Journal of Global Infectious DiseasesOfficial Publishing of INDUSEM and OPUS 12 Foundation, Inc. Users online:142  
Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size     
Home About us Editors Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives Search Instructions Subscribe Advertise Login 
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 12  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 28-33

Are treatment outcomes of patients with tuberculosis detected by active case finding different from those detected by passive case finding?

1 Department of Community and Family Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
2 Department of TB and Communicable Diseases, The Union South East Asia Office, New Delhi, India
3 Department of Community Medicine, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, District Tuberculosis Office, Haridwar, Uttarakhand, India
5 Department of Medical Health and Family Welfare, State Tuberculosis Office, Uttarakhand, India
6 Department of Community Medicine, Government Medical College, Vidisha, Madhya Pradesh, India
7 District Mental Health Programme Medinipur, Directorate of Health Services, West Bengal, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Mahendra Singh
Assistant Professor, Department of Community and Family Medicine, Vth Floor, Medical College, Block, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jgid.jgid_66_19

Rights and Permissions

Context: India has adopted active case finding (ACF) as an additional strategy to find its missing tuberculosis (TB) cases since 2017. Treatment outcomes of patients identified through ACF may be similar or different from those detected through routine passive case finding (PCF); currently, there are limited studies on this in India. Aim: The aim of this study was to assess differences in treatment outcomes of patients detected through ACF and PCF under the national TB program. Study Design: A study was conducted in six TB units of Haridwar district where ACF campaigns were conducted in 2017–2018. Methods: Data from patients detected by ACF (n = 72) and PCF (n = 184) were extracted from program records. Results: Of 72 patients detected by ACF, only 54 (75%) were initiated on treatment. A high proportion of initial loss to follow-up (25% vs. 0%) and delay in treatment initiation (4 days vs. 0 days) was observed in ACF patients as compared to PCF. The proportion of unsuccessful treatment outcome was 33% (n = 18) among ACF patients compared to 14% (n = 25) among PCF patients (adjusted relative risk: 2.6, 95% confidence interval: 1.7–4.0). Conclusion: High initial loss to follow-up, delay in treatment initiation, and poor treatment outcome among ACF patients are a major concern. The study results call for active follow-up after diagnosis and close monitoring during treatment for patients detected by ACF.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded133    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 8    

Recommend this journal


Sitemap | What's New | Feedback | Copyright and Disclaimer | Privacy Notice | Contact Us
2008 Journal of Global Infectious Diseases | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
Online since 10th December, 2008