Evaluation of collaborative tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus activities in Phnom Penh, Cambodia

Are scientific research outputs aligned with national policy makers' priorities? A case study of tuberculosis in Cambodia

With funding for tuberculosis (TB) research decreasing, and the high global disease burden persisting, there are calls for increased investment in TB research. However, justification of such investments is questionable, when translation of research outputs into policy and health care improvements remains a challenge for TB and other diseases. Using TB in Cambodia as a case study, we investigate how evidence needs of national policy makers are addressed by topics covered in research publications. We first conducted a systematic review to compile all studies on TB in Cambodia published since 2000. We then identified priority areas in which evidence for policy and programme planning are required from the perspective of key national TB control stakeholders. Finally, results from the literature review were analysed in relation to the priority research areas for national policy makers to assess overlap and highlight gaps in evidence. Priority research areas were: TB-HIV co-infection; childhood TB; multidrug resistant TB (MDR-TB); and universal and equitable access to quality diagnosis and treatment. On screening 1687 unique papers retrieved from our literature search, 253 were eligible publications focusing on TB in Cambodia. Of these, only 73 (29%) addressed one of the four priority research areas. Overall, 30 (11%), five (2%), seven (2%) and 37 (14%) studies reported findings relevant to TB-HIV, childhood TB, MDR-TB and access to quality diagnosis and treatment respectively. Our analysis shows that a small proportion of the research outputs in Cambodia address priority areas for informing policy and programme planning. This case study illustrates that there is substantial room for improvement in alignment between research outputs and evidence gaps that national policy makers would like to see addressed; better coordination between researchers, funders and policy makers' on identifying priority research topics may increase the relevance of research findings to health policies and programmes.

Timing of antiretroviral therapy in Cambodian hospital after diagnosis of tuberculosis: impact of revised WHO guidelines

OBJECTIVE

To determine if implementation of 2010 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on antiretroviral therapy (ART) initiation reduced delay from tuberculosis diagnosis to initiation of ART in a Cambodian urban hospital.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was conducted in a nongovernmental hospital in Phnom Penh that followed new WHO guidelines in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and tuberculosis. All ART-naïve, HIV-positive patients initiated on antituberculosis treatment over the 18 months before and after guideline implementation were included. A competing risk regression model was used.

FINDINGS

After implementation of the 2010 WHO guidelines, 190 HIV-positive patients with tuberculosis were identified: 53% males; median age, 38 years; median baseline CD4+ T-lymphocyte (CD4+ cell) count, 43 cells/µL. Before implementation, 262 patients were identified; 56% males; median age, 36 years; median baseline CD4+ cell count, 59 cells/µL. With baseline CD4+ cell counts ≤ 50 cells/µL, median delay to ART declined from 5.8 weeks (interquartile range, IQR: 3.7-9.0) before to 3.0 weeks (IQR: 2.1-4.4) after implementation (P < 0.001); with baseline CD4+ cell counts > 50 cells/µL, delay dropped from 7.0 (IQR: 5.3-11.3) to 3.6 (IQR: 2.9-5.3) weeks (P < 0.001). The probability of ART initiation within 4 and 8 weeks after tuberculosis diagnosis rose from 23% and 65%, respectively, before implementation, to 62% and 90% after implementation. A non-significant increase in 6-month retention and antiretroviral substitution was seen after implementation.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of 2010 WHO recommendations in a routine clinical setting shortens delay to ART. Larger studies with longer follow-up are needed to assess impact on patient outcomes.