BMJ  2003;327:823-824 (11 October), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7419.823

Editorial

Directly observed treatment for tuberculosis

Less faith, more science would be helpful

Drugs cure tuberculosis. So why does the disease remain in the top 10 causes of global mortality, with 1.8 million deaths a year?¹ Most deaths are in low and middle income countries, where a major challenge is to ensure that drugs are available and people complete the long treatment. The World Health Organization has been tackling the global problem of inadequate tuberculosis control for some years and launched a new programme of integrated care in 1994, called directly observed treatment, short course (DOTS).² By using a six month course of drugs, including rifampicin, WHO has mobilised money, people, and systems in countries to tackle the global problem with good progress.³ Its strategy is divided into five key aspects: political commitment, access to sputum microscopy, short course chemotherapy using direct observation of treatment, an uninterrupted supply of drugs, and a recording and reporting system.

There is little argument that resources, drugs, political support, and active management of programmes help improve control of tuberculosis. However, debate continues over whether direct observation of patients taking their treatment by health workers (or their delegates) is essential for successful control. It seems to have arisen out of special programmes in the United States, where direct observation of treatment was part of multifaceted strategies and special studies in Africa.⁴ It was at the core of WHO's strategy at launch in 1995, with the director general saying that direct observation by a health worker was the biggest health breakthrough this decade. Direct observation remains core to the current WHO strategy: recently published guidelines say that the key treatment principle of direct observation of treatment remains the same, whichever method of implementation is chosen.⁵ The problem with this global policy is that there are currently four carefully conducted trials in Thailand, South Africa, and Pakistan, and these studies show little or no advantage of direct observation over self treatment at home in relation to cure (figure).⁶ What is more, these studies were carried out in settings with relatively low cure rates—exactly where better control of tuberculosis is needed.

View larger version (30K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Results of four trials of direct observation over self treatment in tuberculosis

 

What are the implications for global policy with these research results? We think that WHO and others should reflect on the mismatch between this research evidence and its own beliefs, expressed individually or as consensus statements.^{5 7 8} Other data are of course important, and this reflection needs also to consider that direct observation costs more than other methods,⁹ is paternalistic towards patients, and it can take health workers away from other essential tasks. Some health services may be of such poor quality that patients would prefer not to attend, so potentially direct observation could reduce adherence.

Enthusiasts make the world go round, but there is a belief among specialists in tuberculosis that it is unethical not to provide direct observation. This attitude stifles debate and good research into alternatives to direct observation is replaced by semantics. For example, specialists state that "direct observation of treatment is more than a mechanical procedure of dropping medicine into a patient's mouth; it is a human bond between a patient and the health worker, to transmit a recognition of the value of treatment success."⁷ What would be more helpful is to look at all the strategies to promote adherence. For example, we know that defaulter retrieval action seems to work in some settings;¹⁰ so why not try defaulter actions for self treating patients who do not visit the clinic once a month? What about some good research on staff support and supervision, health education, or various forms of prepackaging? What about peer assisted treatment support? We need a variety of methods to help patients complete their treatment, as well as exploring the circumstances where direct observation will be useful.

The energy going into insisting that direct observation is essential and non-negotiable has its own opportunity costs. We believe that there are good arguments for dropping the insistence on direct observation and turning the passion into credible methods for developing, evaluating, and promoting sustainable measures to improve adherence.

International Health Research Group, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool L3 5QA (pgarner{at}liv.ac.uk)

Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medical Sciences, University of Cape Town, Observatory 7925, Cape Town, South Africa (jvolmink{at}cormack.uct.ac.za)

---

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Borgdorff MW, Floyd K, Broekmans JF. Interventions to reduce tuberculosis mortality and transmission in low- and middle-income countries. WHO Bull 2002;80: 217-27.
2. Raviglione MC, Pio A. Evolution of WHO policies for tuberculosis control, 1948-2001. Lancet 2002;359: 775-80.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
3. Dye C, Garnett GP, Sleeman K, Williams BG. Prospects for worldwide tuberculosis control under the WHO DOTS strategy. Lancet 1998;352: 1886-91.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
4. Volmink J, Matchaba P, Garner P. Directly observed therapy and treatment adherence. Lancet 2000;355: 1345-50.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
5. World Health Organization. Treatment of tuberculosis: guidelines for national programmes. Geneva: WHO, 2003 (WHO/CDS/TB/2003.313).
6. Volmink J, Garner P. Directly observed therapy for treating tuberculosis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;(1): CD003343 [GenBank] .
7. Frieden TR, Driver CR. Tuberculosis control: past 10 years and future progress. Tuberculosis 2003;83: 82-5.
8. Chaulk CP, Kazandjian VA. Directly observed therapy for treatment completion of pulmonary tuberculosis: Consensus statement of the public health tuberculosis guidelines panel. JAMA 1998;279: 943-8.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
9. Khan MA, Walley JD, Witter SN, Imran A, Safdar N. Cost and cost-effectiveness of different DOT strategies for the treatment of tuberculosis in Pakistan. Health Policy Plan 2002;17: 178-86.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
10. Garner P, Holmes A. Tuberculosis. In: Clinical Evidence. Issue 9. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2003: 901-10.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Timely Observation

Ravi Prakash Gupta
bmj.com, 11 Oct 2003 [Full text]

The need to look beyond DOTS

Paras K Pokharel, et al.
bmj.com, 12 Oct 2003 [Full text]

DOT, concordance and TB : evidences are needed but other than just based on statistical inferences

Jean Macq, et al.
bmj.com, 13 Oct 2003 [Full text]

DOTS inappropriate for children

anju aggarwal
bmj.com, 13 Oct 2003 [Full text]

Directly Observed Therapy for tuberculosis

Peter D.O. Davies
bmj.com, 16 Oct 2003 [Full text]

Tuberculosis and the private sector: another wishful thinking?

Patricia Ghilbert, et al.
bmj.com, 23 Oct 2003 [Full text]

The role of directly observed treatment on tuberculosis control

Eliud Wandwalo
bmj.com, 24 Oct 2003 [Full text]

Evaluation of directly observed treatment of tuberculosis needs several methodologies

Dermot Maher, et al.
bmj.com, 24 Oct 2003 [Full text]

Role of direct observation component in DOTS strategy needs to be evaluated.

Debashis Dutt
bmj.com, 26 Dec 2003 [Full text]