| Literature DB >> 32770986 |
Zhongyao Xie1, Tingwei Wang2, Hongguang Chen3, Donglin Wang2, Xiangqi Gao2, Yi Hui2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recurrent tuberculosis (TB) contributes to the burden of TB. The study was designed to explore the time of diagnostic delay and risk of delay in patients with recurrent TB in China.Entities:
Keywords: Diagnostic delay; Recurrent tuberculosis; Risk factor; Survival analysis
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32770986 PMCID: PMC7414540 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09005-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Summary of demography and clinical characteristics of patients with recurrent TB (n = 864)
| Variables | Recurrent TB | Total | Proportion | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 517 | 8029 | 6.4 | 0.815 |
| Female | 347 | 5305 | 6.5 | |
| Age | ||||
| ≤ 45 | 304 | 7322 | 4.2 | <0.001 |
| > 45 | 560 | 6012 | 9.3 | |
| Household | ||||
| Local | 850 | 12,669 | 6.7 | <0.001 |
| Immigrant | 14 | 665 | 2.1 | |
| Occupation | ||||
| Others | 207 | 4461 | 4.6 | <0.001 |
| Farmer | 657 | 8873 | 7.4 | |
| TB source | ||||
| Contact check | 1 | 74 | 1.4 | <0.001 |
| Health examination | 0 | 243 | 0.0 | |
| Referral | 166 | 3748 | 4.4 | |
| Active visit for symptoms | 495 | 6765 | 7.3 | |
| Tracking | 172 | 2182 | 7.9 | |
| Recommendation | 30 | 322 | 9.3 | |
| Smear results | ||||
| Negative | 462 | 9110 | 5.1 | <0.001 |
| Positive | 402 | 4224 | 9.5 | |
| Type of facilities for TB diagnosis | ||||
| Hospital | 35 | 1510 | 2.3 | <0.001 |
| TB dispensary | 829 | 11,824 | 7.0 | |
Fig. 1Estimation of diagnostic delay by Kaplan-Meier survival curve
Median delay time stratified by new and recurrent TB
| Variables | For new | For recurrent TB (IQR) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||||
| Male | 33(16–68) | 0.004 | 73(22–234) | 0.680 |
| Female | 35(17–75) | 72(27–250) | ||
| Age | ||||
| ≤ 45 | 32(15–64) | < 0.001 | 77(24–220) | 0.511 |
| >45 | 38(18–84) | 65(25–249) | ||
| Household | ||||
| Local | 34(16–70) | < 0.001 | 72(24–243) | 0.935 |
| Immigrant | 48(22–92) | 119(48–182) | ||
| Occupation | ||||
| Others | 32(14–66) | < 0.001 | 118(30–266) | 0.272 |
| Farmer | 35(17–73) | 61(21–225) | ||
| TB source | ||||
| Contact check | 9(6–14) | < 0.001 | – | 0.079 |
| Health examination | 14(5–33) | – | ||
| Referral | 30(13–62) | 35(12–168) | ||
| Active visit | 35(18–74) | 74(25–300) | ||
| Tracking | 41(22–76) | 128(36–201) | ||
| Recommendation | 67(26–140) | 337(31–914) | ||
| Smear results | ||||
| Negative | 33(16–67) | < 0.001 | 92(26–220) | 0.115 |
| Positive | 38(18–86) | 59(21–272) | ||
| Type of facilities for TB diagnosis | ||||
| Hospital | 31(14–69) | 0.011 | 25(16–57) | < 0.001 |
| TB dispensary | 34(17–71) | 75(26–254) | ||
Factors associated with diagnostic delay of recurrent TB†
| Variables | Model 1 (With all subjects) | Model 2 (New TB only) | Model 3 (Recurrent TB only) |
|---|---|---|---|
| HR(95%CI) | HR(95%CI) | HR(95%CI) | |
| Gender, Female | 0.9(0.9–0.9)** | 1(0.9–1)* | 1(0.9–1.1) |
| Age, >45 | 0.8(0.8–0.9)*** | 0.8(0.7–0.8)*** | 0.9(0.8–1.1) |
| Household, Immigrant | 0.8(0.7–0.9)*** | 0.8(0.7–0.9)*** | 0.5(0.3–0.9)* |
| Occupation, Famer | 1.0(0.9–1.0) | 1(0.9–1) | 1(0.9–1.2) |
| TB source, Health examination | 0.6(0.5–0.8)*** | 0.7(0.5–0.9)** | – |
| TB source, Referral | 0.4(0.3–0.5)*** | 0.4(0.3–0.5)*** | – |
| TB source, Active visit | 0.3(0.2–0.4)*** | 0.3(0.3–0.4)*** | 0.9(0.8–1.1) |
| TB source, Tracking | 0.3(0.2–0.4)*** | 0.4(0.3–0.5)*** | 1.1(0.9–1.4) |
| TB source, Recommendation | 0.2(0.2–0.3)*** | 0.2(0.2–0.3)*** | 0.6(0.4–0.9)* |
| Smear results, Positive | 0.9(0.8–0.9)*** | 0.8(0.8–0.8)*** | 0.9(0.8–1.1) |
| Type of facilities for diagnosis, TB dispensary | 0.9(0.8–0.9)*** | 0.9(0.8–0.9)*** | 0.4(0.3–0.6)*** |
| TB classification, Recurrent TB | 0.5(0.5–0.6)*** | – | – |
Note: “†” In the two-level ((level 1- individuals and level 2-dispensaries) mixed-effects survival model analysis among all cases and new cases, both the estimate of variance and the standard error was less than 0.01. An LR test comparing the model with the one-level survival model did not favour the random-intercept model with P > 0.05. However, among the recurrent TB cases, the estimate of variance in level 2 was 0.14 with the standard error of 0.07 and the LR test comparing the model with the one-level survival model favoured the random-intercept model with P<0.05
“*” P<0.05, “**” P<0.01, “***” P<0.001