BACKGROUND: The utility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis direct nucleic acid amplification testing (MTD) for pulmonary tuberculosis disease diagnosis in the United States has not been well described. METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of reported patients with suspected active pulmonary tuberculosis in 2008-2010 from Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, and Massachusetts to assess MTD use, effectiveness, health-system benefits, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Among 2140 patients in whom pulmonary tuberculosis was suspected, 799 (37%) were M. tuberculosis-culture-positive. Eighty percent (680/848) of patients having acid-fast-bacilli-smear-positive specimens had MTD performed; MTD positive-predictive value (PPV) was 98% and negative-predictive value (NPV) was 94%. Nineteen percent (240/1292) of patients having smear-negative specimens had MTD; MTD PPV was 90% and NPV was 88%. Among patients suspected of tuberculosis but not having MTD, smear PPV for lab-confirmed tuberculosis was 77% and NPV 78%. Compared with no MTD, MTD significantly decreased time to diagnosis in patients with smear-positive/MTD-positive specimens, decreased respiratory isolation for patients having smear-positive/MTD-negative/culture-negative specimens, decreased outpatient days of unnecessary tuberculosis medications, and reduced resources expended on contact investigation. While MTD generally cost more than no MTD, incremental cost savings occurred in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or homelessness to diagnose or to exclude tuberculosis, and in patients with substance abuse having smear-negative specimens to exclude tuberculosis. CONCLUSIONS: MTD improved diagnostic accuracy and timeliness and reduced unnecessary respiratory isolation, treatment, and contact investigations. It was cost saving in patients with HIV, homelessness, or substance abuse, but not in others.
BACKGROUND: The utility of Mycobacterium tuberculosis direct nucleic acid amplification testing (MTD) for pulmonary tuberculosis disease diagnosis in the United States has not been well described. METHODS: We analyzed a retrospective cohort of reported patients with suspected active pulmonary tuberculosis in 2008-2010 from Georgia, Hawaii, Maryland, and Massachusetts to assess MTD use, effectiveness, health-system benefits, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Among 2140 patients in whom pulmonary tuberculosis was suspected, 799 (37%) were M. tuberculosis-culture-positive. Eighty percent (680/848) of patients having acid-fast-bacilli-smear-positive specimens had MTD performed; MTD positive-predictive value (PPV) was 98% and negative-predictive value (NPV) was 94%. Nineteen percent (240/1292) of patients having smear-negative specimens had MTD; MTD PPV was 90% and NPV was 88%. Among patients suspected of tuberculosis but not having MTD, smear PPV for lab-confirmed tuberculosis was 77% and NPV 78%. Compared with no MTD, MTD significantly decreased time to diagnosis in patients with smear-positive/MTD-positive specimens, decreased respiratory isolation for patients having smear-positive/MTD-negative/culture-negative specimens, decreased outpatient days of unnecessary tuberculosis medications, and reduced resources expended on contact investigation. While MTD generally cost more than no MTD, incremental cost savings occurred in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) or homelessness to diagnose or to exclude tuberculosis, and in patients with substance abuse having smear-negative specimens to exclude tuberculosis. CONCLUSIONS:MTD improved diagnostic accuracy and timeliness and reduced unnecessary respiratory isolation, treatment, and contact investigations. It was cost saving in patients with HIV, homelessness, or substance abuse, but not in others.
Authors: Bernard M Branson; H Hunter Handsfield; Margaret A Lampe; Robert S Janssen; Allan W Taylor; Sheryl B Lyss; Jill E Clark Journal: MMWR Recomm Rep Date: 2006-09-22
Authors: S M Marks; Z Taylor; N L Qualls; R J Shrestha-Kuwahara; M A Wilce; C H Nguyen Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2000-12 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Renata L Guerra; Nancy M Hooper; James F Baker; Roya Alborz; Derek T Armstrong; Gina Maltas; Julia A Kiehlbauch; Susan E Dorman Journal: Chest Date: 2007-06-15 Impact factor: 9.410
Authors: Christopher K Lippincott; Melissa B Miller; Elena B Popowitch; Colleen F Hanrahan; Annelies Van Rie Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2014-04-11 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: J Lucian Davis; L Masae Kawamura; Lelia H Chaisson; Jennifer Grinsdale; Jihane Benhammou; Christine Ho; Anna Babst; Houmpheng Banouvong; John Z Metcalfe; Mark Pandori; Philip C Hopewell; Adithya Cattamanchi Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2014-06-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Varsha Kumar; Tracy L Dalton; Lori R Armstrong; Amy Whitesell; Rongxia Li; Angela M Starks Journal: Open Forum Infect Dis Date: 2021-10-20 Impact factor: 4.423
Authors: Alexander J Millman; David W Dowdy; Cecily R Miller; Robert Brownell; John Z Metcalfe; Adithya Cattamanchi; J Lucian Davis Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-11-20 Impact factor: 3.240