Skip to main content
  • Loading metrics

Moving Beyond Directly Observed Therapy for Tuberculosis

  • John Z. Metcalfe ,

    Affiliation Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, San Francisco General Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America

  • Max R. O’Donnell,

    Affiliation Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Medical Center, New York, New York, United States of America

  • David R. Bangsberg

    Affiliations Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America, Mbarara University of Science and Technology, Mbarara, Uganda

Mycobacterium tuberculosis often develops resistance in the setting of monotherapy, either de facto (when an organism is susceptible to only one drug of an intended multidrug regimen) or actual (historically, or in the setting of extensively drug resistant tuberculosis (XDR-TB) salvage regimens) [14]. With current regimens, sterilization of drug-susceptible organisms requires at least six months of treatment to prevent disease relapse. Unfortunately, pill burden, drug toxicity, stigma, and poor provider practice often complicate these prolonged treatment courses, and nonadherence is widely blamed for the global epidemic of drug-resistant TB. Directly observed therapy (DOT) has for decades been considered crucial to ensuring anti-TB medication adherence worldwide, but carries important individual and health policy concerns. This week in PLOS Medicine, Fielding and colleagues present a cluster randomized trial of an alternative strategy—managing adherence with reminders delivered by an electronic pillbox or text messaging.

DOT is variously defined as 5–7 daily doses per week observed by facility-, workplace-, or community-based healthcare workers or confidants. Although DOT is employed selectively for other communicable and noncommunicable diseases for which incomplete adherence threatens treatment success, DOT in TB treatment has become enshrined as “canon in a field long characterized by fervor in principle and practice” as in no other disease [5]. First implemented in Madras and Hong Kong in the 1950s [6], DOT became globally endorsed (as one of five key components of the World Health Organization directly observed therapy short-course [DOTS] strategy) [7] in 1994 in the aftermath of public health alarm created by an outbreak of multidrug-resistant (MDR)-TB in New York City [8]. Operationalization of DOT varies according to resource availability, cultural factors, and individual provider perception, and is often incomplete, even among populations for which strict adherence is considered essential [9]. Although in its best form DOT can be a platform for patient social support and guidance, it has long been debated whether the requirement for witnessed dosing represents the least restrictive alternative in pursuit of public health goals [10]. Conceived of as a principal standard of care to protect individuals from drug resistance amplification and communities from a potentially devastating airborne disease, DOT in some cases adversely impacts the dignity, autonomy, and livelihoods of patients who are often already poor and disenfranchised [11]. For example, among patients receiving treatment for both HIV and drug-resistant TB, loss of a sense of agency due to provider supervision of TB treatment contributes to preferential adherence to antiretrovirals over drug-resistant TB therapy, complicating combined treatment regimens that may surpass 30 pills daily [12]. Nevertheless, alternative strategies to DOT have received little attention.

To what degree does nonadherence lead to treatment failure or acquisition of drug resistance? In contrast to HIV, for which the complex relationship between adherence, pharmacokinetics, and resistance for each antiretroviral class is defined [13], the levels and patterns of adherence that lead to TB treatment failure and drug resistance remain largely unknown [14]. Observational studies from the United States [15] and Botswana [16] in the 1990s documented associations between DOT-supported adherence and prevention of drug resistance. However, a meta-analysis of randomized trials [17] comparing DOT to self-administration of TB treatment failed to demonstrate improved treatment outcome (though the component trials were heterogeneous [18] and were not powered to examine drug resistance amplification). In addition, preclinical studies suggest that TB treatment is robust to relatively high levels of nonadherence [19], and certain drugs and drug combinations are more or less forgiving than others [4,20]. Nevertheless, adherence challenges with prior TB treatment are a common refrain among people living with MDR-TB [21].

The study by Fielding and colleagues was a four-arm cluster randomized trial, involving 4,173 patients in 36 health centers across China, designed to assess the effect of dosing and refill reminders delivered by cell phone text message, electronic pillbox, or both, on patient adherence to six months of intermittent (every other day) TB treatment. The primary outcome was the proportion of patient-months in which ≥20% of doses were missed (“nonadherent months”), measured by either monthly pill counts or electronic pillbox openings (which did not produce audible reminders in the control arm of the study). Despite use of medication pillboxes, various forms of DOT, and data-informed (pill counts) counseling in the control arm, substantial nonadherence was observed (30% nonadherent months). Electronic pillbox reminders, but not text messages alone, significantly decreased the primary outcome (17% nonadherent months). This effect was stronger when text message reminders were added to pillbox reminders (14% nonadherent months). Approximately one-tenth of patients were excluded because of inability to use mobile phones after training, and nearly one-third of randomized patients (and one-half of those in the combined text messaging and electronic pill box arm) experienced technical problems with their device (S5 Table in the supplementary material of the paper by Fielding and colleagues). Despite substantial nonadherence to an intermittent regimen, adverse end-of-treatment outcomes, other than loss to follow up, were rare in this low HIV burden setting.

Significant technical complications in the trial related to battery connectivity suggest that additional work is needed to both confirm benefit and facilitate scale-up, and the data provide little indication of whether durable effects on treatment outcomes (beyond loss to follow-up) should be anticipated. Yet, the study by Fielding and colleagues is unusual in providing objective TB treatment adherence data combined with a scalable intervention strategy to improve adherence. If replicated, it will have important implications for global TB treatment in moving away from witnessed dosing, which is not universally feasible, towards a more personalized adherence model of patient–provider communication in which intervention is delivered where, when, and in whom it is needed to efficiently prevent adverse treatment outcome.

Will such technology aid transition to a “post-DOT” era in low- as well as high-income settings? In the field of HIV, “just-in-time” adherence interventions linked in real-time to objectively monitored adherence have overcome several limitations in traditional counseling-based interventions [22], which cannot anticipate decline in adherence over time or interruptions in daily adherence routines. Such approaches can potentially reduce healthcare costs by selectively targeting other medical resources (e.g., laboratory monitoring, provider visits, pharmacokinetic testing) to patients at greatest risk, while foregoing these for patients with near-perfect adherence and negligible risk of disengagement, treatment failure, or drug resistance [23].

In its long history with humanity, tuberculosis has in many ways provided the prototype for chronic disease management. The cornerstone of successful TB treatment has long been recognized to lie within the complex inter-relationship between patients and clinical staff and to hinge strongly on structural facilitators to the treatment experience, along with empathy [24]. Shortened, simplified TB treatment regimens in conjunction with technologies facilitating adherence, such as real-time adherence monitoring and novel drug-delivery systems, could support this foundation to speed TB elimination while delivering truly patient-centered care.

Author Contributions

Contributed to the writing of the manuscript: JZM MRO DRB. Wrote the first draft of the manuscript: JZM. Agree with the manuscript’s results and conclusions: JZM MRO DRB.


  1. 1. Selkon JB, Devadatta S, Kulkarni KG, Mitchison DA, Narayana AS, Nair CN, et al. The Emergence of Isoniazid-Resistant Cultures in Patients with Pulmonary Tuberculosis during Treatment with Isoniazid Alone or Isoniazid Plus Pas. Bull World Health Organ. 1964;31:273–94. pmid:14253244
  2. 2. Yeager RL, Munroe WG, Dessau FI. Pyrazinamide (aldinamide) in the treatment of pulmonary tuberculosis. American review of tuberculosis. 1952;65(5):523–46. pmid:14924175
  3. 3. Vall-Spinosa A, Lester W, Moulding T, Davidson PT, McClatchy JK. Rifampin in the treatment of drug-resistant mycobacterium tuberculosis infections. N Engl J Med. 1970;283(12):616–21. pmid:4988918
  4. 4. Lee M, Cho SN, Barry CE 3rd, Song T, Kim Y, Jeong I. Linezolid for XDR-TB—Final Study Outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2015;373(3):290–1. pmid:26176401
  5. 5. Chaisson RE, Coberly JS, De Cock KM. DOTS and drug resistance: a silver lining to a darkening cloud. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1999;3(1):1–3. pmid:10094162
  6. 6. Bayer R, Wilkinson D. Directly observed therapy for tuberculosis: history of an idea. Lancet. 1995;345(8964):1545–8. pmid:7677849
  7. 7. World Health Organization Global Tuberculosis Programme. Framework for effective tuberculosis control. WHO/TB/94.179. Geneva; WHO, 1994.
  8. 8. Frieden TR, Sterling T, Pablos-Mendez A, Kilburn JO, Cauthen GM, Dooley SW. The emergence of drug-resistant tuberculosis in New York City. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(8):521–6. pmid:8381207
  9. 9. Duda SN, Farr AM, Lindegren ML, Blevins M, Wester CW, Wools-Kaloustian K, et al. Characteristics and comprehensiveness of adult HIV care and treatment programmes in Asia-Pacific, sub-Saharan Africa and the Americas: results of a site assessment conducted by the International epidemiologic Databases to Evaluate AIDS (IeDEA) Collaboration. J Int AIDS Soc. 2014;17:19045. pmid:25516092
  10. 10. Annas GJ. Control of tuberculosis—the law and the public's health. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(8):585–8. pmid:8426636
  11. 11. Sagbakken M, Frich JC, Bjune GA, Porter JD. Ethical aspects of directly observed treatment for tuberculosis: a cross-cultural comparison. BMC Med Ethics. 2013;14:25. pmid:23819555
  12. 12. Daftary A, Padayatchi N, O'Donnell M. Preferential adherence to antiretroviral therapy over tuberculosis treatment: a qualitative study of drug-resistant TB/HIV co-infected patients in South Africa. Glob Public Health. 2014;9(9):1107–16. pmid:25035943
  13. 13. Nachega JB, Marconi VC, van Zyl GU, Gardner EM, Preiser W, Hong SY, et al. HIV treatment adherence, drug resistance, virologic failure: evolving concepts. Infect Disord Drug Targets. 2011;11(2):167–74. pmid:21406048
  14. 14. van den Boogaard J, Boeree MJ, Kibiki GS, Aarnoutse RE. The complexity of the adherence-response relationship in tuberculosis treatment: why are we still in the dark and how can we get out? Trop Med Int Health. 2011;16(6):693–8. pmid:21375681
  15. 15. Weis SE, Slocum PC, Blais FX, King B, Nunn M, Matney GB, et al. The effect of directly observed therapy on the rates of drug resistance and relapse in tuberculosis. N Engl J Med. 1994;330(17):1179–84. pmid:8139628
  16. 16. Kenyon TA, Mwasekaga MJ, Huebner R, Rumisha D, Binkin N, Maganu E. Low levels of drug resistance amidst rapidly increasing tuberculosis and human immunodeficiency virus co-epidemics in Botswana. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 1999;3(1):4–11. pmid:10094163
  17. 17. Volmink J, Garner P. Directly observed therapy for treating tuberculosis. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2007;(4):CD003343. pmid:17943789
  18. 18. Pope DS, Chaisson RE. TB treatment: as simple as DOT? Int J Tuberc Lung Dis. 2003;7(7):611–5. pmid:12870680
  19. 19. Srivastava S, Pasipanodya JG, Meek C, Leff R, Gumbo T. Multidrug-resistant tuberculosis not due to noncompliance but to between-patient pharmacokinetic variability. J Infect Dis. 2011;204(12):1951–9. pmid:22021624
  20. 20. Ankomah P, Levin BR. Two-drug antimicrobial chemotherapy: a mathematical model and experiments with Mycobacterium marinum. PLoS Pathog. 2012;8(1):e1002487. pmid:22253599
  21. 21. Goble M, Iseman MD, Madsen LA, Waite D, Ackerson L, Horsburgh CR Jr. Treatment of 171 patients with pulmonary tuberculosis resistant to isoniazid and rifampin. N Engl J Med. 1993;328(8):527–32. pmid:8426619
  22. 22. Bangsberg DR. Preventing HIV antiretroviral resistance through better monitoring of treatment adherence. J Infect Dis. 2008;197 Suppl 3:S272–8. pmid:18447613
  23. 23. Petersen ML, LeDell E, Schwab J, Sarovar V, Gross R, Reynolds N, et al. Super Learner Analysis of Electronic Adherence Data Improves Viral Prediction and May Provide Strategies for Selective HIV RNA Monitoring. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2015;69(1):109–18. pmid:25942462
  24. 24. Curry FJ. Encounters in training clinic support staff. Chest. 1975;68(3 Suppl):462–5. pmid:1157565