| Literature DB >> 34984007 |
Haoqiang Ji1, Jia Xu1, Ruiheng Wu1, Xu Chen1, Xintong Lv2, Hongyu Liu2, Yuxin Duan1, Meng Sun1, Yuanping Pan1, Yunting Chen1, Xiwei Lu2, Ling Zhou1.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Despite increasing literature on the association between treatment delay and outcomes, cut-off point (1 month or median) selection in almost all studies for treatment delay is too subjective. This study explored more scientific cut-off points of treatment delay for poor treatment outcomes and death at the clinical level. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 18,100 newly confirmed pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) cases in Dalian, China were used in the final analysis. A 3-knotted restricted cubic spline (RCS) fitted for Cox proportional hazard regression models is used to analyse the effects of cut-off points of treatment delay on incident poor treatment outcomes. To explore the moderating effects of age, gender and diabetes, we added the interaction terms of these moderating variables and treatment delay to Cox proportional hazard regression models.Entities:
Keywords: cut-off points; new pulmonary tuberculosis patients; poor treatment outcomes; restricted cubic spline; treatment delay
Year: 2021 PMID: 34984007 PMCID: PMC8702986 DOI: 10.2147/IDR.S346375
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Infect Drug Resist ISSN: 1178-6973 Impact factor: 4.003
Figure 1The flow chart of the inclusion of new pulmonary TB cases.
Characteristics of New Pulmonary TB Cases Base on the Time of Treatment Initiation
| Characteristics | N (%) | Time of Treatment Initiation, M (IQR) | z | P value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18,100(100) | 30(14–59) | |||
| 529.779 | <0.001 | |||
| Young | 9063(50.1) | 25(12–44) | ||
| Middle | 6170(34.1) | 32(17–66) | ||
| Elderly | 2867(15.9) | 34(20–70) | ||
| 11.426 | <0.001 | |||
| Female | 5747(31.8) | 31(15–62) | ||
| Male | 12,353(68.2) | 30(14–57) | ||
| 116.402 | <0.001 | |||
| Rural | 10,293(56.9) | 31(15–64) | ||
| Urban | 7807(43.1) | 29(14–46) | ||
| 38.357 | <0.001 | |||
| Employed | 6989(38.6) | 31(15–64) | ||
| Unemployed | 11,111(61.4) | 30(14–53) | ||
| 16.063 | <0.001 | |||
| Yes | 563(3.1) | 32(18–68) | ||
| No | 17,537(96.9) | 30(14–59) | ||
| 17.161 | <0.001 | |||
| Yes | 897(5) | 31(16–66) | ||
| No | 17,203(95) | 30(14–59) | ||
| 0.346 | 0.557 | |||
| Yes | 1709(9.4) | 31(14–61) | ||
| No | 16,391(90.6) | 30(14–59) | ||
| 130.066 | <0.001 | |||
| Yes | 3800(21) | 34(16–71) | ||
| No | 14,305(79) | 29(14–53) | ||
| 25.823 | <0.001 | |||
| Standard therapy | 17,247(95.3) | 30(14–59) | ||
| Experiential therapy | 853(4.7) | 32(19–61) |
Abbreviations: M, median; IQR, interquartile range.
The Association Between Incident Poor Outcomes and Risk Factors in Cox Regression Models
| Independent Variables | Poor Treatment Outcomes | Death | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Incidence Rate, Per 1000 | AHR | 95% CI | Incidence Rate, Per 1000 | AHR | 95% CI | |
| Q1 (0–14 days) | 28.3 | Ref. | Ref. | 9.8 | Ref. | Ref. |
| Q2 (15–30 days) | 34.1 | 1.07 | 0.85–1.35 | 12.5 | 0.99 | 0.67–1.47 |
| Q3 (31–59 days) | 39.9 | 1.15 | 0.91–1.44 | 13.3 | 0.95 | 0.64–1.41 |
| Q4 (60 days and above) | 54.3 | 1.43 | 1.15–1.78 | 22.6 | 1.49 | 1.05–2.13 |
| Female | 21.4 | Ref. | Ref. | 7.7 | Ref. | Ref. |
| Male | 47.3 | 1.78 | 1.46–2.17 | 17.7 | 1.94 | 1.40–2.69 |
| Young | 19.6 | Ref. | Ref. | 3.0 | Ref. | Ref. |
| Middle | 47.5 | 1.85 | 1.53–2.24 | 12.6 | 3.59 | 2.30–5.59 |
| Elderly | 82.3 | 3.57 | 2.92–4.36 | 55.1 | 15.64 | 10.32–23.71 |
| Rural | 37 | Ref. | Ref. | 15.4 | Ref. | Ref. |
| Urban | 41.8 | 1.37 | 1.15–1.63 | 13.4 | 1.07 | 0.80–1.43 |
| Unemployed | 35.5 | Ref. | Ref. | 13.3 | Ref. | Ref. |
| Employed | 41.3 | 1.21 | 1.02–1.45 | 15.3 | 1.25 | 0.93–1.68 |
| No | 32 | Ref. | Ref. | 13.6 | Ref. | Ref. |
| Yes | 259.3 | 6.98 | 5.76–8.44 | 42.6 | 2.72 | 1.77–4.17 |
| Standard therapy | 37.2 | Ref. | Ref. | 13.1 | Ref. | Ref. |
| Experiential therapy | 76.2 | 1.34 | 1.03–1.74 | 43.4 | 1.93 | 1.35–2.75 |
| No | 38.1 | Ref. | Ref. | 14.9 | Ref. | Ref. |
| Yes | 48 | 0.93 | 0.72–1.21 | 11.1 | 0.66 | 0.39–1.11 |
| No | 36.6 | Ref. | Ref. | 14.0 | Ref. | Ref. |
| Yes | 87 | 1.28 | 0.99–1.65 | 24.5 | 0.98 | 0.62–1.56 |
| No | 30 | Ref. | Ref. | 13.4 | Ref. | Ref. |
| Yes | 73.2 | 1.91 | 1.60–2.28 | 18.7 | 1.36 | 1.00–1.85 |
Abbreviations: AHR, adjusted hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; Q, quartile; Ref, reference;
Figure 2Adjusted hazard ratios (AHRs) of treatment outcomes event risk according to the time of treatment initiation.
Figure 3The moderating effects of age, gender and diabetes mellitus.