4.3 Article

Diagnostic Delays and Clinical Decision Making With Centralized Xpert MTB/RIF Testing in Durban, South Africa

期刊

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/QAI.0000000000000309

关键词

tuberculosis; HIV; AIDS; Xpert MTB; RIF assay; diagnostic testing; South Africa

资金

  1. Fogarty International Clinical Research Scholars and Fellows Program at Vanderbilt University [R24 TW007988]
  2. Harvard Global Health Institute
  3. The Program for AIDS Clinical Research Training [T32 AI007433]
  4. National Institute of Mental Health [R01 MH090326]
  5. NCATS/NIH [UL1TR000011]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Setting:We conducted a retrospective study among HIV-infected adult suspects (18 years) with pulmonary tuberculosis (TB), who underwent Xpert MTB/RIF (Xpert) testing at McCord Hospital and its adjoining HIV clinic in Durban, South Africa.Objective:To determine if Xpert testing performed at a centralized laboratory accelerated time to TB diagnosis.Design:We obtained data on sputum smear microscopy [acid-fast bacilli (AFB)], Xpert, and the rationale for treatment initiation from medical records. The primary outcome was total diagnostic time, defined as time from sputum collection to clinicians' receipt of results. A linear mixed-effect model compared the duration of steps in the diagnostic pathway across testing modalities.Results:Among 403 participants, the median total diagnostic time for AFB and Xpert was 3.3 and 6.4 days, respectively (P < 0.001). When compared with AFB, the median delay for Xpert laboratory processing was 1.4 days (P < 0.001) and result transfer to clinic was 1.7 days (P < 0.001). Among 86 Xpert-positive participants who initiated treatment, 49 (57%) started treatment based on clinical suspicion or AFB-positive results, whereas only 32 (37%) started treatment based on Xpert-positive results.Conclusions:In our setting, Xpert results took twice as long as AFB results to reach clinicians. Replacing AFB with centralized Xpert may delay TB diagnoses in some settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据