背景:许多结核病(TB)患者会付出灾难性的代价。积极病例发现(ACF)可能具有社会保护特性,有助于实现世卫组织终结结核病战略目标,即受结核病影响的零家庭遭受灾难性成本,但现有证据仍然有限。这项研究测量了结核病发作的灾难性成本发生和社会经济影响,并比较了ACF与被动病例发现(PCF)检测到的患者的社会经济负担。
方法:这项横断面研究对2018年3月至2019年3月的WHO结核病患者费用调查进行了纵向调整,并进行了ACF干预。这项研究是在胡志明市的六个干预(ACF)区和六个比较(PCF)区进行的,越南。通过ACF检测到的52例TB患者和PCF队列中的46例TB患者在开始治疗的两周内进行了调查。在强化治疗阶段结束时,治疗结束后。调查衡量了收入,直接和间接成本,和社会经济影响,根据这些影响,我们计算了灾难性成本作为主要结果。当地货币使用OANDA报告的研究期间的平均汇率转换为美元(VN^1=0.0000436美元,2018-2019年)。我们将逻辑回归拟合为ACF和PCF队列之间的比较作为主要暴露,并使用广义估计方程来调整自相关。
结果:ACF患者比PCF患者差(多维贫困率:16%vs.7%;p=0.033),但治疗前费用中位数较低(18美元vs.80美元;p<0.001)和较低的中位数总成本(279美元与894美元;p<0.001)。更少的ACF患者发生灾难性费用(15%与30%),发生灾难性成本的几率较低(aOR=0.17;95%CI:[0.05,0.67];p=0.011),特别是在密集阶段(OR=0.32;95%CI:[0.12,0.90];p=0.030)。ACF患者经历了较少的社会排斥(OR=0.41;95%CI:[0.18,0.91];p=0.030),但更经常诉诸财务应对机制(OR=5.12;95%CI:[1.73,15.14];p=0.003)。
结论:ACF可有效覆盖脆弱人群,减轻结核病的社会经济负担,有助于实现世卫组织终止结核病战略目标。然而,由于结核病仍然是灾难性的生命事件,社会保护工作必须超越ACF。
BACKGROUND: Many tuberculosis (TB) patients incur catastrophic costs. Active
case finding (ACF) may have socio-protective properties that could contribute to the WHO End TB Strategy target of zero TB-affected families suffering catastrophic costs, but available evidence remains limited. This study measured catastrophic cost incurrence and socioeconomic impact of an episode of TB and compared those socioeconomic burdens in patients detected by ACF versus passive
case finding (PCF).
METHODS: This cross-sectional study fielded a longitudinal adaptation of the WHO TB patient cost survey alongside an ACF intervention from March 2018 to March 2019. The study was conducted in six intervention (ACF) districts and six comparison (PCF) districts of Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. Fifty-two TB patients detected through ACF and 46 TB patients in the PCF cohort were surveyed within two weeks of treatment initiation, at the end of the intensive phase of treatment, and after treatment concluded. The survey measured income, direct and indirect costs, and socioeconomic impact based on which we calculated catastrophic cost as the primary outcome. Local currency was converted into US$ using the average exchange rates reported by OANDA for the study period (VNĐ1 = US$0.0000436, 2018-2019). We fitted logistic regressions for comparisons between the ACF and PCF cohorts as the primary exposures and used generalized estimating equations to adjust for autocorrelation.
RESULTS: ACF patients were poorer than PCF patients (multidimensional poverty ratio: 16 % vs. 7 %; p = 0.033), but incurred lower median pre-treatment costs (US$18 vs. US$80; p < 0.001) and lower median total costs (US$279 vs. US$894; p < 0.001). Fewer ACF patients incurred catastrophic costs (15 % vs. 30 %) and had lower odds of catastrophic cost (aOR = 0.17; 95 % CI: [0.05, 0.67]; p = 0.011), especially during the intensive phase (OR = 0.32; 95 % CI: [0.12, 0.90]; p = 0.030). ACF patient experienced less social exclusion (OR = 0.41; 95 % CI: [0.18, 0.91]; p = 0.030), but more often resorted to financial coping mechanisms (OR = 5.12; 95 % CI: [1.73, 15.14]; p = 0.003).
CONCLUSIONS: ACF can be effective in reaching vulnerable populations and mitigating the socioeconomic burden of TB, and can contribute to achieving the WHO End TB Strategy goals. Nevertheless, as TB remains a catastrophic life event, social protection efforts must extend beyond ACF.