Dataset Information

Smartphone-enabled video-observed versus directly observed treatment for tuberculosis: a multicentre, analyst-blinded, randomised, controlled superiority trial.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Directly observed treatment (DOT) has been the standard of care for tuberculosis since the early 1990s, but it is inconvenient for patients and service providers. Video-observed therapy (VOT) has been conditionally recommended by WHO as an alternative to DOT. We tested whether levels of treatment observation were improved with VOT.

Methods

We did a multicentre, analyst-blinded, randomised controlled superiority trial in 22 clinics in England (UK). Eligible participants were patients aged at least 16 years with active pulmonary or non-pulmonary tuberculosis who were eligible for DOT according to local guidance. Exclusion criteria included patients who did not have access to charging a smartphone. We randomly assigned participants to either VOT (daily remote observation using a smartphone app) or DOT (observations done three to five times per week in the home, community, or clinic settings). Randomisation was done by the SealedEnvelope service using minimisation. DOT involved treatment observation by a health-care or lay worker, with any remaining daily doses self-administered. VOT was provided by a centralised service in London. Patients were trained to record and send videos of every dose ingested 7 days per week using a smartphone app. Trained treatment observers viewed these videos through a password-protected website. Patients were also encouraged to report adverse drug events on the videos. Smartphones and data plans were provided free of charge by study investigators. DOT or VOT observation records were completed by observers until treatment or study end. The primary outcome was completion of 80% or more scheduled treatment observations over the first 2 months following enrolment. Intention-to-treat (ITT) and restricted (including only patients completing at least 1 week of observation on allocated arm) analyses were done. Superiority was determined by a 15% difference in the proportion of patients with the primary outcome (60% vs 75%). This trial is registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number registry, number ISRCTN26184967.

Findings

Between Sept 1, 2014, and Oct 1, 2016, we randomly assigned 226 patients; 112 to VOT and 114 to DOT. Overall, 131 (58%) patients had a history of homelessness, imprisonment, drug use, alcohol problems or mental health problems. In the ITT analysis, 78 (70%) of 112 patients on VOT achieved ≥80% scheduled observations successfully completed during the first 2 months compared with 35 (31%) of 114 on DOT (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 5·48, 95% CI 3·10-9·68; p<0·0001). In the restricted analysis, 78 (77%) of 101 patients on VOT achieved the primary outcome compared with 35 (63%) of 56 on DOT (adjusted OR 2·52; 95% CI 1·17-5·54; p=0·017). Stomach pain, nausea, and vomiting were the most common adverse events reported (in 16 [14%] of 112 on VOT and nine [8%] of 114 on DOT).

Interpretation

VOT was a more effective approach to observation of tuberculosis treatment than DOT. VOT is likely to be preferable to DOT for many patients across a broad range of settings, providing a more acceptable, effective, and cheaper option for supervision of daily and multiple daily doses than DOT.

Funding

National Institute for Health Research.

SUBMITTER: Story A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6429626 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe health care system in Thailand has struggled to cope with the COVID-19 pandemic, resulting in decreased administration of community-based directly observed therapy (DOT) for tuberculosis (TB). As an alternative to failed DOT, video-observed therapy (VOT) or the Thai asynchronous VOT system, "TH VOT," was devised. We developed a protocol for a study to test the superiority of VOT over DOT in ensuring treatment compliance.ObjectiveWe aim to compare the mean cumulative compliance days of TB patients and their observers under the VOT program with that of individuals under the DOT program during the intensive phase of TB treatment.MethodsA cluster randomized controlled trial of pulmonary TB patients and their observers will be conducted over a 2-month period. This study will be conducted in the Hat Yai and Meuang Songkhla districts of Songkhla Province, Southern Thailand. A total of 38 observers working at 38 primary care units (PCUs) will be randomized equally into VOT and DOT groups. The TH VOT system will be implemented in 19 PCUs in the VOT group while the other 19 PCUs will continue with the traditional DOT program. Approximately 1-5 TB patients will be under observation, depending on the PCU jurisdiction in which the patients reside. The inclusion criteria for TB patients will be as follows: patients diagnosed with newly active pulmonary TB with a positive acid-fast bacilli sputum smear, aged >18 years, own a smartphone, and are able to use the LINE (Line Corporation) app. The exclusion criteria will be patients with a condition that requires the intervention of a specialist, rifampicin resistance according to a cartridge-based nucleic acid amplification test (GeneXpert MTB/RIF), unable to continue the treatment, and/or alcohol dependence. After the 2-month observation period, all sessions and follow-up clinical outcomes recorded will be retrieved. An intention-to-treat analysis will be performed to assess the compliance of both patients undergoing drug administration and their observers.ResultsThe Human Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Prince of Songkla University approved the trial on February 19, 2021 (approval number 64-03618-9). The trial was funded in May 2021. The recruitment period will be from January 2022 to July 2022. The observation is scheduled to end by September 2022.ConclusionsIf the VOT shows superiority in observational compliance among patients and observers, the existing DOT policy will be replaced with VOT.Trial registrationThai Clinical Trials Registry TCTR20210624002; https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org/show/TCTR20210624002.International registered report identifier (irrid)DERR1-10.2196/38796.

Project description:ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare two methods of feedback: verbal face-to-face feedback after direct observation (F2F-feedback) versus electronic-written feedback after observation of recorded-VDO of student's performance (VDO-feedback), in terms of effectiveness in improving skill, effects on motivation and satisfaction.BackgroundMedical schools are responsible for teaching and ensuring proficiency of basic surgical skills. Feedback is effective in developing psychomotor skills; by providing information of learner's current performance, how to improve, and enhancing motivation.Materials and methodFifty-eight medical students (3rd- 4th year) were trained to perform vertical mattress suture in small groups. Then, during 6-week period of self-directed practice, students were randomized into group1 VDO-feedback (male:female = 21:8) and group 2 F2F-feedback (male:female = 20:9). Feedbacks were provided once every 2 weeks (Week2, Week4). End-of-rotation OSCE was at Week6, and retention tested was at Week8. Performance checklist (Cronbach's Alpha 0.72) was used to assess skill at 4 timepoints; pre- and post- small group learning, OSCE, and retention phase. Questionnaire was used to assess motivation, learning strategies and satisfaction (Cronbach's Alpha 0.83).ResultAfter in-class learning, further significant improvement of skills could be gained by both F2F- and VDO- feedbacks (p < 0.0001). Both could similarly retain skill for at least 4 weeks later without additional practice. Self-efficacy, test anxiety, and cognitive strategies scores were significantly increased in both groups (p < 0.05). Extrinsic motivation was increased in VDO-feedback group. No difference in satisfaction between groups was observed.Discussion and conclusionVDO-feedback could be alternative to F2F-feedbacks for basic surgical skill training when limitation for simultaneous meeting of teacher and students occurs.Trial registrationThis study has been registered to Thai Clinical Trial Registry (WHO International Clinical Trial Registry Platform) on 11/07/2023 (TCTR20230711005).

Project description:Background: Excellent adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment is critical to cure TB and avoid the emergence of resistance. Wirelessly observed therapy (WOT) is a novel patient self-management system consisting of an edible ingestion sensor (IS), external wearable patch, and paired mobile device that can detect and digitally record medication ingestions. Our study determined the accuracy of ingestion detection in clinical and home settings using WOT and subsequently compared, in a randomized control trial (RCT), confirmed daily adherence to medication in persons using WOT or directly observed therapy (DOT) during TB treatment.Methods and findings: We evaluated WOT in persons with active Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex disease using IS-enabled combination isoniazid 150 mg/rifampin 300 mg (IS-Rifamate). Seventy-seven participants with drug-susceptible TB in the continuation phase of treatment, prescribed daily isoniazid 300 mg and rifampin 600 mg, used IS-Rifamate. The primary endpoints of the trial were determination of the positive detection accuracy (PDA) of WOT, defined as the percentage of ingestions detected by WOT administered under direct observation, and subsequently the proportion of prescribed doses confirmed by WOT compared to DOT. Initially participants received DOT and WOT simultaneously for 2-3 weeks to allow calculation of WOT PDA, and the 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using the bootstrap method with 10,000 samples. Sixty-one participants subsequently participated in an RCT to compare the proportion of prescribed doses confirmed by WOT and DOT. Participants were randomized 2:1 to receive WOT or maximal in-person DOT. In the WOT arm, if ingestions were not remotely confirmed, the participant was contacted within 24 hours by text or cell phone to provide support. The number of doses confirmed was collected, and nonparametric methods were used for group and individual comparisons to estimate the proportions of confirmed doses in each randomized arm with 95% CIs. Sensitivity analyses, not prespecified in the trial registration, were also performed, removing all nonworking (weekend and public holiday) and held-dose days. Participants, recruited from San Diego (SD) and Orange County (OC) Divisions of TB Control and Refugee Health, were 43.1 (range 18-80) years old, 57% male, 42% Asian, and 39% white with 49% Hispanic ethnicity. The PDA of WOT was 99.3% (CI 98.1; 100). Intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis within the RCT showed WOT confirmed 93% versus 63% DOT (p < 0.001) of daily doses prescribed. Secondary analysis removing all nonworking days (weekends and public holidays) and held doses from each arm showed WOT confirmed 95.6% versus 92.7% (p = 0.31); WOT was non-inferior to DOT (difference 2.8% CI [-1.8%, 9.1%]). One hundred percent of participants preferred using WOT. WOT associated adverse events were <10%, consisting of minor skin rash and pruritus associated with the patch. WOT provided longitudinal digital reporting in near real time, supporting patient self-management and allowing rapid remote identification of those who needed more support to maintain adherence. This study was conducted during the continuation phase of TB treatment, limiting its generalizability to the entire TB treatment course.Conclusions: In terms of accuracy, WOT was equivalent to DOT. WOT was superior to DOT in supporting confirmed daily adherence to TB medications during the continuation phase of TB treatment and was overwhelmingly preferred by participants. WOT should be tested in high-burden TB settings, where it may substantially support low- and middle-income country (LMIC) TB programs.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01960257.

Project description:BackgroundMajor depressive disorder (MDD) is prevalent and disabling among older adults. Standing on its tolerability profile, vortioxetine might be a promising alternative to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) in such a vulnerable population.MethodsWe conducted a randomised, assessor- and statistician-blinded, superiority trial including older adults with MDD. The study was conducted between 02/02/2019 and 02/22/2023 in 11 Italian Psychiatric Services. Participants were randomised to vortioxetine or one of the SSRIs, selected according to common practice. Treatment discontinuation due to adverse events after six months was the primary outcome, for which we aimed to detect a 12% difference in favour of vortioxetine. The study was registered in the online repository clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03779789).FindingsThe intention-to-treat population included 179 individuals randomised to vortioxetine and 178 to SSRIs. Mean age was 73.7 years (standard deviation 6.1), and 264 participants (69%) were female. Of those on vortioxetine, 78 (44%) discontinued the treatment due to adverse events at six months, compared to 59 (33%) of those on SSRIs (odds ratio 1.56; 95% confidence interval 1.01-2.39). Adjusted and per-protocol analyses confirmed point estimates in favour of SSRIs, but without a significant difference. With the exception of the unadjusted survival analysis showing SSRIs to outperform vortioxetine, secondary outcomes provided results consistent with a lack of substantial safety and tolerability differences between the two arms. Overall, no significant differences emerged in terms of response rates, depressive symptoms and quality of life, while SSRIs outperformed vortioxetine in terms of cognitive performance.InterpretationAs opposed to what was previously hypothesised, vortioxetine did not show a better tolerability profile compared to SSRIs in older adults with MDD in this study. Additionally, hypothetical advantages of vortioxetine on depression-related cognitive symptoms might be questioned. The study's statistical power and highly pragmatic design allow for generalisability to real-world practice.FundingThe study was funded by the Italian Medicines Agency within the "2016 Call for Independent Drug Research".