BACKGROUND: Tuberculosis is one of the most prominent health problems in the world, causing 1.75 million deaths each year. Rapid clinical diagnosis is important in patients who have co-morbidities such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection. Direct microscopy has low sensitivity and culture takes 3 to 6 weeks 123. Therefore, new tools for TB diagnosis are necessary, especially in health settings with a high prevalence of HIV/TB co-infection. METHODS: In a public reference TB/HIV hospital in Brazil, we compared the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for diagnosis of pulmonary TB: Acid fast bacilli smear microscopy by Ziehl-Neelsen staining (AFB smear) plus culture and AFB smear plus colorimetric test (PCR dot-blot).From May 2003 to May 2004, sputum was collected consecutively from PTB suspects attending the Parthenon Reference Hospital. Sputum samples were examined by AFB smear, culture, and PCR dot-blot. The gold standard was a positive culture combined with the definition of clinical PTB. Cost analysis included health services and patient costs. RESULTS: The AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot require the lowest laboratory investment for equipment (US$ 20,000). The total screening costs are 3.8 times for AFB smear plus culture versus for AFB smear plus PCR dot blot costs (US$ 5,635,760 versus US$ 1,498, 660). Costs per correctly diagnosed case were US$ 50,773 and US$ 13,749 for AFB smear plus culture and AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot, respectively. AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot was more cost-effective than AFB smear plus culture, when the cost of treating all correctly diagnosed cases was considered. The cost of returning patients, which are not treated due to a negative result, to the health service, was higher in AFB smear plus culture than for AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot, US$ 374,778,045 and US$ 110,849,055, respectively. CONCLUSION: AFB smear associated with PCR dot-blot associated has the potential to be a cost-effective tool in the fight against PTB for patients attended in the TB/HIV reference hospital.
BACKGROUND:Tuberculosis is one of the most prominent health problems in the world, causing 1.75 million deaths each year. Rapid clinical diagnosis is important in patients who have co-morbidities such as Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) infection. Direct microscopy has low sensitivity and culture takes 3 to 6 weeks 123. Therefore, new tools for TB diagnosis are necessary, especially in health settings with a high prevalence of HIV/TB co-infection. METHODS: In a public reference TB/HIV hospital in Brazil, we compared the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic strategies for diagnosis of pulmonary TB: Acid fast bacilli smear microscopy by Ziehl-Neelsen staining (AFB smear) plus culture and AFB smear plus colorimetric test (PCR dot-blot).From May 2003 to May 2004, sputum was collected consecutively from PTB suspects attending the Parthenon Reference Hospital. Sputum samples were examined by AFB smear, culture, and PCR dot-blot. The gold standard was a positive culture combined with the definition of clinicalPTB. Cost analysis included health services and patient costs. RESULTS: The AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot require the lowest laboratory investment for equipment (US$ 20,000). The total screening costs are 3.8 times for AFB smear plus culture versus for AFB smear plus PCR dot blot costs (US$ 5,635,760 versus US$ 1,498, 660). Costs per correctly diagnosed case were US$ 50,773 and US$ 13,749 for AFB smear plus culture and AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot, respectively. AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot was more cost-effective than AFB smear plus culture, when the cost of treating all correctly diagnosed cases was considered. The cost of returning patients, which are not treated due to a negative result, to the health service, was higher in AFB smear plus culture than for AFB smear plus PCR dot-blot, US$ 374,778,045 and US$ 110,849,055, respectively. CONCLUSION: AFB smear associated with PCR dot-blot associated has the potential to be a cost-effective tool in the fight against PTB for patients attended in the TB/HIV reference hospital.
Authors: W H F Goessens; P de Man; J G M Koeleman; A Luijendijk; R te Witt; H P Endtz; A van Belkum Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2005-06 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: B R Roos; M R van Cleeff; W A Githui; L Kivihya-Ndugga; J A Odhiambo; D K Kibuga; P R Klatser Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 1998-03 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Olga L Sarmiento; Kristen A Weigle; Janet Alexander; David J Weber; William C Miller Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Lydia Kivihya-Ndugga; Maarten van Cleeff; Ernest Juma; Joseph Kimwomi; Willie Githui; Linda Oskam; Anja Schuitema; Dick van Soolingen; Lucy Nganga; Daniel Kibuga; Joseph Odhiambo; Paul Klatser Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: L E A Kivihya-Ndugga; M R A van Cleeff; W A Githui; L W Nganga; D K Kibuga; J A Odhiambo; Paul R Klatser Journal: Int J Tuberc Lung Dis Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: T I Armina Padmasawitri; Gerardus W Frederix; Bachti Alisjahbana; Olaf Klungel; Anke M Hövels Journal: PLoS One Date: 2018-05-09 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Harry Y Liu; Grant C Hopping; Uma Vaidyanathan; Yasmyne C Ronquillo; Phillip C Hoopes; Majid Moshirfar Journal: Med Hypothesis Discov Innov Ophthalmol Date: 2019
Authors: Valéria Martins Soares; Isabela Neves de Almeida; Maria Cláudia Vater; Suely Alves; Lida Jouca de Assis Figueredo; Luciene Scherer; Afrânio Lineu Kritski; Wânia da Silva Carvalho; Silvana Spindola de Miranda Journal: Rev Soc Bras Med Trop Date: 2020-02-07 Impact factor: 1.581