| Literature DB >> 31420059 |
Chih-Wei Wu1, Yao-Kuang Wu2, Chou-Chin Lan2, Mei-Chen Yang2, Ting-Qian Dong3, I-Shiang Tzeng4, Shu-Shien Hsiao5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) have been used as a diagnostic tool for pulmonary tuberculosis (PTB) in Taiwan for many years. In accordance with Taiwanese legislation, health care personnel are required to notify the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in case of suspected PTB. This study aimed to investigate the impact of NAAT(Gen-Probe) on the notification system for PTB and anti-tuberculosis treatments in Taiwan.Entities:
Keywords: Notification; Nucleic acid amplification test; Prescription error; Pulmonary tuberculosis; Treatment initiation
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31420059 PMCID: PMC6697961 DOI: 10.1186/s12879-019-4358-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Infect Dis ISSN: 1471-2334 Impact factor: 3.090
Fig. 1Flow chart of the study population before and after performing nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT), Taiwan. * Notified PTB case: The case with suspected PTB reported to Taiwan CDC. * Confirmed PTB case: The case with positive MTB culture of the sputum
Basic characteristics of the study groups
| Basic profile | Group A | Group B | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notified cases | 482 cases | 185 cases | |
| Mean age (y) | 65.7 ± 18.0 | 62.4 ± 20.1 | 0.051b |
| Age groups | |||
| 0–18 (y) | 8 (1.7%) | 2 (1.1%) | 0.125a |
| 19–64 (y) | 188 (39.0%) | 88 (47.6%) | |
| ≥65 (y) | 286 (59.3%) | 95 (51.3%) | |
| Male/female | 299 cases/183 cases | 119 cases/66 cases | 0.647a |
aUsing Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests (two-tailed)
bUsing Wilcoxon rank-sum test
Reasons for notification
| Categories of notification | Group A | Group B |
|---|---|---|
| Positive AFB smear | 431 (121) | 13 (1) |
| Positive NAAT | 0 (0) | 102 (101) |
| Positive MTB culture | 51 (51) | 70 (70) |
| Total notified cases | 482 (172) | 185 (172) |
The value in parentheses represent the numbers of confirmed PTB cases
Fig. 2Group A was studied between March 2011 and December 2013, prior to the introduction of NAAT. * Notified PTB case: The case with suspected PTB reported to Taiwan CDC. * Confirmed PTB case: The case with positive MTB culture of the sputum. * Non-PTB case: The case with negative MTB culture of the sputum. * Unnecessary anti-TB treatment: Any TB medication administered in a notified case with negative result of the final culture, which is considered as prescription error. * Duration of unnecessary anti-TB treatment: The number of days of unnecessary TB medication administered in a notified case with negative result of the final MTB culture, which is considered as the duration of prescription error
Main impact of NAAT(Gen-Probe)
| Impact of NAAT | Group A | Group B | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Error notification rate | 64.3% | 7% | <0.001a |
| Unnecessary anti-TB treatments in notified cases | 14.9% | 6.5% | 0.005a |
| Mean duration of unnecessary anti-TB treatments (d) (mean ± SD) | 38.9 ± 38.3 | 37.0 ± 37.9 | 0.874b |
| Mean time from CDC notifications to treatment initiation (d) (mean ± SD) | 3.05 ± 6.95 | 1.48 ± 1.99 | 0.004b |
Abbreviations: SD standard deviation
aUsing Chi-squared or Fisher’s exact tests (two-tailed)
bUsing Wilcoxon rank-sum test
Fig. 3Group B was studied between January 2014 and December 2017, following the introduction of NAAT. * Notified PTB case: The case with suspected PTB reported to Taiwan CDC. * Confirmed PTB case: The case with positive MTB culture of the sputum. * Non-PTB case: The case with negative MTB culture of the sputum. * Unnecessary anti-TB treatment: Any TB medication administered in a notified case with negative result of the final culture, which is considered as prescription error. * Duration of unnecessary anti-TB treatment: The number of days of unnecessary TB medication administered in a notified case with negative result of the final MTB culture, which is considered as the duration of prescription error
Diagnostic performance of NAAT in group B
| NAAT | |
|---|---|
| Sensitivity | 99.0% |
| Specificity | 92.3% |
| Positive predictive value | 99.0% |
| Negative predictive value | 92.3% |