Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 6;16(4):e0248820. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248820

Factors influencing TB treatment interruption and treatment outcomes among patients in Kiambu County, 2016-2019

Evelyn Kimani 1,*,#, Samuel Muhula 2,#, Titus Kiptai 2,#, James Orwa 3,#, Theresa Odero 3,#, Onesmus Gachuno 3,#
Editor: Eleanor Ochodo4
PMCID: PMC8023511  PMID: 33822794

Abstract

Tuberculosis (TB) is the leading cause of mortality as a single infectious agent globally with increasing numbers of case notification in developing countries. This study seeks to investigate the clinical and socio-demographic factors of time to TB treatment interruption among Tuberculosis patients in Kiambu County, 2016–2019. We retrospectively analyzed data for all treatment outcomes patients obtained from TB tracing form linked with the Tuberculosis Information Basic Unit (TIBU) of patients in Kiambu County health facilities using time to treatment interruption as the main outcome. Categorical variables were presented using frequency and percentages. Kaplan-Meir curve was used to analyze probabilities of time to treatment interruptions between intensive and continuation phases. Log-rank test statistics was used to compare the equality of the curves. Cox proportion model was used to determine determinants of treatment interruption. A total of 292 participants were included in this study. Males were 68%, with majority (35%) of the participants were aged 24–35 years; 5.8% were aged 0–14 years and 5.1% aged above 55 years. The overall treatment success rate was 66.8% (cured, 34.6%; completed 32.2%), 60.3% were on intensive phase of treatment. Lack of knowledge and relocation were the major reasons of treatment interruptions. Patients on intensive phase were 1.58 times likely to interrupt treatment compared to those on continuation phase (aHR: 1.581; 95%CI: 1.232–2.031). There is need to develop TB interventions that target men and middle aged population in order to reduce treatment interruption and increase the treatment success rates in the County and Country.

Introduction

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a major public health concern globally. Though an ancient disease, it is still among the top ten causes of mortality globally from a single infectious agent [1]. In 2018, the estimated number of TB cases were10 million [1] worldwide with 1.2 million estimated among the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) negative patients and 251,000 among TB-HIV co-infected patients [1]. The number of TB cases notified worldwide in 2018 were notably higher among the male gender at 56% [1].

Kenya, a low middle income country is among 30 high burden countries for TB and among 14 countries that suffer a triple burden of TB, TB-HIV and Multi-drug resistant (MDR) TB clients [13]. In 2018 alone, the country reported 96,478 TB cases; a 13.2% increment from the previous year. In the same year, TB-HIV co-infection notified cases contributed 26.6% [4]. The country has come a long way in enhancing TB diagnosis through equitable distribution of diagnostic tools like expanded use of x-ray, availability of gene-xpert machines as well as provision of microscopy for both diagnosis and follow-up for TB patients. Further, initiatives are still in place in bridging the gap of 40% missing TB cases reported by the TB prevalence survey of 2015-2016 [5]. Some of the initiatives include health facility active case finding, contact tracing by Community Health Volunteers (CHVs), public private partnerships as well as Kenya Innovation Challenge for TB. All these are aimed at finding missing people with TB in the communities and linking them to TB diagnosis and treatment clinics through innovative strategies.

The strategic development goal (SDG) number three aims to improve good health and well-being among all people with one of the targets being to end TB and HIV epidemics globally by 2030 [1]. Similarly, the End TB strategy aims at reducing the number of deaths due to TB by 90% as well as reduce the TB incidence by 80% by 2030 [4]. Likewise, the Kenya National TB programme aims at ensuringthat all the TB notified patients adhere to the recommended regimen and successfully complete treatment. These milestones will not be realized if the challenges facing treatment interrupters are not adequately addressed.

In a bid to strengthen retention to care among the TB patients, Kiambu County, with the support from Respiratory Society of Kenya (RESOK) through Amref Health Africa, has engaged community health volunteers (CHVs) across the health facilities offering diagnostic and/or treatment services to TB patients. With support from the health care workers (HCWs), CHVs actively follow up patients who either have missed an appointment or interrupted treatment for more than 2 weeks. The treatment interrupters are documented in the Ministry of Health (MOH) community reporting tool- treatment interruption tracing form.

To further improve the adherence, the National TB programme in Kenya adopted the Direct Observation Therapy (DOT) for TB patients as recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1993 [6] where all patients with TB disease are supervised while taking their medication. However, there are patients that fail to keep their appointment dates hence missing their treatment. The interruption to treatment could range from weeks to months. During this time, the patients risk transmitting TB disease to their close contacts, could develop resistance due to drug interruption or end up with unfavorable outcomes such as death.

Kiambu county in 2018, had a notable 5.9% of patients interrupting their treatment either during intensive phase or continuation phase, a percentage that is above the national level of 5.4% [7]. A study conducted in Meru Kenya, found that more males interrupted treatment and cited forgetfulness as the commonest reason for treatment interruption [8]. In addition, a study conducted in Zambia revealed the commonest reasons for treatment interruption being feeling better, low level of knowledge on treatment completion benefits and drug side effects. Other contributory factors found among treatment interrupters in Uganda was change of the treatment facility for the patient [9]. Social factors found were lack of formal employment, lack of family support as well as smear positivity at time of diagnosis [10]. Other factors identified in a study conducted in South Sudan were long distance to the health facility, stigma from the society, high cost of transportation, traditional beliefs as well as rural residency [11]. In North-West Ethiopia, a cross-sectional study conducted revealed that patients with more than one co-morbidity, poor patient-provider relationship and low knowledge on TB contributed significantly to treatment interruption [12]. A systematic study review on qualitative research conducted on patient adherence to tuberculosis treatment identified areas that included financial burden, law and immigration, knowledge, attitude, beliefs, family, community and household support [13] as being key factors to treatment interruption.

There is paucity of data on treatment interruption and outcomes in Kiambu County. The study will bridge the information gap by investigating the socio-demographic and determinants of time to interruption and treatment outcomes between 2016 and 2019. This information will be vital in strengthening the health system in the County and every effort put to ensure the barriers highlighted are addressed to improve the treatment success among the TB patients even as the government strives to reduce the number of new TB infections by 90% by 2030.

Methods

Data collection

The data for this study were extracted from the MOH Tuberculosis treatment interruption tracing form attached as additional file (S1 File) for the period 2016 to 2019 which captured the following variables: age, sex, location of health facility treatment site and type of TB that the participant is suffering from, date of treatment initiation, date of treatment interruption and tracing outcomes.

The data in the MOH TB tracing form is collected by trained CHVs as they follow up patients who interrupt treatment. The patients who are traced by the CHVs are referred back to the health facility and linked to the Community Health Extension Worker (CHEW) for continuation of care and treatment. The information captured in the tracing form is submitted to Respiratory Society of Kenya (RESOK) for entry into the Grants Management Information System (GMIS) by the data clerks and data manager based at Amref Health Africa. The data entered is verified against the physical form to ensure accuracy in entry. The treatment outcome data was obtained by linking the data from GMIS and Tuberculosis Information Basic Unit (TIBU) system.

Study design

This was a retrospective study of TB patients in Kiambu County health facilities who interrupted treatment, traced and successfully referred back to treatment. The study period was from 1stJanuary 2016 to 31stDecember 2019.

Study site and participants

Kiambu County, one of the 47 Counties in Kenya, has a population of 2.4 million people and is ranked among the top ten TB high burden counties in the country. It is divided into 12 administrative sub-counties with a total of 505 health facilities. Of these, 108 (21%) are public health facilities, 64 (13%) are faith based organizations and 333 (66%) are private facilities. Among the public health facilities, there are 70 level two, 24 level three, 11 level 4 and three level 5 health facilities [14]. Level 2 and 3 health facilities offer basic medical services while level 4 and 5 facilities offer tertiary health services. The study was conducted in level 3, 4 and 5 health facilities in Kiambu County. Of all the health facilities in Kiambu County, there are 142 treatment sites for TB, 82 diagnostic sites and 7 gene-Xpert machines for diagnosis purposes.

The study population included all TB patients who interrupted treatment but were returned to care and treatment both from the public and private health sector across the12 sub-counties of Kiambu County. There was no formal sample size calculation as this was a retrospective study, however the final sample included in the study was assumed to have enough power to detect a difference between the outcome and explanatory variables. We excluded all TB patients who did not interrupt treatment, already active in care and those who could not be traced back into the treatment.

Sampling procedure

All the patients interrupting treatment in the period of 2016to 2019 and were successfully traced formed the study sample.

Study variables

The dependent variable for this study was time to treatment interruption measured as time from TB treatment initiation to the time the participant interrupted treatment. The independent variables included sex of the respondents (male and female), age at the time of data collection measured on a continuous scale, BMI categorized into obese, normal, moderate, overweight and severe; HIV status measured on binary scale as positive and negative; type of TB (PTB and EPTB) and TB treatment phase (continuation and intensive). All variables were considered important in explaining the outcome of interest and were therefore adjusted for in the Cox proportion model.

Statistical analysis

All the data extracted from GMIS and TIBU were exported into an excel database. Categorical data were expressed as frequency and percentage. Kaplan-Meir curve was used to analyze the probability of time to treatment interruption for patients on intensive and continuation phase of treatment. The equality of the curves was compared using Log-Rank, Breslow or Tarone-Ware test statistics. Cox proportion hazards model was performed to determine socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with the time to treatment interruption both for Univariate and multivariate models. All statistical Analysis was conducted using STATA version 15 (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA) and all tests were two-tailed with p-values < 0.05 considered statistically significant.

Ethical considerations

The study was approved by the Amref health Africa in Kenya scientific and ethical review committee by providing a waiver of consent because this was a retrospective study of routinely collected data; application approval P796/2020. Strict confidentiality was ensured throughout the study period and final analysis dataset de-identified prior to analysis. The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.

Results

General characteristics

We included 292 participants who interrupted TB treatment in Kiambu County health facilities in the period of 1st January 2016- 31st December 2019. Males were 200(68%) while female were 92 (32%). Majority (35%) of the study participants were aged 25–34 years, followed by those aged between 35–44 years (26%). The age groups 0–14 years and above 55 year constituted 5.8% and 5.1% respectively. Most of the participants were from Kiambaa (23%), Githunguri (21%) and Thika (20%) sub-counties. Among the study participants, Pulmonary TB was the most common type of TB (98.6%, n = 288) and the rest (n = 4) had extra pulmonary TB. Of the participants with Pulmonary TB, 265(92.0%) showed positive smear results while the rest (n = 3) showed smear negative. Majority (43%) of the patients had normal BMI, followed by those with moderate BMI (30.8%), 16.8% had severe BMI, and the rest (9%) were either obese or overweight. The proportion of TB-HIV co-infection was estimated to be 29% (n = 85) while 60.3% (n = 176) of the participants were in intensive phase of the treatment as shown in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of TB patients attending public hospitals in Kiambu County, 2015–2019 (N = 292).

Variable Frequency Percent
Sex
 Male 200 68.5
 Female 92 31.5
Age-group in years
 0–4 8 2.7
 5–9 4 1.4
 10–14 5 1.7
 15–24 49 16.8
 25–34 101 34.6
 35–44 75 25.7
 45–54 35 12
 55–64 8 2.7
 65+ 7 2.4
Sub-county of residence
 Gatundu 25 8.6
 Githunguri 60 20.6
 Juja 18 6.2
 Kabete 15 5.1
 Kiambaa 66 22.6
 Kiambu 5 1.7
 Kikuyu 9 3.1
 Lari 15 5.1
 Limuru 12 4.1
 Ruiru 10 3.4
 Thika 57 19.5

Table 2. Clinical characteristics of TB patients attending public hospitals in Kiambu County, 2015–2019 (N = 292).

Variable Frequency Percent
Type of TB
 PTB 288 98.6
 EPTB 4 1.4
Initial smear(n = 288)
 Smear+ 265 92.0
 Smear- 23 8.0
BMI
 Normal 126 43.2
 Moderate 90 30.8
 Obese 17 5.8
 Overweight 10 3.4
 Severe 49 16.8
HIV status
 Negative 207 70.9
 Positive 85 29.1
Phase
 Intensive 176 60.3
 Continuation 116 39.7

Outcomes of treatment

Fig 1 shows the treatment outcomes of the patients. The overall treatment success rate (TSR) was 66.8% (either cured (34.6%) or completed (32.2%), 20.9% were lost to follow-up, 5.8% transfer out, 4.1% died, not completed treatment, non-TB was each 1%, and 0.3% were treatment failures.

Fig 1. TB treatment outcomes.

Fig 1

Reasons for treatment interruption

The most common reason for the treatment interruptions were lack of knowledge (17.8%) folowed by relocation (17.1%), travelled (12.0%) felt better(11.0%), and other reasons are summarized in Fig 2. Others inlcudes: financial contraints, drug resistant cases, scared, long distance each at 0.3%, worsening condition, and pill burden each at 0.7%.

Fig 2. Reasons for missed visits.

Fig 2

Kaplan Meir survival curves for treatment interruptions

Fig 3 shows the Kaplan-Meir curves for the cumulative risk of treatment interruptions between intensive and continuation phase of the treatment. The interruption probability at the intensive phase was higher than of those in the continuation phase. As time increases the two probabilities were the same. The log rank test showed that there was a significant difference between the two curves as shown by the different tests.

Fig 3. Kaplan-Meir curves for the treatment phase.

Fig 3

The results of Cox regression survival model are summarized in Table 3; only phase of treatment was significantly associated with the time to treatment interruption. Patients on intensive phase of treatment were 1.58 times more likely to interrupt treatment compared to those on continuation phase (aHR: 1.581; 95%CI: 1.232–2.031). Sex, type of TB, BMI, and HIV status were not statistically significant.

Table 3. Cox regression estimates of the risk factors for the time to TB drug interruption in patients attending Kiambu County public hospitals (N = 292).

Characteristics Unadjusted model* Adjusted model**
cHR Std. Err p-value 95%CI aHR Std. Err p-value 95%CI
Sex
 Female ref ref
 Male 0.997 0.128 0.981 0.775–1.283 1.052 0.156 0.714 0.802–1.381
Age 0.998 0.005 0.683 0.989–1.007 0.999 0.005 0.772 0.989–1.008
Type of TB
 PTB ref ref
 EPTB 0.822 0.698 0.305–2.216 1.028 0.535 0.958 0.370–2.852
BMI
 Obese ref
 Normal 1.051 0.149 0.727 0.795–1.388 1.118 0.163 0.446 0.40–1.488
 Moderate 1.331 0.356 0.284 0.788–2.248 1.436 0.394 0.187 0.839–2.457
 Overweight 0.603 0.199 0.127 0.315–1.154 0.543 0.187 0.077 0.276–1.067
 Severe 0.954 0.166 0.787 0.678–1.342 0.976 0.183 0.898 0.677–1.407
HIV status
 Negative ref ref
 Positive 1.03 0.136 0.822 0.795–1.335 1.133 0.159 0.374 0.860–1.493
Phase
Continuation ref ref
 Intensive 1.504 0.186 0.001 1.181–1.916 1.581 0.202 < 0.0001 1.232–2.031

Discussion

Treatment interruption in Kiambu County was shown to be prevalent during the intensive phase compared to continuation phase. This could be due to insufficient health education given to the participants upon being diagnosed with TB. These results are consistent with studies done in health facilities in south Ethiopia and Nairobi County that revealed that most of the patients interrupted treatment during the intensive phase of treatment [15,16]. Further, majority of the participants who interrupted treatment had pulmonary TB with a smaller proportion having extra-pulmonary TB. This could be due to the transmission mode of TB being airborne resulting to the lung parenchyma being most affected by the disease [17]. In addition, majority of the patients were bacteriologically confirmed cases at the time of treatment interruption. This confers a great risk of continuous community TB transmission prior to conversion to smear negative [18].

Expectedly, majority of our study participants were HIV negative (70.9%). This reflects the TB prevalence survey that was conducted in Kenya in 2015–2016 which revealed that upto 85% of the population with TB in the country were HIV negative [5]. Despite being returned back to care and treatment, (33.1%) of the study participants had unfavorable outcomes with upto (20.9%) interrupting treatment yet again. This informs the need to come up with measures addressing the reasons cited for interruption in order to mitigate this pattern.

Our study revealed that 71.8% of the patients that interrupted treatment cited lack of knowledge for the missed clinic appointments. Inadequate information on the disease, duration of treatment, as well as risks associated with treatment interruption could contribute to non-adherence. This echoes previous studies that linked low level of knowledge to treatment interruption [19,20]. It is thus paramount to uphold patient health education as one of the key components in TB management. Increase in the level of knowledge on TB will consequently improve patients’ health seeking behavior. In our study, patient relocation and travelling followed closely as reasons for interrupting treatment. Improving provider to patient relationship, as well as strengthening linkage mechanisms will ensure the patients have access treatment despite movement from the primary health facility.

Subsequent to TB treatment initiation, majority of the patients feel much better and get relief from the symptoms of TB. This is due to the bactericidal activity of the TB drugs which rapidly reduces the bacillary load in a patient [21]. However, this could also attribute to patients interrupting treatment. Previously studies conducted have associated feeling better as a contributor to treatment interruption [15,22,23]. Health education on importance of adherence, coupled with close patient follow-up could assist in ensuring patients are retained in care until treatment completion.

Treatment interruption was highest among males. Social behavior, highly mobile in nature, as well as poor health seeking behaviors could be a recipe that could contribute to non-adherence. Besides the prevalence survey in Kenya that showed males had a higher risk of acquiring TB, studies done have shown female gender to be more adherent to treatment unlike their counterparts [24]. Further, the age group most affected was 25–34 years. This is an age bracket that is economically productive hence likely to interrupt treatment as they work to sustain their livelihood.

Treatment interruption remains a major hurdle in the fight against TB. As the study has revealed, majority of the patients interrupt treatment during the intensive phase. It is apparent that some of the major reasons of treatment interruption are lack of knowledge, travel, relocation as well as feeling better. Therefore, health education and counseling on TB transmission, treatment duration, and importance to complete treatment and potential drug adverse effects could help in strengthening adherence to treatment. Improved health provider to patient relationship, having a reminder sms platform coupled with diarized patients appointments are ways that could help in reminding the patient of the clinic visits. Patient care centered approach will also help understand the preferred health facility the patient would want to seek care. This approach will also help in linkage for the patient in case of need to travel or relocation from the primary health facility.

Strengths

The study setting is unique in that it encompasses both rural and urban settings thus allows for the analysis of the similarities and various differences of the factors influencing(hindering successful TB treatment among our patients) interruption depending on the patient locality. In addition, our study incorporated LFTUs that were returned back to treatment within the TB treatment period (pre-TB treatment). This ensured that we were able to follow up the patients to ascertain their treatment outcomes. The period between the treatment interruption and tracing was within the pre-treatment period hence this reduced recall bias. Our study was able to incorporate participants from both public and private health facilities making it representative of the health facilities from whole county. The STROBE guidelines for cohort studies informed the design and reporting for this study. Finally, our study used a standardized MOH tool to capture details of treatment interruption that was filled by the CHV and verified by health worker to ensure completeness of documentation in the tracing form.

Study limitation

Some of the study limitations found includes exclusion of some TB treatment interrupters that were not found during the defaulter tracing exercise as some facilities were not linked with CHVs, this had the potential to affect the number of patients included in the study as they were left out of the study. Some of the socioeconomic parameters that could affect patient treatment outcomes were not recorded (e.g. smoking status, alcohol consumption). The data collection method was retrospective and relied on the accuracy of data recorded, thus there is possibility that data were not recorded correctly were excluded in the study. Finally, majority of treatment interrupters in our study were men, this might have introduced a selection bias in the population included in our study.

Conclusions

The study showed that treatment interruption is common among males, dominant in the population aged 25–34 years, and among those who stays in Kiambaa and Githunguri sub-counties. The treatment success rate was estimated to be 66.8% while lack of knowledge and relocation were the major reasons for the treatment interruptions. Patients on intensive phase of the treatment had higher risk of treatment interruption. To reduce the treatment interruption TB treatment program consider having interventions that target men to educate men on the dangers of treatment interruptions and middle aged group of the population in order to ensure treatment completion is embraced.

Supporting information

S1 File. Treatment interruption tracing form.

(DOCX)

S1 Data

(XLSX)

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the support of Afya Bora Consortium for the scholarship they accorded me towards studying global health leadership. Also, we appreciate Dr Gachuno, Dr Theresa, Samuel Muhula, Titus Kiptai, and James Orwa for their guidance during the whole process of developing this manuscript. Finally, we are grateful for the Kiambu County, health department who allowed us to access the patients’ files for data extraction.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.World Health Organization. GLOBAL TUBERCULOSIS REPORT, 2019. Geneva; 2019. p. 297. https://www.who.int/tb/publications/global_report/en/.
  • 2.NLTP. Kenya National Strategic Plan on Tuberculosis, Leprosy 2015–2018. Nairobi; 2014. https://healthservices.uonbi.ac.ke/sites/default/files/centraladmin/healthservices/Kenya%20National%20Strategic%20Plan%20on%20Tuberculosis,%20Leprosy.pdf.
  • 3.Toczek A, Cox H, Du Cros P, Cooke G, Ford N. Strategies for reducing treatment default in drug-resistant tuberculosis: Systematic review and meta-analysis. International Journal of Tuberculosis and Lung Disease. 2013. pp. 299–307. 10.5588/ijtld.12.0537 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.MOH. National Strategic Plan for TB, Leprosy and Lung disease. Nairobi, Kenya; 2018. https://www.nltp.co.ke/national-strategic-plan-2019-2023/.
  • 5.NLTP. Kenya Tuberculosis Prevalence Survey Report. Nairobi; 2016. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/TB Survey Findings_JOngango WTBD2017.pdf.
  • 6.WHO. A brief history of tuberculosis control in Kenya. Geneva; 2009. https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/43934/9789241596923_eng.pdf;jsessionid=52E212E1CA3693E0997661DF2117F75A?sequence=1.
  • 7.MOH. Final NTLD Annual Report_2018A_Commpressed(1).pdf. Nairobi, Kenya; 2018. https://www.nltp.co.ke/annual-reports/.
  • 8.Waithaka S, Kei R, Mbugua G. Factors that Influence the Interruption of Tuberculosis Treatment in Imenti South Sub-County, Meru Kenya. Int J Prof Pract. 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Nuwaha F. Factors influencing completion of treatment among tuberculosis patients in Mbarara District, Uganda. East Afr Med J. 1997;74: 690–3. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9557437. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Kizito KW, Dunkley S, Kingori M, Reid T. Lost to follow up from tuberculosis treatment in an urban informal settlement (Kibera), Nairobi, Kenya: what are the rates and determinants? Trans R Soc Trop Med Hyg. 2011;105: 52–57. 10.1016/j.trstmh.2010.08.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.A AOA, M HP. Barriers leading to treatment default among tuberculosis patients in Khartoum State, Sudan: a qualitative study. Clin Med Investig. 2018;3. 10.15761/cmi.1000152 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Mekonnen HS, Azagew AW. Non-adherence to anti-tuberculosis treatment, reasons and associated factors among TB patients attending at Gondar town health centers, Northwest Ethiopia 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1103 Clinical Sciences 11 Medical and Health Sciences 1117 Public Hea. BMC Res Notes. 2018;11. 10.1186/s13104-018-3789-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Munro SA, Lewin SA, Smith HJ, Engel ME, Fretheim A, Volmink J. Patient Adherence to Tuberculosis Treatment: A Systematic Review of Qualitative Research. 2007;4: 1230. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.County Government of Kiambu (CGoK). County Integrated Development Plan Kiambu County. Kiambu, Kenya; 2019.
  • 15.Muture BN, Keraka MN, Kimuu PK, Kabiru EW, Ombeka VO, Oguya F. Factors associated with default from treatment among tuberculosis patients in nairobi province, Kenya: A case control study. BMC Public Health. 2011;11: 696. 10.1186/1471-2458-11-696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Woimo TT, Yimer WK, Bati T, Gesesew HA. The prevalence and factors associated for anti-tuberculosis treatment non-adherence among pulmonary tuberculosis patients in public health care facilities in South Ethiopia: a cross-sectional study. BMC Public Health. 2017;17. 10.1186/s12889-017-4188-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.MOH. Guideline for integrated tuberculosis, leprosy and lung disease in kenya. 2017 Editi. Nairobi, Kenya; 2017. https://www.nltp.co.ke/guidelines/.
  • 18.Marx FM, Dunbar R, Enarson DA, Beyers N. The Rate of Sputum Smear-Positive Tuberculosis after Treatment Default in a High-Burden Setting: A Retrospective Cohort Study. PLoS One. 2012;7. 10.1371/journal.pone.0045724 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Kulkarni P, Akarte S, Mankeshwar R, Bhawalkar J, Banerjee A, Kulkarni A. Non-Adherence of New Pulmonary Tuberculosis Patients to Anti-Tuberculosis Treatment. Ann Med Health Sci Res. 2013;3: 67. 10.4103/2141-9248.109507 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Tola HH, Tol A, Shojaeizadeh D, Garmaroudi G. Tuberculosis treatment non-adherence and lost to follow up among TB patients with or without HIV in developing countries: A systematic review. Iranian Journal of Public Health. Iranian Journal of Public Health; 2015. pp. 1–11. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sarkar S, Ganguly A, Sunwoo HH. Current Overview of Anti-Tuberculosis Drugs: Metabolism and Toxicities. 2016. 10.4172/2161-1068.1000209 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.D M, K D. Defaulting from tuberculosis treatment at the Addis Abeba Tuberculosis Centre and factors associated with it. Ethiop Med J. 1994;32: 97–106. Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8033883. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Sinha S, Shekhar RC, Singh G, Shah N, Ahmad H, Kumar N, et al. Early versus delayed initiation of Antiretroviral therapy for Indian HIV-Infected individuals with Tuberculosis on anti-tuberculosis treatment. BMC Infect Dis. 2012;12: 168. 10.1186/1471-2334-12-168 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Vijay S, Balasangameshwara VH, Jagannatha PS, Saroja VN, Shivashankar B, Jagota P. Re-treatment outcome of smear positive tuberculosis cases under dots in bangalore city. Indian J Tuberc. 2002. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Eleanor Ochodo

7 Jan 2021

PONE-D-20-33540

Factors influencing TB Treatment interruption and treatment outcomes among patients in Kiambu County, 2016-2019

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Evelyn Kimani,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

This is generally a well written paper but we ask that you respond to the editor and peer-reviewer's comments and revise your manuscript accordingly. Please ensure that a spell check is done as a number of grammatical errors have been noted. PLOS ONE does not copy edit accepted manuscripts. We therefore urge that a thorough spell check is done. Do also ensure that you go through the STROBE reporting checklist for observational studies to ensure that all relevant items are reported. Reporting according to STROBE guidelines could be added as a strength of your study in your manuscript. If done we ask that you attach this checklist when resubmitting your manuscript.

The manuscript strongly concludes that men are prone to treatment interruption compared to women yet the sample population included 68% men. Wouldn't including more men bias your study findings? We would appreciate this discussion in the limitation section of your manuscript.

In addition the peer reviewer has highlighted some changes that warrant your attention. These include a mismatch between statistical figures in the abstract and manuscript, encouragement to reference the latest WHO TB reports and Kenyan National Leprosy and TB program reports, misreporting of acronyms, consistency in the use of HR or aHR among other minor comments.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 15 February 2021. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eleanor Ochodo, M.D., PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1.) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2.) You indicated that a waiver of consent was granted for your study,; however, you have not indicated whether the institutional review board waived the need for ethical approval. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details confirming from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an "Other" file."

3.) We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.  

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services.  If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

  • The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

  • A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

  • A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

4.) Please provide further details on sample size and power calculations.

5.) In the statistical analysis section, please clarify which confounders or variables were accounted for in your statistical models.

6.) Please include additional information regarding the data extraction tool used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed the data extraction tool as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously.

7.) We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

8.) Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

9.) Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I have appended minor comments onto the manuscript for your action. In summary, the numbers in the results section and abstracts should match. I realize you used HR instead of aHR in the abstract section. Addition of latest reports such as WHO TB Report 2020 and Annual TB Program Report 2020 would greatly suffice in the manuscript. Use of acronyms without declaration is not best writing etiquette. I asked whether CHVs and CHEWs are synonymous or exclusive in the field work that was conducted as part of the study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Steve Wandiga

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 6;16(4):e0248820. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0248820.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


15 Feb 2021

Dear Editor,

Thank you for your review. We have addressed the comments as highlighted in blue. Thank you.

1.) Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Thank you. Yes, this was checked; the manuscript conforms to the PLOS One authors submission guidelines

2.) You indicated that a waiver of consent was granted for your study,; however, you have not indicated whether the institutional review board waived the need for ethical approval. We understand that the framework for ethical oversight requirements for studies of this type may differ depending on the setting and we would appreciate some further clarification regarding your research. Could you please provide further details confirming from your institutional review board or research ethics committee (e.g., in the form of a letter or email correspondence) that ethics review was not necessary for this study? Please include a copy of the correspondence as an "Other" file."

Yes there was a waiver; we have included a section on ethical consideration on page 7 and attached the ethical approval letter as an additional file (S2).

3.) We suggest you thoroughly copyedit your manuscript for language usage, spelling, and grammar. If you do not know anyone who can help you do this, you may wish to consider employing a professional scientific editing service.

Whilst you may use any professional scientific editing service of your choice, PLOS has partnered with both American Journal Experts (AJE) and Editage to provide discounted services to PLOS authors. Both organizations have experience helping authors meet PLOS guidelines and can provide language editing, translation, manuscript formatting, and figure formatting to ensure your manuscript meets our submission guidelines. To take advantage of our partnership with AJE, visit the AJE website (http://learn.aje.com/plos/) for a 15% discount off AJE services. To take advantage of our partnership with Editage, visit the Editage website (www.editage.com) and enter referral code PLOSEDIT for a 15% discount off Editage services. If the PLOS editorial team finds any language issues in text that either AJE or Editage has edited, the service provider will re-edit the text for free.

Upon resubmission, please provide the following:

• The name of the colleague or the details of the professional service that edited your manuscript

• A copy of your manuscript showing your changes by either highlighting them or using track changes (uploaded as a *supporting information* file)

• A clean copy of the edited manuscript (uploaded as the new *manuscript* file)

Thank you this has been checked, the grammar and the spelling has been checked.

4.) Please provide further details on sample size and power calculations.

There was no formal sample size calculation as this was a retrospective study, however the final sample included in the study was assumed to have enough power to detect a difference between the outcome and explanatory variables. This is explained in page 6.

5.) In the statistical analysis section, please clarify which confounders or variables were accounted for in your statistical models.

There is a section added on study variables on page 7. All variables were considered important in explaining the outcome of interest and were therefore adjusted for in the cox proportion model.

6.) Please include additional information regarding the data extraction tool used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed the data extraction tool as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously.

We used a treatment interrupters tracer form which is a Ministry of Health approved tool to capture the participant’s details and reasons for treatment interruption; this has been indicated in page 5. This tool has been attached as an additional file (S1)

7.) We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

The data set has been uploaded as an additional file, S3.

8.) Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics statement entered into the online submission form will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Thank you. The Ethics section has been added to the methods section page 7.

9.) Please include your tables as part of your main manuscript and remove the individual files. Please note that supplementary tables (should remain/ be uploaded) as separate "supporting information" files

The tables have now been included as part of the main manuscript.

The STROBE guidelines for cohort studies informed the design and reporting for this study. This has been added as additional file, S3.

The manuscript strongly concludes that men are prone to treatment interruption compared to women yet the sample population included 68% men. Wouldn't including more men bias your study findings? We would appreciate this discussion in the limitation section of your manuscript.

Majority of treatment interrupters in our study were men, this might have introduced a selection bias in the population included in our study. This statement has been added in page 14.

In addition the peer reviewer has highlighted some changes that warrant your attention. These include a mismatch between statistical figures in the abstract and manuscript, encouragement to reference the latest WHO TB reports and Kenyan National Leprosy and TB program reports, misreporting of acronyms, consistency in the use of HR or aHR among other minor comments.

Thank you, this has been corrected. We used the current reports as at the time of developing this study.

Yours sincerely,

Evelyn Kimani

Attachment

Submitted filename: Letter to the editor.docx

Decision Letter 1

Eleanor Ochodo

8 Mar 2021

Factors influencing TB Treatment interruption and treatment outcomes among patients in Kiambu County, 2016-2019

PONE-D-20-33540R1

Dear Dr. Evelyn Kimani,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Eleanor Ochodo, M.D., PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper meets the review comments and there are no additional comments for the author and there are no concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics from my end.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Dr. Steve Wandiga

Acceptance letter

Eleanor Ochodo

22 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-33540R1

Factors influencing TB Treatment interruption and treatment outcomes among patients in Kiambu County, 2016-2019

Dear Dr. Kimani:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Eleanor Ochodo

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Treatment interruption tracing form.

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data

    (XLSX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Letter to the editor.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES