OBJECTIVES: We explored sharing nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) and molecular and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing between two state public health tuberculosis (TB) laboratories, and evaluated turnaround times and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: From September 1, 2012, to May 30, 2013, the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (Wisconsin Lab) submitted specimens to the Microbial Diseases Laboratory of the California Department of Public Health (California Lab) for NAAT and molecular drug susceptibility testing (MDST) by pyrosequencing, and culture-based TB drug susceptibility testing by the BACTEC(TM) MGIT(TM) 960 system. RESULTS: A total of 182 specimens were referred to the California Lab, and 47 TB cases and 12 drug-resistant cases were identified. The average time for specimen transport was two days, which included one day for processing and packaging in the submitting laboratory. The average turnaround time for NAAT was 0.3 days at the Wisconsin Lab and 3.8 days at the California Lab, including time for specimen transport. Turnaround time for culture-based drug susceptibility testing increased by a median of 16 days when specimens were sent to the California Lab, but MDST results were reported in fewer than four days, a median of 22 days sooner than any culture-based drug susceptibility testing results. CONCLUSION: This study revealed advantages and disadvantages associated with sharing services, and identified opportunities for improvement. Referral of specimens resulted in longer turnaround times for mycobacteriology test results and additional costs for transporting specimens. However, specialized testing such as pyrosequencing may not be available in low TB incidence areas, and these rapid results can have positive effects on patient management and TB control.
OBJECTIVES: We explored sharing nucleic acid amplification testing (NAAT) for detection of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTBC) and molecular and phenotypic drug susceptibility testing between two state public health tuberculosis (TB) laboratories, and evaluated turnaround times and cost-effectiveness. METHODS: From September 1, 2012, to May 30, 2013, the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene (Wisconsin Lab) submitted specimens to the Microbial Diseases Laboratory of the California Department of Public Health (California Lab) for NAAT and molecular drug susceptibility testing (MDST) by pyrosequencing, and culture-based TB drug susceptibility testing by the BACTEC(TM) MGIT(TM) 960 system. RESULTS: A total of 182 specimens were referred to the California Lab, and 47 TB cases and 12 drug-resistant cases were identified. The average time for specimen transport was two days, which included one day for processing and packaging in the submitting laboratory. The average turnaround time for NAAT was 0.3 days at the Wisconsin Lab and 3.8 days at the California Lab, including time for specimen transport. Turnaround time for culture-based drug susceptibility testing increased by a median of 16 days when specimens were sent to the California Lab, but MDST results were reported in fewer than four days, a median of 22 days sooner than any culture-based drug susceptibility testing results. CONCLUSION: This study revealed advantages and disadvantages associated with sharing services, and identified opportunities for improvement. Referral of specimens resulted in longer turnaround times for mycobacteriology test results and additional costs for transporting specimens. However, specialized testing such as pyrosequencing may not be available in low TB incidence areas, and these rapid results can have positive effects on patient management and TB control.
Authors: S-Y Grace Lin; Timothy C Rodwell; Thomas C Victor; Errin C Rider; Lucy Pham; Antonino Catanzaro; Edward P Desmond Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2013-11-27 Impact factor: 5.948
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: M Taegtmeyer; N J Beeching; J Scott; K Seddon; S Jamieson; S B Squire; H C Mwandumba; A R O Miller; P D O Davies; C M Parry Journal: Thorax Date: 2007-11-16 Impact factor: 9.139
Authors: Tanya A Halse; Justine Edwards; Phyllis L Cunningham; William J Wolfgang; Nellie B Dumas; Vincent E Escuyer; Kimberlee A Musser Journal: J Clin Microbiol Date: 2010-01-27 Impact factor: 5.948
Authors: Cortney Stafford; Robyn Atkinson-Dunn; Sarah N Buss; Tracy Dalton; Debbie Gibson; Stephanie Johnston; Ewa King; Shou-Yean Grace Lin; Kara K Mitchell; William A Murtaugh; Heather Sease; Timothy R Southern; Julie L Tans-Kersten; Emily A Travanty; Laura R Triplett; Kelly Wroblewski; Angela M Starks Journal: Public Health Rep Date: 2017-12-19 Impact factor: 2.792
Authors: E N Bogdanova; A O Mariandyshev; G A Balantcev; P I Eliseev; E I Nikishova; A I Gaida; D Enarson; A Detjen; R Dacombe; P P J Phillips; S B Squire; E Gospodarevskaya Journal: PLoS One Date: 2019-01-29 Impact factor: 3.240