Video-observed therapy (VOT) vs directly observed therapy (DOT) for tuberculosis treatment: A systematic review on adherence, cost of treatment observation, time spent observing treatment and patient satisfaction.

Introduction: Tuberculosis (TB) treatment demands strict adherence to multidrug regimens. Directly Observed Therapy (DOT) poses challenges, especially regarding adherence. With the popularization of smartphones, Video-Observed Therapy (VOT) has emerged as a promising alternative, allowing healthcare providers to remotely supervise patients taking their medications via video calls.

Objectives: This systematic review critically assesses VOT's effectiveness compared to DOT, focusing on adherence, treatment costs, time spent supervising treatment, and patient satisfaction, aiming to optimize TB supervision methods worldwide.

Methods: Only studies that met the following criteria were eligible for inclusion in the systematic review: randomized trials; studies that compared VOT to DOT; studies involving patients diagnosed with pulmonary or extrapulmonary tuberculosis; studies that reported any of the desired outcomes; full-text articles available for review; and studies conducted in the English language. We excluded studies with the following attributes: studies that lacked a control group; case series or case reports; and previous systematic reviews. The search engines and databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane were used to find studies comparing Video-Observed Therapy (VOT) to Directly Observed Therapy (DOT). The following search phrases were used to look for papers that contained them in their title or abstract: ("Electronic Directly Observed Therapy" OR "Video-observed therapy" OR "Telemedicine" OR "Wirelessly observed therapy" OR "Smartphone-enabled video-observed") AND ("TUBERCULOSIS").

Results: A systematic review of the literature revealed the following findings: in all Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), video-observed therapy (VOT) demonstrated non-inferiority in terms of treatment adherence compared to traditional directly observed therapy (DOT); VOT reduced costs where these outcomes were assessed in the RCTs; the use of VOT reduced the amount of time healthcare professionals spent supervising treatment in RCTs evaluating this aspect; VOT contributed to higher treatment satisfaction in RCTs where this outcome was measured.

Conclusion: In this systematic review we emphasize the importance of Video-Observed Therapy (VOT) in the digital age for patients that have access to internet. Our findings show that VOT is comparable to DOT in terms of treatment adherence, but it is also cost-effective, improves patient satisfaction and takes less time for healthcare professionals to supervise.