Guirong Wang1, Shuqi Wang1, Guanglu Jiang1, Yuhong Fu1, Yuanyuan Shang1, Hairong Huang1. 1. National Clinical Laboratory for Tuberculosis, Beijing Key laboratory for Drug-resistant Tuberculosis Research, Beijing Chest Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing Tuberculosis and Thoracic Tumor Institute, Beijing 101149, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Due to the non-homogeneity of specimens collected from tuberculosis (TB) suspects, repeated Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) may have potential clinical benefits. Incremental cost-effectiveness was analyzed for the second Xpert assay to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) and rifampicin (RIF) resistance. METHODS: Specimens were collected from 1,063 pulmonary TB (PTB) and 398 extrapulmonary TB (EPTB) suspects, who had two Xpert tests sequentially within one week. The specimens were subjected to smear, culture, Xpert and drug susceptibility testing. Incremental cost-effectiveness of the serial Xpert assays was evaluated. RESULTS: Among 813 Xpert-positive TB patients, 755 (92.87%) were identified by the first assay whereas the additional 58 (7.13%) were identified by the second assay. The second Xpert assay had higher incremental yield for smear-negative than for smear-positive specimens (12.07% vs. 1.84%, P<0.001), and higher incremental yield for EPTB than for PTB (10.71% vs. 4.65%, P=0.003). About 94.48% (137/145) of the RIF-resistant patients were identified by the first Xpert assay and 5.52% (8/145) were identified by the second Xpert assay. After the first assay, the incremental cost of performing a second Xpert was huge: US$22.82 vs. US$467.72 (P<0.001) and US$35.02 vs. US$291.87 (P<0.001) for PTB and EPTB, respectively. The incremental cost of performing a second Xpert is lower in smear-negative than in smear-positive group in both PTB and EPTB. CONCLUSIONS: One Xpert assay is sufficient for smear-positive cases, and a second Xpert assay is beneficial not only for Mtb detection but also for RIF-resistant diagnosis for smear-negative TB suspects, whereas the incremental cost for the second Xpert is huge.
BACKGROUND: Due to the non-homogeneity of specimens collected from tuberculosis (TB) suspects, repeated Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) may have potential clinical benefits. Incremental cost-effectiveness was analyzed for the second Xpert assay to detect Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb) and rifampicin (RIF) resistance. METHODS: Specimens were collected from 1,063 pulmonary TB (PTB) and 398 extrapulmonary TB (EPTB) suspects, who had two Xpert tests sequentially within one week. The specimens were subjected to smear, culture, Xpert and drug susceptibility testing. Incremental cost-effectiveness of the serial Xpert assays was evaluated. RESULTS: Among 813 Xpert-positive TB patients, 755 (92.87%) were identified by the first assay whereas the additional 58 (7.13%) were identified by the second assay. The second Xpert assay had higher incremental yield for smear-negative than for smear-positive specimens (12.07% vs. 1.84%, P<0.001), and higher incremental yield for EPTB than for PTB (10.71% vs. 4.65%, P=0.003). About 94.48% (137/145) of the RIF-resistant patients were identified by the first Xpert assay and 5.52% (8/145) were identified by the second Xpert assay. After the first assay, the incremental cost of performing a second Xpert was huge: US$22.82 vs. US$467.72 (P<0.001) and US$35.02 vs. US$291.87 (P<0.001) for PTB and EPTB, respectively. The incremental cost of performing a second Xpert is lower in smear-negative than in smear-positive group in both PTB and EPTB. CONCLUSIONS: One Xpert assay is sufficient for smear-positive cases, and a second Xpert assay is beneficial not only for Mtb detection but also for RIF-resistant diagnosis for smear-negative TB suspects, whereas the incremental cost for the second Xpert is huge.
Authors: Philip E Wikman-Jorgensen; Jara Llenas-García; Tomàs M Pérez-Porcuna; Michael Hobbins; Jochen Ehmer; Manuel A Mussa; Carlos Ascaso Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2017-05-02 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Karen R Steingart; Ian Schiller; David J Horne; Madhukar Pai; Catharina C Boehme; Nandini Dendukuri Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-01-21
Authors: Mario Raviglione; Ben Marais; Katherine Floyd; Knut Lönnroth; Haileyesus Getahun; Giovanni B Migliori; Anthony D Harries; Paul Nunn; Christian Lienhardt; Steve Graham; Jeremiah Chakaya; Karin Weyer; Stewart Cole; Stefan H E Kaufmann; Alimuddin Zumla Journal: Lancet Date: 2012-05-19 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Catharina C Boehme; Pamela Nabeta; Doris Hillemann; Mark P Nicol; Shubhada Shenai; Fiorella Krapp; Jenny Allen; Rasim Tahirli; Robert Blakemore; Roxana Rustomjee; Ana Milovic; Martin Jones; Sean M O'Brien; David H Persing; Sabine Ruesch-Gerdes; Eduardo Gotuzzo; Camilla Rodrigues; David Alland; Mark D Perkins Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-09-01 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Kathryn Schnippel; Gesine Meyer-Rath; Lawrence Long; William MacLeod; Ian Sanne; Wendy S Stevens; Sydney Rosen Journal: Trop Med Int Health Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: James F Cowan; Aldine S Chandler; Elizabeth Kracen; David R Park; Carolyn K Wallis; Emelline Liu; Chao Song; David H Persing; Ferric C Fang Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2017-02-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Gabriela B Gomez; Richard G White; Chathika K Weerasuriya; Rebecca C Harris; C Finn McQuaid; Fiammetta Bozzani; Yunzhou Ruan; Renzhong Li; Tao Li; Kirankumar Rade; Raghuram Rao; Ann M Ginsberg Journal: BMC Med Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 8.775