adults attending smear-microscopy centres in Nigeria,Nepal,Ethiopia and Yemen.Adults>18 years with cough>2 weeks were enrolled prospectively.Direct costs were quantified using structured questionnaires.Patients with costs>75^(th) quartile were considered to have high expenditure(cases)and compared with patients with costs<75^(th) quartile to identify factors associated with high expenditure.Results:The most significant expenses were due to clinic fees and transport.Most participants attended the centres with companions.High expenditure was associated with attending with company,residing in rural areas/other towns and illiteracy.Conclusions:The costs incurred by patients are substantial and share common patterns across countries.Removing user fees,transparent charging policies and reimbursing clinic expenses would reduce the poverty-inducing effects of direct diagnostic costs.In locations with limited resources,support could be prioritised for those most at risk of high expenditure;those who are illiterate,attend the service with company and rural residents.