Prioritising between direct observation of therapy and case-finding interventions for tuberculosis: use of population impact measures.

backgroundPopulation impact measures (PIMs) have been developed as tools to help policy-makers with locally relevant decisions over health risks and benefits. This involves estimating and prioritizing potential benefits of interventions in specific populations. Using tuberculosis (TB) in India as an example, we examined the population impact of two interventions: direct observation of therapy and increasing case-finding.

methodsPIMs were calculated using published literature and national data for India, and applied to a notional population of 100,000 people. Data included the incidence or prevalence of smear-positive TB and the relative risk reduction from increasing case finding and the use of direct observation of therapy (applied to the baseline risks over the next year), and the incremental proportion of the population eligible for the proposed interventions.

resultsIn a population of 100,000 people in India, the directly observed component of the Directly Observed Treatment, Short-course (DOTS) programme may prevent 0.188 deaths from TB in the next year compared with 1.79 deaths by increasing TB case finding. The costs of direct observation are (in international dollars) 5960 I dollars and of case finding are 4839 I dollars or 31702 I dollars and 2703 I dollars per life saved respectively.

conclusionIncreasing case-finding for TB will save nearly 10 times more lives than will the use of the directly observed component of DOTS in India, at a smaller cost per life saved. The demonstration of the population impact, using simple and explicit numbers, may be of value to policy-makers as they prioritize interventions for their populations.