Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-2pzkn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T05:07:50.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluation of screening strategies for pulmonary tuberculosis among hospitalized patients in a low-burden setting: cost-effectiveness of GeneXpert MTB/RIF compared to smear microscopy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 June 2021

Andrew J. Hickey ,
Matthew J. Cummings ,
Zafar Zafari ,
Irene K. Louh ,
Jianhua Li  and
Max R. O’Donnell
Andrew J. Hickey
Affiliation:
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
Matthew J. Cummings
Affiliation:
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
Zafar Zafari
Affiliation:
Pharmaceutical Health Services Research, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy, Baltimore, Maryland
Irene K. Louh
Affiliation:
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
Jianhua Li
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York
Max R. O’Donnell*
Affiliation:
Division of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, New York, New York Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, New York, New York
*
Author for correspondence: Max R. O’Donnell, Email: mo2130@cumc.columbia.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Hospitalized patients undergoing evaluation for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) require airborne isolation while testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis (MTB) to reduce risk of nosocomial transmission. GeneXpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) is more rapid and accurate than sputum smear microscopy, but it is not routinely used to ‘rule out’ infectious pulmonary TB among hospitalized patients in the United States. We sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance and cost-effectiveness of Xpert-based TB evaluation.

Methods:

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of hospitalized adults evaluated for pulmonary TB at a large academic medical center in New York from 2010 to 2017. Using propensity score matching, we compared hospital length-of-stay among patients undergoing conventional smear-based TB evaluation to a control group with non-TB pneumonia. We performed a probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis to compare Xpert-based versus conventional TB evaluation.

Results:

In total 1,421 patients were evaluated for TB with airborne isolation and sputum testing; mycobacterial culture was positive for MTB in 49 (3.4%). Conventional TB evaluation was associated with an increase of 4.4 hospital days compared to propensity-matched controls. Xpert-based testing strategies dominated conventional TB evaluation with a cost savings of $5,947 (95% CI, $1,156–$12,540) and $4,445 (95% CI, $696–$9,526) per patient depending on the number of Xpert tests performed (1 vs 2, respectively) and assumptions about the reduction of length of stay achieved.

Conclusions:

In the evaluation of hospitalized patients for pulmonary TB, Xpert-based testing has superior diagnostic performance and is likely cost-effective compared to smear microscopy due to reduced hospital length-of-stay associated with more rapid test results.

Keywords

tuberculosisGeneXpert MTB/RIFairborne isolationlength-of-stayCost-effectiveness
Type
Original Article
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 43 , Issue 7 , July 2022 , pp. 892 - 897
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Dooley, SW, Villarino, ME, Lawrence, M, et al. Nosocomial transmission of tuberculosis in a hospital unit for HIV-infected patients. JAMA 1992;267:2632–2634.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Perri, G, Cazzadori, A, Concia, E, Bassetti, D. Transmission of HIV-associated tuberculosis to healthcare workers. Lancet 1992;340:1412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daley, CL, Small, PM, Schecter, GF, et al. An outbreak of tuberculosis with accelerated progression among persons infected with the human immunodeficiency virus: an analysis using restriction-fragment-length polymorphisms. N Engl J Med 1992;326:231–235.10.1056/NEJM199201233260404CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in healthcare facilities. MMWR Recomm Rep 1994;43(RR-13):1–132.Google Scholar
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Guidelines for preventing the transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis in healthcare settings. MMWR Recomm Rep 2005;54(RR-17):1–141.Google Scholar
Lewinsohn, DM, Leonard, MK, LoBue, PA, et al. Official American Thoracic Society/Infectious Diseases Society of America/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention clinical practice guidelines: diagnosis of tuberculosis in adults and children. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:e1–e33.10.1093/cid/ciw694CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Perkins, MD and Cunningham, J. Facing the crisis: improving the diagnosis of tuberculosis in the HIV era. J Infect Dis 2007;196:S15–S27.10.1086/518656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campos, M, Quartin, A, Mendes, E, et al. Feasibility of shortening respiratory isolation with a single-sputum nucleic acid amplification test. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2008;178:300–305.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Updated guidelines for the use of nucleic acid amplification tests in the diagnosis of tuberculosis. MMWR 2009;58:7–10.Google Scholar
Moore, DF, Guzman, JA, Mikhail, LT. Reduction in turnaround time for laboratory diagnosis of pulmonary tuberculosis by routine use of a nucleic acid amplification test. Diagnostic Microbiol Infect Dis 2005;52:247–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Boehme, CC, Nabeta, P, Hillemann, D, et al. Rapid molecular detection of tuberculosis and rifampin resistance. N Engl J Med 2010;363:1005–1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chaisson, LH, Romer, M, Cantu, D, et al. Impact of GeneXpert MTB/RIF assay on triage of respiratory isolation rooms for inpatients with presumed tuberculosis: a hypothetical trial. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:1353–1360.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lippincott, CK, Miller, MB, Popowitch, EB, Hanrahan, CF, Van Rie, A. Xpert MTB/RIF assay shortens airborne isolation for hospitalized patients with presumptive tuberculosis in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2014;59:186–192.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cowan, JF, Chandler, AS, Kracen, E, et al. Clinical impact and cost-effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF testing in hospitalized patients with presumptive pulmonary tuberculosis in the United States. Clin Infect Dis 2017;64:482–489.Google ScholarPubMed
Luetkemeyer, AF, Firnhaber, C, Kendall, MA, et al. Evaluation of Xpert MTB/RIF versus AFB smear and culture to identify pulmonary tuberculosis in patients with suspected tuberculosis from low and high prevalence settings. Clin Infect Dis 2016;62:1081–1088.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Consensus statement on the use of Cepheid Xpert MTB/RIF assay in making decisions to discontinue airborne infection isolation in healthcare settings. NTCA APHL, April 2016. http://www.tbcontrollers.org/docs/resources/NTCA_APHL_GeneXpert_Consensus_Statement_Final.pdf. Reviewed November 2019.Google Scholar
Choi, HW, Miele, K, Dowdy, D, Shah, M. Cost-effectiveness of Xpert MTB/RIF for diagnosing pulmonary tuberculosis in the United States. Int J Tuberc Lung Dis 2013;17:1328–1335.10.5588/ijtld.13.0095CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hospital adjusted expenses per inpatient day by ownership. Kaiser Family Foundation website. https://www.kff.org/health-costs/state-indicator/expenses-per-inpatient-day-by-ownership/. Published 2017. Accessed October 2019.Google Scholar
Millman, AJ, Dowdy, DW, Miller, CR, et al. Rapid molecular testing for TB to guide respiratory isolation in the US: a cost benefit analysis. PLoS One 2013;8:e79669.10.1371/journal.pone.0079669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaisson, LH, Duong, D, Cattamanchi, A, et al. Association of rapid molecular testing with duration of respiratory isolation for patients with possible tuberculosis in a US hospital. JAMA Intern Med 2018;178:1380–1388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, HS, Kee, SJ, Shin, JH, et al. Xpert MTB/RIF assay as a substitute for smear microscopy in an intermediate-burden setting. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2019;199:784–794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, BS, Bello, EF, Seto, TB. Prevalence and predictors of compliance with discontinuation of airborne isolation in patients with suspected pulmonary tuberculosis. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2013;34:967–972.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed